Oooh, Forgent, I think that’s going to leave a mark
Posted by Mark Nelson on 26th May 2006 | Permanent Link
According to Groklaw and PUBPAT, the USPTO took a second look at the JPEG pagent Forgent has been waving around in the air, and they didn’t like what they saw.
Interesting question: do any of those zillions of settlement deals with Forgent include backout clauses in the case of this development? Did Forgent have to put anything in escrow?
I have a feeling the next few earnings reports for Forgent Networks are not going to look good.
June 9th, 2006 at 9:01 am
Good news, but a bit late. Doesn’t the patent expire in about 4 months? If I understand correctly it is good for 20 years from filing, Oct. 27, 1986.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&r=1&l=50&f=G&d=PALL&s1=4698672.PN.&OS=PN/4698672&RS=PN/4698672
And didn’t Blackberry get the USPTO to rule the NTP patent invalid, then still settle for $612 million?
June 9th, 2006 at 10:30 am
>And didn’t Blackberry get the USPTO to rule the NTP patent invalid, then still settle for $612 million?
Well, that’s the way I read it, and I have to admit that I’m a little puzzled. There was a lot of news flying in many directions, and I just assumed that I didn’t get it.
As for the Forgent patent, strike me down if I am wrong, but I think that under 1986 ground rules the patent was good for 17 years from date of issuance.
The change to 20 years from filing happened sometime in the last 10 years, and it was not retroactive.
True? It’s hard to keep up.
June 12th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_of_patent_in_the_United_States patents filed before 1995 expire 20 years from filing or 17 years after issue, whichever is longer. The forgent patent was granted more than 17 years ago.
June 14th, 2006 at 8:05 am
Okay, sounds like this indeed soon to be a goner.
The big question I have is this. Nobody ever discloses the terms of their settlement with Forgent. But it would seem like a good corporate lawyer would insist that if the patent is invalidated, the agreement is voided, and the paying party gets their money back. Of course, it’s all a matter of negotiation, and maybe Forgent viewed a clause like this as a third rail.
July 2nd, 2006 at 5:32 am
Although in initial press releases after the ruling, both PUBPAT and Forgent claimed victory and sounded optimistic, another recent press release from Forgent mentions their “shock” and “disappoint”.