Google countersues BT on patent claims

Google countersues BT on patent claims
Google has always said that it only intends to use its patent portfolio and the portfolio it acquired when purchasing Motorola defensively, and a new filing looks like it is following that claim. Google and Motorola have countersued BT, Britain's top fixed-line telecommunications group, in a California federal court.

BT had sued Google back in 2011 on 6 patents related to mobile technology, claiming that Google infringes on the patents in Android, Gmail, and Google Maps. Google says that not only are the claims baseless, but that BT has been arming patent trolls as well. Google has also been sued by Suffolk Technologies LLC and one of the patents being asserted by Suffolk was previously owned by BT. 

Google's lawsuit asserts that BT has infringed on 4 of Google's patents that cover technology such as networking and making phone calls over the Internet. At least one of the patents in Google's lawsuit was purchased from IBM back in 2010. Google has also apparently filed a suit against BT in a UK court.

source: Reuters



1. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Patent are anti innovation. The world a better place with out it.

5. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

Without the exclusivity offered by patents, many of the innovations that we depend on in our daily lives wouldn't exist. Unfortunately the concept of patenting has been extended to areas that probably weren't intended to receive patent protection - how about design patents.... Do rounded corners really deserve patent protection? Trolls are part of the process of monetizing patents. Someone thinks they can make money off a patent and they are willing to pay to purchase the patent and the rights that flow from the patent. Sometimes the troll wins, oftentimes they lose (winning patent lawsuits has gotten harder). Trolls provide a market where one likely wouldn't exist in the absence of the ability of the troll to extract royalties from patents they purchase.

7. MorePhonesThanNeeded

Posts: 645; Member since: Oct 23, 2011

Patents aren't the problem, it's the lazy ass companies who buy them up and don't actually use the patents for anything they are developing, only to just mooch off companies who actually need to use the patent. USPTO should reduce the royalty amount if the patent licensed out is not actively being used by the owner. No point in giving you crap loads of money for only owning the patent and not doing anything other than sitting on it without actually developing it further. This would curb that patent trolling done by companies who have patents and do nothing but attempt to sue for royalties that they don't deserve in any way shape or form.

10. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

USPTO doesn't set royalty amount. Royalty amount is set at trial based on a number of factors. Companies generally are the entity that raises the $ to employ a team of people that do the inventing. Shouldn't the investors who put cash into the company be able to receive a return on their investment? Absent the ability for a company to 'own' patents, very few individual inventors would be able to raise the investment needed to fund their inventive efforts. Things are a bit more nuanced than they first seem.

11. AamirSIII

Posts: 187; Member since: Oct 04, 2012

but actually patents are very crucial for competition! u see if one company invests millions and billions of $$ in some innovation, it should not be used by any one with out royalty and if some one does it, they should face the consequences! think of it like, u study for ur exams and prepare everyday. at the end, when its the exam day, some one just cheats from u for no reason and gets better grades from u. how would u feel then?

6. MartyK

Posts: 1043; Member since: Apr 11, 2012

They need to make a rule, if you are not making a product with your patent, or you have no product in the market that you created with your patent, you are not allow to sue anyone.

8. roscuthiii

Posts: 2383; Member since: Jul 18, 2010

That's what I'd like to see. No NPE's. Damn trolls. Also, I'd like to see patents be non-transferable. The inventor/innovator passes away? The IP becomes public domain. No matter what corporations would have the people believe, I don't consider them to be "people" too. I don't think they should be allowed to hold intellectual properties. Let the intellect that actually created the product hold the IP. Guess companies would have to give their designers & engineers a little more incentive to stay employed with them then though.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.