Motorola found guilty of infringing on MMS patent owned by "patent troll"

Motorola found guilty of infringing on MMS patent owned by
On Wednesday, a jury in Delaware found Motorola guilty of infringing on a patent related to the MMS technology used for multimedia texting on mobile devices. The patent is owned by Intellectual Ventures, a company known for its holdings of intellectual property. This was the second time that the two companies squared off in court. The first time, a mistrial was declared when a jury could not reach a verdict on a case heard back in February 2014.

In addition to finding Motorola guilty of infringing on the MMS patent, the jury cleared the company of illegally using a patent related to wireless bandwidth. Motorola and Intellectual Ventures will also be facing each other in court again starting today. That case involves the alleged infringement by Motorola on another tech patent owned by Intellectual Ventures. The "patent troll" owns more than 70,000 patents and applications and had used licensing as a way to monetize the portfolio. Now, the company is said to be more focused on protecting its patents in court.

Motorola was originally sued by Intellectual Ventures in 2011 and again in 2013. The patent holding company claimed at the time that several Motorola mobile devices were using its technology without permission.

source: Reuters



1. sprockkets

Posts: 1612; Member since: Jan 16, 2012

Go F yourselves IV, a product of a former MS employees.

2. medicci37

Posts: 1361; Member since: Nov 19, 2011

Yeah & Microsoft can go F themselves to!

4. mike2959

Posts: 695; Member since: Oct 08, 2011

If you were granted a patent, and someone else is making billions off of it, you would be pissed too.

5. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

Happend to the guy who did the windshield wiper thing, and sued ford etc. To others they thought he was crazy, but in the end it was worth it. Would he be a patent troll? According to PA he woudl be. He has no product, no services, etc. He would have to work for a company to not be considered a troll. This is why we dont have a full democracy, idiocracy would rule.

6. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

So if someone comes up with a patentable idea, then does nothing with it, they should be able to hold that idea ransom? He doesn't have to work for a company, but why couldn't he look for a company who wanted to either buy or license the rights to said patent? What Kearns did was valid, however, not everyone is like that. Companies like IV buy up patents from the original inventor, then use them to try and make money in litigation. They don't try to actually produce anything with them, they simply want to make money off of other's hard work. There should be an agreement that if you're buying patents from the original inventor, that you should at least have a plan in place to produce products from the IP and and the very least make a good faith effort to bring them to market. And if no one purchases them, they go to public use. Patents were meant to protect and compensate the original inventor, not someone else who has money and only wants them to make more money without making any effort to make use of those patents in the field they were intended. What they are essentially doing is holding those patents hostage. If oil and energy companies bought up all the clean energy patents for the sole purpose of keeping anyone from making use of them, or litigating companies that would make use of them out of business, would that he okay as well?

21. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

They bought them at the inventors choice. The inventor decided they would make a quick buck, instead of spending millions to go after violaters. Remember it took something like 20yrs for the inventor to get paid by ford and cost him his marriage in the process. yay thats what everyone wants to deal with. For me i think patent reform would have a 5yr-10yr (depending on product hold for the company, meaning if there is no tangable product after that time frame from date of purchase, then it becomes a frand, which are much less valuable. Patents were designed to protect the invention not necessarily the original inventor. If that was the case they would never have been able to be bought and sold and transfer of liability. This goes back over a hundred years.

7. willard12 unregistered

If I never had any intention of actually creating the item being patented, I would only be pissed that my attempts at patent trolling failed.

13. JunitoNH

Posts: 1946; Member since: Feb 15, 2012

Exactly, a bunch of thieves. Taking or stealing someones elses hard work, and ingenuity. Do like everyone else, pay up.

8. theguy2345

Posts: 1216; Member since: Jun 24, 2014

It seems all the people in this thread believe you can take something, profit off of it, then it's wrong when the owner comes after them for stealing it. Whether they invented it or not, or using it, it is still theirs. And I love it how they bring up other companies like apple and MS. Really shows how butthurt they are.

10. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

But as I stated before, the patent system was put in place to protect and compensate the original inventor. Someone who comes and the only thing they bring to the table is money to buy the IP and fund litigation, those are the people you're defending? I'm not saying that if you're infringing on patents you shouldn't pay, but all of these venture capitalists that come in and do absolutely nothing to forward the industry, but instead hamper it and make money off of it at the same time is who I have an issue with. Another way this can work against the industry is, as I stated before, if someone buys up a patent or patents that would work against their product, they could simply bury it to keep out competition. Ideas are only good if they're put into action, otherwise they're no better than any random though people have every day.

12. theguy2345

Posts: 1216; Member since: Jun 24, 2014

As I said before, the entire patent sucks. It needs to be refined so it fits with today, and the fast pace of tech. But until then, you have to follow the law. You can't choose which laws to follow and not follow

14. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

Read the third sentence in the comment you replied to. My point was directed to everyone acting like there is nothing wrong with what companies like IV have done. They and others like them found a way to game the patent system to make money without ever having created anything.

19. joey_sfb

Posts: 6794; Member since: Mar 29, 2012

Its also not against the law the Motorola challenge their claim and patent validity. And i think they will continue to do so as long as they can. What suck is how about the average joe inventor or small business startup. What course of actions can they take, without the millions of dollars to defend themselves against fraudulence patent lawsuit. I have read a number of promising start up close their doors because a few patent scratches that is not even remotely related to their design or business but they sue because they have the money. And the start up don't.

23. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

It is why most sell off their ideas, easier to make a quick million or 500k vs 10million in the hole defending your patent.

24. elitewolverine

Posts: 5192; Member since: Oct 28, 2013

Your idea that it was put in place to protect only the original inventor is very misleading. While this is certainly its intent, nothing has ever stopped it from being sold. And specifically calls upon the patent proprietor, not the patent inventor. proprietor is who ever holds the patent and granted its sole access. The idea of a patent is literally, the right to exclude others.

25. VZWuser76

Posts: 4974; Member since: Mar 04, 2010

The difference here is, do you think when patents were introduced, that they had any idea how the system would be used today? Back then, if someone did buy the patent from the original inventor, they didn't do so with the sole purpose of either burying it or using it to make money from litigation. They bought it because they thought the idea had merit, and wanted to make a product from it, exclusively. It's only been recently that these people are buying patents for purposes other than to manufacture, and that's the point I'm getting at. These investment groups are never going to use these patents for anything other than to make money through litigation, and that's what needs to stop. What's the point of having something useful if you never make use of it?

20. Spedez

Posts: 542; Member since: Aug 29, 2014

Tech stealing should have consequences. What's the point spending billions on R&D if some crap-o-rola steals the fruits of their investments?

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.