InNova Patent Licensing LLC files infringement lawsuit against thirty-six companies over email spam patent

General

innova-patent-llc

Texas-based InNova Patent Licensing LLC has filed a broad lawsuit against thirty-six defendants accusing them of infringement upon an email spam patent that was granted to InNova founder Robert Uomini. The patent describes a method of identifying incoming email as spam by using external context information obtained from the sender and according to Christopher Banys, lead counsel for InNova, it is “one of the building blocks for all email communications”. The thirty-six defendants are a motley crew and include technology giants like Google, Apple, Yahoo, RIM, and HP, retail giants like JCPenney Co., food manufacturers such as Frito-lay and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc, and finance stalwarts including JPMorgan Chase & Co and Wells Fargo & Company. Full press release is after the jump.

The Lanier Law Firm Files Infringement Lawsuit Over Email Spam Patent


MARSHALL, Texas, July 21 /PRNewswire/ — The Lanier Law Firm is announcing a patent infringement lawsuit filed on behalf of Longview, Texas-based InNova Patent Licensing LLC against a group of 36 corporate defendants accused of infringing an InNova patent that represents one of the cornerstones of email communications.

The lawsuit, filed July 20, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Marshall, names some of the world’s most recognizable companies as defendants, including iPhone maker Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL), retailer JCPenney Co. (NYSE: JCP), search engine giant Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) and others. The case is InNova Patent Licensing, LLC v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251.

The federal lawsuit focuses on a revolutionary InNova patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,018,761, that covers technology used to differentiate between spam email messages and those that users actually want to receive. The InNova patent was awarded to inventor and mathematician Robert Uomini nearly 15 years ago when Internet email was still in its formative stages. Mr. Uomini is the founder of InNova.

Patent-infringement attorney Christopher Banys, lead counsel for InNova, says the company’s patent is one of the building blocks for all email communications. InNova’s complaint alleges that the defendant companies have used InNova’s invention without permission for years.

“Email as we know it would essentially stop working if it weren’t for InNova’s invention,” says Mr. Banys, who leads The Lanier Law Firm’s national intellectual property practice. “More than 80 percent of email is spam, which is why companies use InNova’s invention rather than forcing employees to wade through billions of useless emails. Unfortunately, the defendants appear to be profiting from this invention without any consideration for InNova’s legal patent rights.”

In addition to Apple, JCPenney and Google, the lawsuit also names as defendants 3Com Corporation; Alcatel-Lucent Holding, Inc.; American International Group, Inc.; AOL, Inc.; Bank of America Corporation; Capital One Auto Finance, Inc.; Capital One Financial Corporation; Cinemark, Inc.; Cinemark Holdings, Inc.; Citigroup, Inc.; Crossmark, Inc.; Dell, Inc.; Dr. Pepper Snapple Group, Inc.; Ericsson, Inc.; Frito-Lay, Inc.; Frito-Lay North America, Inc.; Hewlett-Packard Company; HP Enterprise Services, LLC; International Business Machines Corporation; J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.; J.C. Penney Life Insurance Company; J.C. Penney Mexico, Inc.; J.C. Penney Reinsurance Company; JCP Publications Corp.; JPMorgan Chase & Co.; McAfee, Inc.; Perot Systems Corporation; Rent-A-Center, Inc.; Research in Motion Corporation; Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc.; Symantec Corporation; Wells Fargo & Company; and Yahoo!, Inc.

With offices in Los Angeles, Palo Alto, Houston and New York, The Lanier Law Firm is committed to addressing client concerns with effective and innovative solutions in courtrooms across the country. The firm is composed of outstanding trial attorneys with decades of experience handling cases involving pharmaceutical liability, asbestos exposure, intellectual property, business litigation, product liability, toxic exposure and maritime law.

9 Comments
  • http://www.yoursmartphoneguy.com Brandon

    I’d like to see the document. This sounds a LOT like the Facebook case, y’know! Dude waits till things gets ripe and tries to get a settlement.

  • Something

    “Google, Apple, Yahoo, RIM, and HP, retail giants like JCPenney Co., food manufacturers such as Frito-lay and Dr. Pepper Snapple Group”

    Just how many major companies does this tiny patent holding company want to get railroaded by?

    If anything, this technology should become public domain.

  • Bry

    This is going to end very badly for InNova..

  • defpoet

    While most of these companies will probably settle just to get this to go away. The financial companies that they sued will spend billions burying the ever living fuck out of this company. Finally our tax dollars will be used for the greater good by the financial companies.

  • Teddy

    InNova are just doing it for the lulz.

  • Elore

    Sounds like a lottery winner burned through his winnings and is now looking for his next “jackpot”

  • Toobis

    If you file a patent 15 years ago and don’t do anything with it there should be no grounds to sue. Plus this seems like just pulled names out of a hat on who to sue with the common factor in some of these companies being based in Texas, but if you are suing aol and google why not sure hotmail, if you are suing jcpenny why not macys and sears? I hope these companies run train on the patent holding company and leave a hot carl and dirty sanchez on their face when they are done

  • Lacutis

    I read through the patent. While they could claim on Google and Yahoo for the way they link address book entries (external context databases) to incoming mail messages on the client side at the time the user requests the information which is what the patent actually describes none of those other companies have written software that does anything like that.

    They would have more luck going after Microsoft for both Hotmail and Outlook with the way the patent is worded. It is describing a filtering or linking method that looks up information when the client or end user requests the email information not at any arbitrary point along the emails path which is how most spam filtering software works.
    Here at my company we had all email going through a completely isolated email spam and virus filtering server before it ever touched our exchange server which this patent doesn’t describe anything like. I would be shocked with the volume of mail most of those companies get that they don’t have something similar.

  • http://www.GeneralPatent.com patent litigation

    In light of Bilski, requesting re-examination on this type of patent seems like a no-brainer. I think the root of the problem lies in patent quality and the examination process. There should be higher patent grant standards and better provisions for re-examination. Seems to me that, with a better examination/re-examination process, many patents like this one could have been rejected on “abstract idea” or obviousness grounds.
    http://www.generalpatent.com/media/videos/general-patent-gets-results-its-clients

blog comments powered by Disqus