HOUSTON (Legal Newsline) – Attorney Alan Laquer’s advice to small startups facing meritless patent infringement lawsuits: don’t roll over.
Laquer recently represented San Francisco-based mobile printing startup BreezyPrint against Samsung subsidiary PrinterOn.
Earlier this month, Judge Lee Rosenthal for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted summary judgment to BreezyPrint in the lawsuit brought by PrinterOn alleging infringement of four patents.
Laquer
In her March 19 order, Rosenthal determined that BreezyPrint’s cloud printing system for mobile devices does not infringe any of the claimed patents, which date back to 2000.
The judge noted in a Markman hearing they were created not for the cloud technology employed by BreezyPrint but rather for “antiquated technology.”
Laquer of Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP, one of the nation’s largest intellectual property law firms, said he used his expertise as a software programmer to build a focused, cost-effective case strategy against PrinterOn.
First, he explained to the court very early on that BreezyPrint’s technology is “fundamentally different.”
Unlike PrintOn’s technology, BreezyPrint’s doesn’t require a print driver, Laquer noted.
“You just upload a file and it gets translated in the ‘cloud,’” he explained.
Basically, BreezyPrint’s app — which is free and available to download on iTunes or Google Play — allows users to print any file type from any device from any desired printer, whether there’s a driver to support it or not. Both businesses and individuals use the app, Laquer noted.
“We knew as soon as (the lawsuit) was filed, the technology was fundamentally different,” he said. “So, we focused on bringing that fact to the court’s attention.
“We provided very early discovery; we didn’t resist. We gave the plaintiff everything they needed to see: how the product worked, etc.”
His suggestion to smaller companies or startups facing a similar situation: pick your battles.
“Focus in on the critical weaknesses of the other side’s argument,” Laquer said. “Perform a cost-benefit analysis on all of the disputes that could come up.
“I also think it’s helpful to select defense counsel that has a firm understanding of both the law and the development technology in the case.”
That alone, he said, can save small companies money.
“You kind of avoid that learning curve expense,” Laquer said.
“Patent litigation can be very complex and it can take a long time, so it can become very expensive — but especially if you’re a company in BreezyPrint’s position, where you have a larger company suing you. That can really present a challenge.”
Laquer said he also hopes the case sheds some light on the so-called “patent troll” problem and the ongoing patent reform debate.
“I think it’s a good conversation to have,” he said of the current rhetoric. “There are definitely issues that need to be addressed, but I think some people are taking too extreme of an approach.
“Here, BreezyPrint was sued by a larger competitor, not a (non-practicing entity). So (the problem) isn’t specific to NPEs. It’s not specific to plaintiffs, either.”
Some defendants present meritless arguments as well, Laquer pointed out.
“Sometimes it’s an NPE that thinks it can get a quick payout, and other times, like in our case, it’s a larger company seeking to leverage itself against a small competitor,” he said.
From Legal Newsline: Reach Jessica Karmasek by email at [email protected].
