Neiman Marcus Pushes Back—Hard—Against A Patent Troll

Written by Evan Schuman
May 29th, 2013

Retailers are finally fighting back against so-called patent trolls, firms that buy patents and then threaten retailers to get whatever licensing fees they can. These firms generally don’t want to go to court. They’d rather send letters and make a nice living from the checks of chains that can’t be bothered to fight.

Sometimes, these retail efforts work—such as with Newegg and Overstock [NASDAQ:OSTK]—and sometimes they don’t—such as the recent case with Best Buy [NYSE:BBY], Home Depot [NYSE:HD] and Gap (NYSE:GPS].

But a recent case with Neiman Marcus takes these retail defenses to the next level. When Neiman Marcus received its letter, the retailer didn’t respond. It sued immediately, even before knowing the name of whom it was suing. And as if to underscore how big a mess this all is, the day Neiman Marcus sued that patent troll, an unrelated patent troll sued Neiman Marcus.

The data carriers patent seems to involve basic site interactions: “operating the website in a way that automatically intervenes in a customer or potential customer’s use of the website to suggest or present features based on information on the use of the system, including but not limited to autocomplete features,” the lawsuit said. “While a user is accessing the website, Defendant continuously monitors and compares user manipulations and program context with feature templates stored in memory and presents automating features if a match is found.”

The troll that sued Neiman Marcus on the day it sued the unidentified company was Data Carriers. A quick scan of cases shows that Data Carriers is also involved in patent lawsuits against Walgreens (NYSE:WAG), Staples (NASDAQ:SPLS), Sears (NASDAQ:SHLD), Office Depot (NYSE:ODP), Overstock (NASDAQ:OSTK) and Newegg, among others.

Neiman’s saga began on April 15 (tax day—how appropriate), when it received a letter from IP Navigation Group, which represents an unidentified client who owned an unidentified patent. The letter asked for discussions to begin on Neiman paying a licensing fee, if appropriate, and also asked if the chain would first sign a form promising to not sue IP Navigation Group’s client. Neiman’s reaction was, “Sue your client? What a superb idea.”

And the lawsuit was filed. “Neiman Marcus is now in the intolerable position of being pressured to choose between waiving its legal rights pursuant to the terms of the proposed agreement or subjecting itself to an ongoing threat of litigation and unspecified infringement allegations,” the lawsuit complaint said. “Neiman Marcus refuses to make such a choice and, instead, seeks declaratory relief as to its rights now.”

We absolutely applaud what Neiman Marcus is doing. But as long as many—not even most, but many—retailers just roll over and pay the licensing fees even when they have no reason to believe they have violated any patent, as long as that still happens routinely, trolls will continue to prosper and harass.

In the meantime, though, it’s nice to see viable pushback out there.


Comments are closed.


StorefrontBacktalk delivers the latest retail technology news & analysis. Join more than 60,000 retail IT leaders who subscribe to our free weekly email. Sign up today!

Most Recent Comments

Why Did Gonzales Hackers Like European Cards So Much Better?

I am still unclear about the core point here-- why higher value of European cards. Supply and demand, yes, makes sense. But the fact that the cards were chip and pin (EMV) should make them less valuable because that demonstrably reduces the ability to use them fraudulently. Did the author mean that the chip and pin cards could be used in a country where EMV is not implemented--the US--and this mis-match make it easier to us them since the issuing banks may not have as robust anti-fraud controls as non-EMV banks because they assumed EMV would do the fraud prevention for them Read more...
Two possible reasons that I can think of and have seen in the past - 1) Cards issued by European banks when used online cross border don't usually support AVS checks. So, when a European card is used with a billing address that's in the US, an ecom merchant wouldn't necessarily know that the shipping zip code doesn't match the billing code. 2) Also, in offline chip countries the card determines whether or not a transaction is approved, not the issuer. In my experience, European issuers haven't developed the same checks on authorization requests as US issuers. So, these cards might be more valuable because they are more likely to get approved. Read more...
A smart card slot in terminals doesn't mean there is a reader or that the reader is activated. Then, activated reader or not, the U.S. processors don't have apps certified or ready to load into those terminals to accept and process smart card transactions just yet. Don't get your card(t) before the terminal (horse). Read more...
The marketplace does speak. More fraud capacity translates to higher value for the stolen data. Because nearly 100% of all US transactions are authorized online in real time, we have less fraud regardless of whether the card is Magstripe only or chip and PIn. Hence, $10 prices for US cards vs $25 for the European counterparts. Read more...
@David True. The European cards have both an EMV chip AND a mag stripe. Europeans may generally use the chip for their transactions, but the insecure stripe remains vulnerable to skimming, whether it be from a false front on an ATM or a dishonest waiter with a handheld skimmer. If their stripe is skimmed, the track data can still be cloned and used fraudulently in the United States. If European banks only detect fraud from 9-5 GMT, that might explain why American criminals prefer them over American bank issued cards, who have fraud detection in place 24x7. Read more...

Our apologies. Due to legal and security copyright issues, we can't facilitate the printing of Premium Content. If you absolutely need a hard copy, please contact customer service.