Oracle’s Patent Play: Go Ahead, Make Larry Ellison’s Day

Written by Frank Hayes
June 6th, 2012

Oracle has jumped into an E-Commerce patent fight with guns blazing, asking a court to invalidate patents that have been used to sue Walgreens, Best Buy, Sam’s Club, CVS and other large chains in the past year. The lawsuit, filed on June 1, says Oracle’s customers are being sued or threatened for using its Web-commerce products, including its live-chat support feature.

What’s unusual isn’t that Oracle is stepping up to defend its customers. It’s how the database giant is doing that: by using its initial court filing to list dozens of previous patents that, Oracle says, prove the Patents-in-Suit should never have been issued.

The Oracle complaint, filed in federal court in Wisconsin, is against Lodsys, a so called “patent troll” that last year sued Sam’s Club, Best Buy, Adidas, CVS, The Container Store and Vitamin Shoppe for allegedly violating its patents by doing online surveys. The same patents were used by Lodsys last month to sue Walgreens and REI for using Oracle’s chat feature and to send threatening letters to what Oracle calls “dozens of Oracle customers.”

(If Lodsys’ name sounds familiar, it’s also the company that sold a patent license to Apple for M-Commerce on the iPhone, and then sued 10 small iPhone app developers last year for using that feature. Other online businesses ranging from Smucker’s to the New York Times have also been threatened or sued by Lodsys. Yes, it’s the same four patents: U.S. Patent No. 5,999,908, No. 7,133,834, No. 7,222,078 and No. 7,620,565.)

Of that list of retailers, at least two are off the hook. Last year, just before its customers Best Buy and Adidas were sued, Web survey company ForeSee sued Lodsys, claiming the patents were invalid. That lawsuit was settled out of court in November, with all of ForeSee’s customers cleared of liability.

That brings us back to Oracle, whose complaint against Lodsys looks a lot like ForeSee’s and other previous lawsuits in which vendors asked the court to declare Lodsys’ patents invalid, even though the vendors themselves hadn’t been sued.

But those previous complaints just claimed the Lodsys patents weren’t valid. Oracle took the additional step of specifically naming 35 U.S. patents and five Japanese patents that predate the Lodsys patent claims. If the court agrees that some of those patents are “prior art” for the Lodsys patents, some or all of the patent claims could be invalidated.

That’s highly unusual. Lawsuits challenging patents are hard enough to win. There’s a presumption that the patents are valid—after all, the Patent Office has already spent years vetting them before they’re issued. Showing all your patent-busting cards at the beginning of the first round is just giving the other side more time to poke holes in your argument. And 40 separate patents represent a lot of cards to show.

And it may not end 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.