U.S. Appeals Court Tosses Bar-Code Patent Case

Written by Evan Schuman
September 14th, 2005

A U.S. Court of Appeals panel this week issued a ruling in a long-running patent infringement lawsuit that threatened retailers using bar-code readers. The panel affirmed a lower court ruling that the patent infringement case should not go forward.

The case involves several bar-code system manufacturers?including Symbol Technologies, Accu-Sort Systems, Intermec Technologies, Metrologic Instruments, PSC, Teklogic, Zebra Technologies, Cognex and Telxon?that were sued by a foundation that owns the patents from an early bar-code inventor named Jerome Lemelson.

The Lemelson Medical, Education and Research Foundation owns about 185 unexpired patents?some dating back to 1954?that involve machine vision and bar-code identification. After pursuing bar-code vendors for many years, Lemelson more recently sent letters to major retailers suggesting that they might be targets as well. Among the retailers involved were CompUSA, Wal-Mart, Sears, LensCrafter and The Home Depot.

Some retailers have already paid money to Lemelson to settle the case, said Ray Sweigart, an attorney representing a friend of the court filing from the National Retail Federation.

The appellate panel accepted a decision from a Nevada U.S. district court panel that rejected Lemelson’s lawsuit for a few reasons, including that “Lemelson’s 18-to-39-year delay in filing and prosecuting the asserted claims under the fourteen patents-in-suit was unreasonable and unjustified.”

The court also said that today’s techniques?used by Symbol and the other defendants?are so much more sophisticated than what the patent described in the 1950s that it didn’t make sense to force the defendants to pay royalties.

“Because Symbol’s devices used modern tools such as laser and CCD cameras and programmable computers and because the district court refused to construe Lemelson’s claim terms as encompassing such devices, the court held that Lemelson failed to prove that Symbol’s products infringed the asserted patent claims,” according to a copy of the appellate panel’s decision.

The case is not necessarily over, as Lemelson has various appeal options, including asking for the U.S. Supreme Court to make a ruling.


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.