9 replies to this topic

[robster1]

I recently received a threatening letter from a law firm known as Manatt saying that my website, which is entirely an ASI LogoMall website, was in violation of a "821 patent" for some parametric search patent they claim.

ASI told me to ignore it--but this does not seem to make much sense. They have also not jumped to my side for help either, as I have not been officially sued, just threatened.

I am removing the LogoMall functionality from my website tonight, but if I am in violation, so would the other thousands of ASI LogoMall users.

I imagine Kelora Systems,and Manatt, Phelps &Phillips who own this "patent" is just trolling to sell $70K license fees,

Anybody else get one of these letters or know the best way to handle this?

Thanks,
Robert Piller

[jimknecht]

I sure don't claim to be an expert dealing with patent law or intellectual property, but this sure doesn't sound right. Why would they come after you? If I understand these ASI products correctly, you own nothing... you simply are leasing the product. ASI owns & controls the product... correct?

Seems to me the fight, assuming there even is one, is between ASI & these folks. IMO, anyone talking to you is trying to scam you. I sure wouldn't remove anything from my website, at least not without some sort of legal papers being served on me.

[jimknecht]

If you Google these folks you find out this company is a patent troll. They have already lost most of the legal rights to this patent & the courts will soon remove the balance. They can continue threatening as many people as possible while this is being contested, hoping to get people to pay up before they lose their case.

The following link is one of many stories on the web & the writer suggests just ignoring these folks.

http://www.security-...rametric-search

This from another case:


On February 3, 2011 Nebraska Furniture Mart filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment against Kelora Systems, LLC. The complaint seeks a declaration that U.S. Patent No. 6,275,821 ("the '821 patent") is invalid and not infringed. The '821 patent, entitled "Method and system for executing a guided parametric search." Kelora is considered by many to be a non-practicing entity, or NPE. NPE's are sometimes referred to as "patent trolls" for collecting licensing fees without actually commercially exploiting patented technology.
In October 2007 Kelora's predecessor-in-interest filed suit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against six companies, including eBay, Yahoo!, and Microsoft. That case was transferred to the Northern District of California and in August 2009, that court entered summary judgment that claims 1 and 2 of the '821 patent invalid under the on-sale bar (35 U.S.C. 102( ). Even after that ruling, Kelora apparently continued to assert the '821 patent against numerous parties, including sending a demand letter to NFM on January 20, 2011 seeking a $100,000 licensing fee. Based on this history, NFM is seeking fees and costs.
The case, and its history, demonstrates how the quick assessment of a patent troll and their history can allow for a strategic and efficient response. As Congress considers patent reform legislation that would, among other things, revise the damages provisions of the patent laws, patent trolls will likely look to file infringement actions early. Companies dealing with these nuisance demands and lawsuits are wise to assess the facts, then move quickly to obtain jurisdictional advantages and position themselves as plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action.

[robster1]

If you Google these folks you find out this company is a patent troll. They have already lost most of the legal rights to this patent & the courts will soon remove the balance. They can continue threatening as many people as possible while this is being contested, hoping to get people to pay up before they lose their case.

The following link is one of many stories on the web & the writer suggests just ignoring these folks.

http://www.security-...rametric-search

This from another case:


On February 3, 2011 Nebraska Furniture Mart filed a complaint in the United States District Court in Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment against Kelora Systems, LLC. The complaint seeks a declaration that U.S. Patent No. 6,275,821 ("the '821 patent") is invalid and not infringed. The '821 patent, entitled "Method and system for executing a guided parametric search." Kelora is considered by many to be a non-practicing entity, or NPE. NPE's are sometimes referred to as "patent trolls" for collecting licensing fees without actually commercially exploiting patented technology.
In October 2007 Kelora's predecessor-in-interest filed suit in federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against six companies, including eBay, Yahoo!, and Microsoft. That case was transferred to the Northern District of California and in August 2009, that court entered summary judgment that claims 1 and 2 of the '821 patent invalid under the on-sale bar (35 U.S.C. 102( ). Even after that ruling, Kelora apparently continued to assert the '821 patent against numerous parties, including sending a demand letter to NFM on January 20, 2011 seeking a $100,000 licensing fee. Based on this history, NFM is seeking fees and costs.
The case, and its history, demonstrates how the quick assessment of a patent troll and their history can allow for a strategic and efficient response. As Congress considers patent reform legislation that would, among other things, revise the damages provisions of the patent laws, patent trolls will likely look to file infringement actions early. Companies dealing with these nuisance demands and lawsuits are wise to assess the facts, then move quickly to obtain jurisdictional advantages and position themselves as plaintiff in a declaratory judgment action.

Thank Jim. I did read that last night.. and need to hope that nothing comes of it. But $70K for a license, or $10K for a lawyer--nether seems an attractive option. Hopefully ASI will have my back on this. I'd be interested to see if any other distributors have received this type of trolling letter--and if they ignored it.

[Chris Miller]

This is common practice for companies like ASI to hire an attorney to go after any and all instances of their logo on the internet. The firms automate the entire process - everything from the searching to the sending of the letters. We had Sony or Samsung or one of them threaten us a couple of years ago for products on our DistributorCentral sites. It's pretty common for these guys to just take a blanket approach.

Like ASI said - just ignore it. I don't think I would run and remove my ASI products from my site because of it though. They are protecting their property and for a big company like ASI, that takes a blanket approach like they are doing here.

Oh and yes, I have received the letters and I am not even an ASI customer.

[PromoteYouMe]

frivolous lawsuits from scumbag law firms

[robster1]

Aren't there more reputable ways to earn a living these days then patent trolling--like selling promotional products?

[spoppers]

I just received a letter from them dated March13th for my ASI website. I guess they are up for another round of intimidation

[aapromotions]

Just saw this. Manatt is a huge law firm here in Los Angeles. Doesn't seem like something they would doing.

[DBeavers]

Aren't there more reputable ways to earn a living these days then patent trolling--like selling promotional products?

To some people, selling promotional advertising = work. They'd much rather create frivolous lawsuits hoping for one of two outcomes.

A. They get lucky and actually win one.

B. They get lucky and individual recipients fear the suit and pay-up.

Dennis