A new lawsuit in Massachusetts proves that even NFL teams are not safe from baseless accusations from patent trolls. While the New England Patriots are usually concerned with defending their home turf at Gillette Stadium, this March they had to defend the Stadium itself against claims that its Wi-Fi communications systems infringed on patented technology.
This was the allegation being made by Arena IP LLC, a non-practicing entity that has gone after other professional football teams, including the Vikings and 49ers, for purported patent infringement. At issue was Arena IP’s patent for “self-contained data communication system nodes,” a supposedly novel way of embedding wireless technology in stadiums to boost network connectivity for the thousands of fans who use their phones while attending sporting events.
Fortunately, the allegation leveled by this trollAn entity in the business of being infringed — by analogy to the mythological troll that exacted payments from the unwary. Cf. NPE, PAE, PME. See Reitzig and Henkel, Patent Trolls, the Sustainability of ‘Locking-in-to-Extort’ Strategies, and Implications for Innovating Firms. has already been dismissed, as Arena IP was unable to prove its patent is specific enough to be infringed upon. Ever since the 2014 Supreme Court’s Alice decision, the test for establishing a “patent-ineligible concept” is first determining if the concept is itself an “abstract ideaAbstract ideas are not patent-eligible subject matter. This judicially developed exclusion was most recently explained by the Supreme Court in Bilski v. Kappos, 2010. More.” By Arena IP’s own admission, however, their patent does not cover any actual technological innovations, but rather, a way of implementing existing technologies, which lacks any technical specificationThe section of a patent that provides a description of the invention and the manner and process of making and using it. It must enable the "person having ordinary skill in the art" to reproduce and use the invention without undue experimentation. A patent's claims are interpreted in light of the specification. regarding the method of implementation.
At a dismissal hearing in mid-March, Judge Myong Joun of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts saw through the vague claims. Joun noted that he was “having a little bit of difficulty wrapping [his] head around what it is that [Arena IP LLC] invented,” comparing the troll’s case to saying you invented time travel without “describing exactly how to accomplish that.”
What’s more, the lawyer representing Arena IP is William Ramey III. As I discussed on Patent Progress in January, Ramey frequently represents non-practicing entity plaintiffs and has been involved in a payment dispute with a litigation funder, resulting in him withdrawing from more than 60 cases.
The Patriots’ win might not have happened if a pairPatent Application Information Retrieval System. The USPTO's electronic system for storing and accessing information regarding a patent. There is a public version for searching file wrappers. of senators get their way, though. If the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act passes, then patents on abstract ideas like this one will continue to be used against teams ranging from the New England Patriots to the small business team with the next new innovation. Arena’s lawsuit is one more example showing that no one is safe from being targeted by patent trolls’ serial, meritless accusations. Even when you win on Sunday, you might face the lose-lose prospect of wasting time and resources defending yourself in court on Monday.
