4 ms·

There is an [UPDATED] on this now: "Update: Facing an avalanche of bad publicity, Labrador announced on Tuesday that it would grant royalty-free licenses to co

There is an [UPDATED] on this now: "Update: Facing an avalanche of bad publicity, Labrador announced on Tuesday that it would grant royalty-free licenses to companies developing COVID-19 tests. The company also claims it didn't know that BioFire was working on a coronavirus test when it filed its lawsuit last week. The company seems to be going forward with the lawsuit."

_bxg1 7y ago
"We were only trying to be a regular patent troll, we swear!"
jacquesm 7y ago
Royalty free? Well, pardon my French, but fuck them. They are not in a position to license anything, that would be admitting they had a case to begin with.
- dctoedt 7y ago
  > that would be admitting they had a case to begin with. And that is precisely what these people are after by making the offer — if others in the industry are willing to take licenses under a patent, then the patent owner can brandish that fact as indirect evidence of the patent's supposed validity. That kind of evidence wouldn't be dispositive by any means. At trial, though, litigation counsel will put in any evidence they can — especially "proxy" evidence that can readily be understood by non-technical people such as judges and jurors. (A classic example of such proxy evidence is, "They lied!") (Patent attorney here, although I don't do that kind of work anymore.)
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Yep. Hence my rant. These jerks should be made an example out of.
  - dirtydroog 7y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a patent holder doesn't defend their patent isn't it possible for them to lose it?
    - wombatpm 7y ago
      You are wrong. TRADEMARKS have to be defended or you lose them. Patent lawsuits can be targeted
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        You also are wrong. Trademarks can be lost by non-payment of the renewal fees, or by genericisation. Failing to sue someone is not cause for cancellation of registered marks. Neither in USA nor EU AFAIAA. This is not legal advice; it is my personal opinion and makes no representation about any associate or employee that I might be linked with.
        dctoedt 7y ago
        > Failing to sue someone is not cause for cancellation of registered marks. Not quite. Thermos, escalator, and cellophane became generic terms, free for anyone to use, because everyone started using them and the trademark owners didn't try to stop them. [0] That's why Xerox famously advertised that we should say that we made a Xerox copy of a document, not that we xeroxed it. (Aspirin also became generic, and thus free for anyone to use, in the U.S., but that's because the trademark was seized from its German owner, Bayer AG, as part of reparations after World War I. [1] Aspirin is still a trademark of Bayer in most of the rest of the world.) [0] https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/ASPIRINBrandorAspirinTabletsAvoidingtheGenericideHeadacheintheUnitedStates.aspx https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/ASPIRINBrandorAspiri... [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-09-13-fi-38019-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-09-13-fi-38019-...
    - dctoedt 7y ago
      > if a patent holder doesn't defend [sic] their patent isn't it possible for them to lose it? A patent owner would "lose" a patent only if someone were to successfully challenge the patent's validity or enforceability, either in court or in a USPTO proceeding. If the patent owner were to fail to defend against the challenge, then yeah, the court or USPTO might invalidate the patent. Now to be sure, if a patent owner were to wait too long to assert a patent against an infringer, that could complicate the patent owner's efforts to get royalties or an injunction (a stop-use order) later on against that infringer, and possibly against other infringers. And any infringer might try to use the patent owner's delay as proxy evidence that the patent owner didn't really believe that the patent was valid. But failure to assert a patent, in and of itself, will normally have no bearing on a patent's validity or life.
- baud147258 7y ago
  > Well, pardon my French, but qu'ils aillent se faire foutre! FTFY.
- RobRivera 7y ago
  I feel like that's their play. To legitimize their IP for potential resale, valid use of the patent can only serve to increase their value, ignoring the bad publicity.
zentiggr 7y ago
Anyone working on anything that Labrador claims is covered should ignore them, and if necessary, tell the courts to go f themselves too if by some bizarre mischance the suit gets any traction at all. If Labrador is a public company, I've got a stockholder recommendation - sell. If not, time to buy nothing from them that isn't medically necessary, and that for only as long as specific items are critical, then zip. Cut them off and let these jackasses starve.
- sjg007 7y ago
  Labrador is owned by Softbank. How about everyone boycott Softbank's sweet VC money?
  - sjg007 7y ago
    How about no demo day for Softbank.

_bxg1 7y ago

"We were only trying to be a regular patent troll, we swear!"

jacquesm 7y ago

Royalty free? Well, pardon my French, but fuck them. They are not in a position to license anything, that would be admitting they had a case to begin with.

dctoedt 7y ago
> that would be admitting they had a case to begin with. And that is precisely what these people are after by making the offer — if others in the industry are willing to take licenses under a patent, then the patent owner can brandish that fact as indirect evidence of the patent's supposed validity. That kind of evidence wouldn't be dispositive by any means. At trial, though, litigation counsel will put in any evidence they can — especially "proxy" evidence that can readily be understood by non-technical people such as judges and jurors. (A classic example of such proxy evidence is, "They lied!") (Patent attorney here, although I don't do that kind of work anymore.)
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Yep. Hence my rant. These jerks should be made an example out of.
- dirtydroog 7y ago
  Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a patent holder doesn't defend their patent isn't it possible for them to lose it?
  - wombatpm 7y ago
    You are wrong. TRADEMARKS have to be defended or you lose them. Patent lawsuits can be targeted
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      You also are wrong. Trademarks can be lost by non-payment of the renewal fees, or by genericisation. Failing to sue someone is not cause for cancellation of registered marks. Neither in USA nor EU AFAIAA. This is not legal advice; it is my personal opinion and makes no representation about any associate or employee that I might be linked with.
      - dctoedt 7y ago
        > Failing to sue someone is not cause for cancellation of registered marks. Not quite. Thermos, escalator, and cellophane became generic terms, free for anyone to use, because everyone started using them and the trademark owners didn't try to stop them. [0] That's why Xerox famously advertised that we should say that we made a Xerox copy of a document, not that we xeroxed it. (Aspirin also became generic, and thus free for anyone to use, in the U.S., but that's because the trademark was seized from its German owner, Bayer AG, as part of reparations after World War I. [1] Aspirin is still a trademark of Bayer in most of the rest of the world.) [0] https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/ASPIRINBrandorAspirinTabletsAvoidingtheGenericideHeadacheintheUnitedStates.aspx https://www.inta.org/INTABulletin/Pages/ASPIRINBrandorAspiri... [1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-09-13-fi-38019-story.html https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-09-13-fi-38019-...
  - dctoedt 7y ago
    > if a patent holder doesn't defend [sic] their patent isn't it possible for them to lose it? A patent owner would "lose" a patent only if someone were to successfully challenge the patent's validity or enforceability, either in court or in a USPTO proceeding. If the patent owner were to fail to defend against the challenge, then yeah, the court or USPTO might invalidate the patent. Now to be sure, if a patent owner were to wait too long to assert a patent against an infringer, that could complicate the patent owner's efforts to get royalties or an injunction (a stop-use order) later on against that infringer, and possibly against other infringers. And any infringer might try to use the patent owner's delay as proxy evidence that the patent owner didn't really believe that the patent was valid. But failure to assert a patent, in and of itself, will normally have no bearing on a patent's validity or life.
baud147258 7y ago
> Well, pardon my French, but qu'ils aillent se faire foutre! FTFY.
RobRivera 7y ago
I feel like that's their play. To legitimize their IP for potential resale, valid use of the patent can only serve to increase their value, ignoring the bad publicity.

zentiggr 7y ago

Anyone working on anything that Labrador claims is covered should ignore them, and if necessary, tell the courts to go f themselves too if by some bizarre mischance the suit gets any traction at all. If Labrador is a public company, I've got a stockholder recommendation - sell. If not, time to buy nothing from them that isn't medically necessary, and that for only as long as specific items are critical, then zip. Cut them off and let these jackasses starve.

sjg007 7y ago
Labrador is owned by Softbank. How about everyone boycott Softbank's sweet VC money?
- sjg007 7y ago
  How about no demo day for Softbank.