13 ms·
U.S. government owes over $100M for TSA's patent infringement
- paulgb 5y agoThe patent in question: https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en
- hannibalhorn 5y agoSo the "invention" is stackable trays on a cart? :-( I guess it's not just software patents that have become problematic.
- brentm 5y agoIt's crazy that patents can be granted for 'inventions' that are nothing more than common sense. Being the first mover on hiring a patent attorney and filing the paperwork should not be rewarded. I suppose drawing a definitive line where common sense ends and invention begins is difficult so we end up with the current system.
- YPPH 5y ago"Not common sense" is not the legal test for patentability. But it is in effect incorporated within the requirements that a patentable invention be novel, have an inventive step, and be non-obvious (assessed without the benefit of hindsight). The US Government could dispute the patent claim if they think the so-called invention is not an invention.
- rkagerer 5y agoWhat stage in the process of disputing the patent's validity are they at? Are there higher judges they can appeal to for a more rational outcome?
- YPPH 5y agoPatent disputes in the United States arise in federal jurisdiction. In relation to a patent infringement matters commenced in the US District Court of the relevant judicial circuit, it can be appealed to the Court of Appeals. In theory it can then be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (as happened in Google v. Oracle), if that court thinks its intervention is warranted. In relation to issues arising from the grant of a patent (not an infringement action), an appeal can be made to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and then to the Court of Appeals for the federal circuit, and then to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that court thinks its intervention is warranted. I read below this is working its way through the appeals process but I'm not sure about its status.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago> the "invention" is stackable trays on a cart? Look at the claims, not the general descriptions. "A better stapler" may just be a stapler, but that description elides the novel mechanism contained within. (There may be no novel mechanism here. I don't know. I'm not a cart expert.)
- IshKebab 5y agoIf you look at the claims they actually patented this (I translated it into English): > For a scanner with a near and far end, position one cart near the near end. Remove a tray from the cart. Pass it through the scanner. Put the tray in a second cart at the far end of the scanner. Move the second cart to the near end of the scanner. I'm not exaggerating. That's what claim 1 says. If you do that they can sue you for infringement. The subordinate claims talk about stackable trays, but you only have to infringe claim 1 to be infringing. Claim 1 is written as broadly as possible in order to "catch" as many infringers as possible, and then the subordinate claims are there in case the courts actually rule that claim 1 was too broad. So you can say "Fine, we can't patent using a cart to move trays, but what about claim 3? We patented using stackable trays! That's very novel!"
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago> We patented using stackable trays! I'd just start gesturing wildly at cafeteria trays that have been around for decades.
- IshKebab 5y agoYeah but did you put them on a cart? No!! N.. oh you did. Ok fine but did you put them on a cart near an X-ray machine? Ha!
- patentatt 5y agoI’m usually one to defend patents on the grounds that the claims are far more narrow than the general idea being criticized in internet comments… that being said, claim 1 is, on its face, very broad. Like super broad. I’d be curious to check out the prosecution history and the spec on this to see if there’s anything limiting in there. Because in plain language, claim 1 is … broad.
- amalcon 5y agoBasically that, plus swapping the carts when more trays are needed at the inlet, plus putting advertising on everything. How "putting an ad on a visible surface" even passes the smell test is beyond me, but those claims are valid it seems...
- jmgoeke 5y agoWay more on the TSA’s side after reading the patent for sure. Amazed that the U.S. patent systems enables stuff like this.
- JamesCoyne 5y agoI guess this counts as novel and non-obvious then: > One embodiment of the present invention may be a system including a security scanning device through which objects may be passed, having a proximate end and a distal end, a plurality of trays, and a plurality of tray carts adapted to receive the trays, wherein the plurality of trays are provided in a first tray cart at the proximate end of the scanning device, and wherein the trays are adapted to be passed through the scanning device at the proximate end, and wherein the trays are received in a second tray cart after passing through the scanning device at the distal end of the scanning device, and wherein the second cart is adapted to be relocated to the proximate end of the scanning device.
- josaka 5y agoBetter to look at the claims, which define the scope of rights granted. That said, the broadest claim pretty much tracks this language. I wonder if the broadest claim survived, or if the verdict was based on a narrower dependent claim.
- paulgb 5y agoTranslation: a stack of trays on one side of the xray machine, that get passed through the xray machine to the other side, where they are put in a second stack. The second stack can be moved as a stack (presumably on wheels or something) back to the near side of the xray.
- ViViDboarder 5y agoDoes it? What’s the novel part? Using two carts so you don’t have to wheel the empty one around? That doesn’t sound novel to me. I’ve don’t that at the grocery store before.
- 1cvmask 5y agoThe government could have got it for free: St. Petersburg, Florida-based SecurityPoint's founder Joseph Ambrefe offered the TSA a license to his patent in 2005 in exchange for the exclusive right to advertise on the trays at U.S. airports. The TSA had success testing SecurityPoint's technology and equipment, but refused SecurityPoint's offer. The court said the TSA began using the same method with its own equipment later that year at most or all of the airports under its control, and SecurityPoint sued the U.S. government for patent infringement in 2011. The government conceded that it had used the technology since 2008 in 10 airports including Dallas/Fort Worth, Boston Logan, Phoenix Sky Harbor and all three major Washington, D.C.-area airports. The court rejected the government's arguments that SecurityPoint's patent was invalid in 2015, leaving questions about the extent of the government's infringement and how much it owed in damages.
- staticman2 5y agoThat's literally not free since they would have had to turn the security process into more of a clown show with advertisements.
- paulgb 5y agoAs it happens, one of the violations the TSA admitted to was the part of the patent that covers putting advertisements in the trays. (It boils my blood that the patent system rewards the people who essentially “call dibs” on ideas like this, instead of the people who build things.)
- dathinab 5y agoHow is putting advertisement on ANYTHING patentable, that's driving me nuts. If there is space, you can put a ad on it, that's a trivial truth older then the patent system itself.
- akersten 5y ago> How is putting advertisement on ANYTHING patentable Because our patent system is broken beyond repair and should be entirely dismantled never to be rebuilt. Remember cases like this the next time you hear anyone try to justify existence of something like a software patent. A monopoly on ideas is an absurdity laid bare to most people only by glaring examples like this.
- dathinab 5y agoHow is that even Patentable? I mean it doesn't seem to pass the necessary burden of ingenuity as it's IMHO/as far as I can tell just a trivial combination of long known methods.
- paulgb 5y agoWell, see, the trays used to be different sizes so you couldn't stack them, so without this patent the TSA wouldn't have thought to do that /s > A disadvantage to the present system used in security areas is that the trays for holding laptop computers are not part of a uniform system and do not protect the items from possible damage. Therefore, it is possible that multiple size trays that do not in any way correspond with one another may be used at a security area thus making storage of the trays when they are not in use cumbersome.
- dathinab 5y agoWell, they could have asked anyone who ever had worked in a ware house for tips. Probably some people working on there had ideas like that, too. I mean it's such a common thing that there are EU standardized sizes for stack-able boxes (and as far as I can tell they existed since pre-EU, or at least I can't remember my dad not using them in his little shops storage room). The sizes are so common that even car manufacturers consider them when designing (some kinds of) cars.
- itronitron 5y agoI talked to my lunch lady and she thinks she can establish prior art.
- beervirus 5y agoI’m guessing you haven’t read the claims of the patent yet?
- alach11 5y agoI'm reading it and it seems ridiculous to me. > It was the final step in the method of claim one – “moving said tray cart to said proximate end of said scanning device” – that was added at the PTO to overcome the examiner’s initial obviousness concern. So the lynchpin of the case earning this company $100m is the idea of moving trays on a cart from the exit to the entrance. https://www.eff.org/files/2016/12/22/security_point_ruling.pdf https://www.eff.org/files/2016/12/22/security_point_ruling.p...
- josaka 5y agoThe most recent ruling in this case is available here: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5065837816657316409 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=506583781665731... Validity was addressed back in 2016, but has not been reviewed on appeal yet. If others can find a link to that case, it might help folks understand what's happening here.
- josaka 5y agoHere's the ruling where validity is analyzed by the court (again, which has not been reviewed on appeal as far as I can tell): https://cite.case.law/fed-cl/129/25/ https://cite.case.law/fed-cl/129/25/
- josaka 5y agoThis is probably the key passage in the validity ruling: "Defendant’s disavowal in pretrial practice of having its experts combine prior art was a serious handicap at trial." Not a good place to be as a defendant in a patent suit.
- varenc 5y agoCan you explain this more for me? Basically, the TSA didn’t try to establish that prior art for this patent existed? Why would they not do that? Is it too late for them to try now?
- josaka 5y agoTSA's counsel argued that the asserted patent was obvious in view of one prior art reference that disclosed scanning trays and a second prior art reference that disclosed carts at both ends of a machine processing trays. To make this argument, they needed an expert witness to say that it would have been obvious to combine the two prior art references in the way claimed. My read of this comment is that they failed to get their expert witness on record as having that opinion before trial, and so they were prevented from effectively presenting the position at trial. This is the sort of thing that keeps patent attorneys up at night.
- stevespang 5y agoYup, we always knew the US Gov't was full of thieves, just look at civil forfeiture, what else is new ?
- satya71 5y agoI wonder if it would be a good idea to form an NPE solely to assert patents against the government. It might finally irk them enough to improve the patent laws.
- tyingq 5y agoI imagine if you specifically targeted Congress or the Executive Office you might get some movement. A voting related patent would be amusing. They would have to violate your patent to do anything about it.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- bell-cot 5y agoThis "invention" (see paulgb's link to the patent) sounds far too much like stackable plastic milk crates with $Logo_Of_Dairy printed on the side of 'em. Or even more like the stackable plastic trays (and carts designed specifically for them) that you could find in the dishroom of most large cafeterias 50+ years ago. And running actual stacks of those trays through the big dishwashing machine (say, to heat up a bunch of clean soup bowls right before they hit the serving line) was "d'oh, obvious" when I briefly had a dishroom job in the early 1980's.
- m0llusk 5y agoAll so that we could take our shoes off even though there was only the one shoe related incident some years ago. When will we have enough of this security theater? The costs just keep mounting.
- mbg721 5y agoIt's broken-windows adopted as public policy rather than recognized as a fallacious waste.
- _fat_santa 5y agoBRB, filing a patent for taking your shoes off.
- burkaman 5y agoDon't worry, soon the TSA will pay millions for electromagnetic scanning mats so you don't have to take your shoes off: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/28/lifestyle/please-do-not-empty-your-pockets-or-remove-your-shoes-local-company-is-reshaping-future-airport-security/?p1=BGSearch_Overlay_Results https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/10/28/lifestyle/please-do-n...
- systemvoltage 5y agoSlightly off topic: “Travel speeds are back to 1960’s with incredibly low tech airport security process” - Peter Thiel. At this point, we need to throw the baby and the bath water, discard the entire security theater and have some SV company innovate in this area. Edit: I suspect the downvotes are because I quoted Peter Thiel. Very reasonable.
- _fat_santa 5y agoNo, because removing restrictions or changing how we do it would compromise "safety". I put that word in quotes because it's not actual safety, it's the feeling of safety. Masks on airplanes are the same deal. There have been numerous reports that masks don't provide that much protection, airplanes have superior air filtering systems, yada yada yada. Yet the FAA will likely keep extending the mask mandate indefinitely. The masks don't make us any safer, hell they might make us less safe when you consider the number of "mask related" unruly passengers. But they provide "safety", and that's the key driver here. Really this trend can be seen everywhere. We make sacrifices as a society to feel "safe". Whether that thing we are doing is actually making us safer is irrelevant, it's all about feeling good about yourself and your "safe" decisions.
- Factorium 5y agoWe can do what Israel does, and assign a risk rating to everyone entering the airport: https://www.businessinsider.com/israels-ben-gurion-airport-security-uses-secret-sticker-system-2015-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/israels-ben-gurion-airport-s... However, this system basically automatically applies increased risk to certain nationalities and cultures. Are we willing to trade political correctness for a better security system?
- froggertoaster 5y agoCMV: As much as I hate the TSA (and security theatre in general) this is a bad patent and feels more like a loss than a win.
- mensetmanusman 5y agoNot everyone knows the government has ‘March in rights’ when it comes to national security concerns. Eg it can decide that it needs to immediately use certain technology and violate IP in certain circumstances.
- exabrial 5y agoWow. There is no positive outcome in this case. If the patent troll wins, we lose, and low quality shit patents are further confirmed. If the TSA wins, it allows the TSA to continue to incinerate cash in a never ending play of "security theater".
- jaywalk 5y agoI don't think TSA's cash-burning security theater is under any real threat either way.
- silexia 5y agoThe patent system needs to be abolished. People patenting trays is "patently" ridiculous. Patents crush innovation. Ideas are worthless, execution is everything.
- bogwog 5y agoAnd most patents are built on top of the work of others who did not patent their ideas. If they did, then those derivatives would not be able to exist.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- rkagerer 5y agoThe examiner initially rejected this patent filing due to obviousness. Can someone please explain to me like I'm stupid how it was eventually ruled valid in court?
- HWR_14 5y agoThe examiner rejected it as obvious. More limitations were added that made it no longer obvious. It's the new version that was ruled valid. Consider (120 years ago) a patent on "using energy to move a vehicle quickly". Well, that's stupid and obvious. But using an ICE to move a car was not. So you add more details and limits until it's no longer obvious.
- rkagerer 5y agoMore limitations were added that made it no longer obvious You mean this one? "... moving said tray cart to said proximate end of said scanning device" I guess my bar for non-obvious is a lot higher.
- polynomial 5y agoWhat was the actual method? I've been through airports where trays were returned using a second set of rollers going in the opposite direction, and I've been through airports were they were manually collected in an ad hoc fashion when they were either close to running out or already had run out on the supply side. Needless to say, the latter approach results in total cluster forks.
- tantalor 5y agoNope, sovereign immunity insulates federal government from patent or copyright claims. > states enjoy unfettered sovereign immunity with respect to copyright, trademark, and patent infringement claims in federal court https://www.vorys.com/publications-2574.html https://www.vorys.com/publications-2574.html
- HWR_14 5y agoActually, sovereign immunity protects states, but not the federal government. (In the specific case of IP, not in general. This is because the fed. gov. waived sovereign immunity for itself and the states, but the courts found that the fed. gov. couldn't waive the immunity on the state's behalf.)
- aurizon 5y agoWell, the USA has refused to deal with their bad patent system that has enabled generations of patent trolls to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us due to lobbying(I use the term in the East Texas bribery sense), and now they have got bit. Live by the sword.....
- asah 5y agoI'm sorry, but isn't $100M a rounding error to USG ? That's like one missile or a toilet seat or something...
- MomoXenosaga 5y agoHow many trillions does the US government owe? Is anyone even counting at this point? Just add it to the pile.
- AlbertCory 5y agoI see a lot of discussion assuming the patent covers "putting an ad on a tray." Claim 1 of [1] says (when you see the word "said" you can just replace it with "the" -- it doesn't become any more legal just because it has "said") A method comprising: positioning a first tray cart containing trays at the proximate end of a scanning device through which objects may be passed, wherein said scanning device comprises a proximate end and a distal end, removing a tray from said first tray cart, passing said tray through said scanning device from said proximate end through to said distal end, providing a second tray cart at said distal end of said scanning device, receiving said tray passed through said scanning device in said second tray cart, and moving said second cart to said proximate end of said scanning device so that said trays in said second cart be passed through said scanning device at said proximate end. There are 14 dependent claims, all depending from claim 1. We don't see anything about "advertising" until claim 4. If you knock out claim 1, then all the others fall as well. I won't even try to defend claim 1 -- if you're saying "how else would you do it?" you're on the right track). [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US6888460B2/en