4 ms·

I looked up the first of the patents. Here's its PDF: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/7814180 https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-publ

I looked up the first of the patents. Here's its PDF: https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/7814180 https://ppubs.uspto.gov/dirsearch-public/print/downloadPdf/7... I'm not a patent lawyer, just a programmer, but reading just the abstract, this seems to be covering a DNS system that can be configured via an API, which I guess does cover S3, but also, like, almost every other domain-related thing?

tsimionescu 3y ago
My reading of the claims is that they are mostly for a DNS server implemented using an object-oriented database, mapping the object tre with the DNS hierarchy and dedudcing IP at each level. The rest is just this principle as pure software or as a hardware appliance with pre-installed software, and with a GUI to control the object mappings. But the central idea seems to be the OO aspect. Edit: also, this doesn't seem to be the right patent. Another poster cites three different patents, one with a similar number to this one (the correct patent is 7,814,170, the one you cite is 7,814,180).
- CobrastanJorji 3y ago
  There were three counts the jury found in favor of Kove, one for each of these patents: > as follows: (a) On Count 1 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,814,180; (b) On Count 2 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,233,978; (c) On Count 3 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,103,640. -Verdict ( https://tmsnrt.rs/49wWwvB https://tmsnrt.rs/49wWwvB ) The patent I listed was Count 1. However, other online sources ( https://casetext.com/case/kove-io-inc-v-amazon-web-servs-3 https://casetext.com/case/kove-io-inc-v-amazon-web-servs-3 ) list patent 7814170 instead of 180, so the verdict form may have gotten it wrong?
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Interesting. Given that '180 is assigned to InfoBlox and '170 is assigned to Econnectix like the other 2 patents, I believe that '170 is more likely to be the patent they actually used in the suit, and the verdict form has a typo.

tsimionescu 3y ago

My reading of the claims is that they are mostly for a DNS server implemented using an object-oriented database, mapping the object tre with the DNS hierarchy and dedudcing IP at each level. The rest is just this principle as pure software or as a hardware appliance with pre-installed software, and with a GUI to control the object mappings. But the central idea seems to be the OO aspect. Edit: also, this doesn't seem to be the right patent. Another poster cites three different patents, one with a similar number to this one (the correct patent is 7,814,170, the one you cite is 7,814,180).

CobrastanJorji 3y ago
There were three counts the jury found in favor of Kove, one for each of these patents: > as follows: (a) On Count 1 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,814,180; (b) On Count 2 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,233,978; (c) On Count 3 of plaintiff’s complaint, finding infringement by defendant of U.S. Patent No. 7,103,640. -Verdict ( https://tmsnrt.rs/49wWwvB https://tmsnrt.rs/49wWwvB ) The patent I listed was Count 1. However, other online sources ( https://casetext.com/case/kove-io-inc-v-amazon-web-servs-3 https://casetext.com/case/kove-io-inc-v-amazon-web-servs-3 ) list patent 7814170 instead of 180, so the verdict form may have gotten it wrong?
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Interesting. Given that '180 is assigned to InfoBlox and '170 is assigned to Econnectix like the other 2 patents, I believe that '170 is more likely to be the patent they actually used in the suit, and the verdict form has a typo.