10 August 2017
Reporter: Barney Dixon

Sprint clears final hurdle, Prism falls flat

American telecommunications company Sprint has secured a win in its litigation with Prism Technologies, avoiding a $32.2 million judgment that was previously awarded in the case.

The US District Court for the District of Nebraska granted Sprint’s motion for relief on 8 August from the June 2015 jury judgement in favour of Prism.

The jury had found that Sprint had infringed two Prism network security patents and awarded $32.2 million in damages.

Sprint’s appeals in the case were denied, but during the litigation, Prism went to trial against T-Mobile, asserting the same two patents.

In that case, the Federal Circuit eventually found that Prism’s asserted patent claims “merely recite a host of elements that are indisputably generic computer components” and “recite patent ineligible subject matter”.

Sprint said that the Federal Circuit’s decision “completely eliminates the underlying basis for the judgement against Sprint”.

Prism responded by asserting that Sprint was not entitled to relief from the judgement based on the T-Mobile decision, because “it did not address certain claims that Prism asserted and prevailed upon at trial against Sprint”.

In granting Sprint’s motion for relief, Judge Lyle Strom of the Nebraska court said: “The court is convinced that the facts and procedural history of this case rise to the level of an exceptional circumstance.”

“By so ruling the court is cognisant of the need to recognise the importance of the finality of a judgement. The court has thoroughly considered and balanced that important interest but finds it is outweighed by the court’s interest in ‘seeing that justice is done in light of all of the facts.’”

“The patent claims at issue in the T-Mobile case, which were invalidated by the Federal Circuit, were and are the same claims at issue here,” he continued.

“Given that the Federal Circuit has conclusively adjudged the patent claims, which provide the very basis for Prism’s $30 million judgement, to be invalid; the court finds no just reason why such a judgement ought to stand when the claims ‘are predicated on a nullity’ and unenforceable to the rest of the world.”

More news
The latest news from IPPro Patents
Join Our Newsletter

Sign up today and never
miss the latest news or an issue again

Subscribe now
Restasis patents invalidated at Texas court
17 October 2017 | Texas | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Four patents relating to Allergan’s Restasis dry eye treatment have been invalidated by a US court, despite the pharmaceutical company’s patent transfer agreement with the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe
Businesses should prepare for UPC, despite uncertainty
17 October 2017 | London | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Businesses should make preparations for the Unified Patent Court and unitary patent, despite mounting uncertainty surrounding when, if at all, the court will come into effect
Patent ‘irrationality’ causes a negative image of patents
16 October 2017 | London | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Spectators are far more accepting of copyright and trademarks than they are of patents because of “irrationality”, according to Sir Robin Jacob
Partner promotions at White & Case
13 October 2017 | New York | Reporter: Barney Dixon
White & Case has promoted 31 new partners, including four intellectual property attorneys, across the US and UK
Qualcomm hit with $775 million fine in Taiwan
13 October 2017 | Taipei | Reporter: Barney Dixon
Qualcomm has been hit with a $775 million fine, after the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission found that the chipmaker had abused its position in the baseband chip market
SUEPO willing to work with new EPO president
12 October 2017 | Munich | Reporter: Barney Dixon
A source close to the Staff Union of the European Patent Office has revealed it is always willing to work with whoever is elected to lead the European Patent Office
BPTO and EPO sign PPH cooperation treaty
12 October 2017 | São Paulo | Reporter: Barney Dixon
The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office and the European Patent Office have signed a cooperation treaty, aimed at the creation of a patent prosecution highway between the two offices