The story of the invalidation of the "obvious" AdvanceMe patent just keeps on going. As I mentioned in previous posts, the New York Times wrote an article about it, University of Washington School of Law has made the story of the AdvanceMe patent invalidation part of the course curriculum for its Intellectual Law class and it has been the feature story of many publications.
Once again, the story behind the AdvanceMe patent invalidation is the COVER STORY of The Green Sheet, one of the largest credit card processing industry publications. The September 10, 2007 issue features the cover story, "AdvanceMe patent ruling opens merchant funding floodgates."
To update everyone on some facts since this article written, it indicates that the case AdvanceMe v. AmeriMerchant (the companion case to AdvanceMe v. Rapidpay) was scheduled to goto trial in January 2008. The article indicates, "experts predict it will be dismissed as a result of the August ruling."
Indeed this has already happened, the court dismissed this case shortly after the AdvanceMe patent was invalidated.
Two other items to point out about this article. In the print version of The Green Sheet September 10, 2007 edition page 67, there is a featured quote of the article that indicates:
"When you call someone and say, 'I'm being sued,' the first thing they think is, 'I don't want to get involved,' not 'Oh, I want to go through all my dusty old file cabinets,'
– Glenn Goldman
CEO, AdvanceMe
This is an actually a mistake as you can tell, that was actually my quote that appeared in the article earlier that they highlighted later saying it was Glenn Goldman that said it.
However, Glenn Goldman, CEO of AdvanceMe is quoted in the New York Times article and other publications as well as The Green Sheet as saying, "Although we feel vindicated that the court found clear infringement of our patent by each of the defendants, we respectfully disagree with the court's findings on validity."
That is not a typo my friends, Glenn feels vindicated that the court found that the defendants in the case infringed on an invalid patent that is unenforceable and OBVIOUS. Enough said......
Showing posts with label Patent Obviousness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patent Obviousness. Show all posts
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
AdvanceMe Patent Invalidated
As many of you know, I have been involved with a lawsuit from AdvanceMe the past year and a half over their “patent.” They have sued my company and other merchant cash advance companies. Well, I am proud to say we just received word from the court that Judge Davis from the Eastern District of Texas has INVALIDATED the AdvanceMe patent in one of the AdvanceMe patent cases. He writes in his MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER on August 14, 2007 in ADVANCEME INC. vs. RAPIDPAY, LLC, ET AL that “The ‘281 patent is INVALID because it is OBVIOUS and ANTICIPATED."
Judge Davis also wrote, “The Litle & Co. prior art, the LeCard program, the Transmedia program, and the prior art Reserve Accounts were all available in the field at the time of the purported invention. Johnson [-- Barbara Johnson is listed as the inventor of the patent --] merely implemented a predictable variation of these existing methods in establishing her invention. While Johnson’s work exhibits excellent entrepreneurship, it does not entitle AdvanceMe to a legal monopoly on this method of providing financing to small businesses. Rather AdvanceMe must continue to compete in the marketplace for its share of the market, which will benefit the economy and consumers as a whole.”
I believe this is also the first patent case in the Eastern District of Texas whereby the recent Supreme Court ruling on patent obviousness in the KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. helped invalidate a patent. In reference to the Supreme Court ruling, Judge Davis wrote,"There are multiple prior art references, not considered by the PTO when issuing the patent,that render the patent invalid, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc."
I would like to thank all of those that have helped me put together the information that was used to show the court that this patent was not a new and novel idea.
Any comments can be sent to dg@amerimerchant.com
Judge Davis also wrote, “The Litle & Co. prior art, the LeCard program, the Transmedia program, and the prior art Reserve Accounts were all available in the field at the time of the purported invention. Johnson [-- Barbara Johnson is listed as the inventor of the patent --] merely implemented a predictable variation of these existing methods in establishing her invention. While Johnson’s work exhibits excellent entrepreneurship, it does not entitle AdvanceMe to a legal monopoly on this method of providing financing to small businesses. Rather AdvanceMe must continue to compete in the marketplace for its share of the market, which will benefit the economy and consumers as a whole.”
I believe this is also the first patent case in the Eastern District of Texas whereby the recent Supreme Court ruling on patent obviousness in the KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. helped invalidate a patent. In reference to the Supreme Court ruling, Judge Davis wrote,"There are multiple prior art references, not considered by the PTO when issuing the patent,that render the patent invalid, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc."
I would like to thank all of those that have helped me put together the information that was used to show the court that this patent was not a new and novel idea.
Any comments can be sent to dg@amerimerchant.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
