Details here: BlackBerry-maker RIM gets hit with patent infringement suit

Details here: BlackBerry-maker RIM gets hit with patent infringement suit

Summary: Wireless communications solutions provider TeleCommunication Systems says it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against BlackBerry-maker Research In Motion.TeleCommunication Systems is charging that RIM infringed on its  United States Patent No.

SHARE:

emailreaderpatent.jpg

Wireless communications solutions provider TeleCommunication Systems says it has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against BlackBerry-maker Research In Motion.

TeleCommunication Systems is charging that RIM infringed on its  United States Patent No. 6,871,215. Entitled Universal wireless email reader, the Patent describes methods for users to access and manage multiple email accounts.

This Patent's Abstract reads:

A universal mail application maintains login with a plurality of email applications for a particular subscriber, presenting Inbox, Outbox, etc., for an email account as desired, without requiring repeated logouts/logins.

The email applications may be defined and identified by email account information files maintained separately for each subscriber, containing, e.g., POP, server and IP address. Sets of email application files corresponding to the multiple email account files contain downloaded and uploaded message files from the respective email application programs.

The multiple email account compilation module may be restricted or throttled back to send/receive email from the relevant email application programs only during desirable times, either on a system wide basis or on a per-subscriber (e.g., class of service) basis.

The subscriber may peruse the relevant email application files, who is prompted on their mobile display for selection of any one of the email accounts at any one time.

Annapolis, Md.-based TCS said it filed the lawsuit " only after business discussions with RIM failed to resolve the dispute. TCS has retained the law firm of Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, a Chicago-based law firm that specializes in intellectual property trials, to litigate the case.

The case is TeleCommunication Systems, Inc. v. Research In Motion Limited, Case No. 1:07cv1277(E.D. Va.).

Topics: Collaboration, BlackBerry

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

4 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • i may just be stating the obvious, but...

    If a resourceful person offered to gather my US mail and other parcels from diverse carriers, and be readily available for me to give outbound items, as well as do this all autonomously as such that I would never have to directly interface with the actual postal carriers' establishments, then that person would be fulfilling the snail-mail equivalent role of this patent. I would call them my mail clerk, Bob.

    What bugs me is, that; the plaintiff is like the resourceful assistant from paragraph one, who - when faced with the notion that someone else might be managing my mail for me in their stead - decided to serve Joe Victim a summons, just because Joe has his own particular system in place to manage mail and has clients of his own for whom he performs such tasks. Joe is a mail clerk.

    And here I thought, patents were supposed to be precisely assembled technical documents, not paper-thin idea blankets!

    Come on people, this is like patenting the 'drive-thru window' as a 'HOLE IN THE WALL'

    How about I create a patent right now

    (d(=a=)(=b==)(=c===))

    Fig. 1 (above)

    What you see is space. There is a craft in it (d). On said craft People shall ride (b) and sleep (c). (A) is a device that will make (d) go faster than light.

    done

    BAM! Now, whenever a space-faring vessel which contains a device that will make it go faster than light, designated sleeping areas, and a passenger compartment is designed created or otherwise made practical, it's mine all mine. I patented it, right? suuuure
    spamsdelicious@...
  • Pointless Lawsuit Begs Question

    "TCS has retained the law firm of Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niro, a Chicago-based law firm that specializes in intellectual property trials, to litigate the case" says Shaw.

    Well, Austin says: "Sounds like some kind of money laundering operation if you ask me. Frivolous suits are a great way to move money around on balance sheets, especially when the money isn't yours."
    spamsdelicious@...
  • what the patent SHOULD have been

    the patent should have been a darned good explanation of the inner workings of Fig 1.120 because that's really the only element within the system which is directly under the patent holder's intellectual property. the system as a whole is far too general and i would go so far as to even call it "just an idea" and not something tangible worthy of patenting.

    compare: patenting the drive-through waterfall and then suing automatic carwash makers because they make machines which cause water to run over cars, cleaning them in the process.

    the bottom line is: SHOOT, you're both doing the same thing, but in a different way. play nice, now, and GET OVER IT
    spamsdelicious@...
  • Patent is much more detailed

    Russell just points out Figure 1 (an overview
    schematic), there are 5 drawings and much more detail
    describing this patent:

    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?
    Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FP
    TO%2Fsearch-
    bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6,8
    71,215.PN.&OS=PN/6,871,215&RS=PN/6,871,215
    mollusk3