This came in this morning, from John Lewis, PR Manager at Cognex Corp. We don’t normally cover company to company legal issues, but in this case, Cognex has a ferocious reputation as an anti-troll, having finally and completely driven a stake through the heart (yeah, mixed metaphor, I know) of the Lemelson patent organization last year. If Cognex says they are going after Acacia Research (a known patent troll), this should be interesting for both vendors and end users to watch. Popcorn, beer and hot dogs are available thataway at the end of the grandstand.
Any of your readers that are implementing 2D code reading in their
manufacturing operations may be interested to learn that Cognex has filed a
lawsuit intended to protect them from abusive patent trolling by Acacia
Research Corp. and Veritec Inc. The lawsuit was announced in a press
release distributed this morning over BusinessWire.
Acacia/Veritec are engaged in a patent licensing program involving 2D
symbology readinga technology used by Cognex products. Cognex is
seeking a declaratory judgment that none of its products or technologies
infringe on U.S. Patent 5,612,524. By obtaining a legal ruling of non-
infringement, Cognex customers will be able to buy and use Cognex products
without the threat of a lawsuit from Acacia/Veritec on this patent and
without having to pay licensing fee to them.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
John Lewis
Public Relations Manager
Cognex Corporation
phone: (508) 650-3140
email: john.lewis@cognex.com
http://www.cognex.com
COGNEX ACTS TO PROTECT CUSTOMERS FROM ABUSIVE PATENT TROLLING
Lawsuit Against Acacia Research Corporation and Veritec Seeks Declaration
of Invalidity, Unenforceability, and Non-Infringement of 2D Symbology Patent
NATICK, MA, March 20, 2006-Cognex Corporation (NASDAQ: CGNX), the
world’s leading supplier of machine vision systems, announced today that it
has served a complaint against Acacia Research Corporation and Veritec,
Inc. The complaint was filed in the United States District Court in Minnesota.
Cognex is seeking a declaration that U.S. Patent 5,612,524, which claims to
cover a system for reading 2D symbology, is invalid, unenforceable, and not
infringed by either Cognex or by any users of Cognex products. The patent
has not been asserted against Cognex, but, nevertheless, Cognex has taken
this action to protect its customers who have received demand letters.
“Cognex firmly believes in the right of inventors and patent holders to seek
licensing fees for legitimate, patented technology. But, we strongly object
when questionable patents are used to extort payments from companies that
do not have the expertise to challenge the patents, or who, for business
reasons, decide to submit to licensing demands rather than to undertake
costly legal challenges,” said Dr. Robert J. Shillman, Cognex’s Chairman and
CEO.
This patent was originally assigned to Veritec, a Minnesota-based developer
of symbology codes, and is now part of a patent licensing program being
carried out by Acacia Technologies Group. Acacia is a publicly-held company
whose sole purpose is to profit by asserting patents that it has either
purchased or to which it has obtained rights.
“The ‘524 patent infringement assertions being made by Acacia Research
Corporation and Veritec are completely without merit and are, in my view, a
form of legalized extortion,” continued Dr. Shillman. “It appears that Acacia
first estimates the defendant’s cost of mounting a legal defense, and then
agrees to settle the claim for less than that cost. Even if the defendants
believe the assertion is without merit, they nevertheless often choose the
less expensive, but distasteful, option of paying off these abusive patent
trolls. The tactics used by Acacia/Veritec are similar to those used by the
Lemelson Partnership in its infamous licensing campaign that successfully
wrung over $1.5 billion dollars in settlements from ethical companies around
the world. That campaign was ended when Cognex defended its customers,
sued Lemelson and won on all counts.”
Dr. Shillman concluded, “Cognex will continue to challenge any patent that
interferes with the legitimate rights of our customers to freely use our
products. And, because this particular battle is far less complex than the one
we won against Lemelson, we are confident that the courts will, once again,
rule in Cognex’s favor.”