Vonage Files Motion to Vacate and Remand U.S. District Court Decision in Light of U.S. Supreme Court's Landmark Patent Decision
Tuesday May 1, 4:12 pm ET
-- Verizon Patent Case Should be Retried Using High Court's New Standard for Obviousness --
HOLMDEL, N.J., May 1 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Vonage today asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C. to vacate and remand the U.S. District Court's decision finding Vonage infringed on certain Verizon technology. Vonage has asked the appeals court to send the decision back to the lower court to retry the case based on the new test for determining when an invention is too obvious to warrant patent protection. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously adopted this new test yesterday in the KSR v. Teleflex case.
Vonage praised the high court's decision, which held that the obviousness question should not be determined in a narrow, rigid manner that denies common knowledge, but rather should incorporate a more expansive and flexible approach that allows for consideration of common sense when assessing whether an invention is ordinary or obvious, and thus ineligible for patent protection. Vonage is confident this ruling should have a positive impact on its case. Vonage has consistently maintained it does not infringe on Verizon's technology, asserting in its brief today that the validity of Verizon's name translation ('574 and '711) and wireless ('880) patents should be retried by the U.S. District Court in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's April 30, 2007 decision.
"We are very encouraged by the Supreme Court's decision and the giant step it represents towards achieving much-needed patent reform in this country," said Jeffrey Citron, Vonage chairman and interim chief executive officer. "The Supreme Court's decision should have positive implications for Vonage and our pending patent litigation with Verizon. We are also hopeful that this case will protect legitimate innovators and the value of their inventions, unlock the innovation process, and provide that companies are better able to conduct business without the encumbrance of meritless patent claims."
Borrowing a theme it first began using as part of the "Free to Compete" national grassroots communications campaign launched last week, Vonage described the Supreme Court's decision in consumer-friendly terms.
"Everyone knows you can't patent an orange, but you can - and someone likely already does - hold the patent for an orange picker," said Sharon O'Leary, Vonage's executive vice president, chief legal officer and secretary. "According to the Supreme Court's ruling, if you patent an orange picker, and then someone else comes along and puts a glove on it to protect the oranges against bruising, you can't patent this new invention as "novel" as it is just an obvious improvement of the original invention. The Supreme Court's decision thus focuses on keeping only what's truly novel and original protected by patents. |
