Hacker News Reader

Kaspersky won on noninfringement grounds, but they structured their noninfringement argument in a very elegant and powerful way that essentially renders the patent-in-suit toothless while still technically valid.

Can you expound upon this point a bit? Does that mean that they were able to argue for a favorable claim construction, or was it something else?

View on HN

I didn't look at the claim construction order so I don't know if anything particularly remarkable happened at that stage, but based solely on the SJ order, it looks like they did get a very favorable construction in light of Ricoh v. Quantas. They were able to get all of the claims construed in such a way that their own behavior wasn't covered.

This then allowed them to deploy a very elegant (IMO) "fork" tactic. Having established, in light of the the claims and the Ricoh case, that they couldn't possibly be direct infringers, they were also able to make winning arguments based on an RPX license (unfortunately redacted) that established that none of their users could possibly be infringers.

So they were able to cement all of the legal bricks together into a solid wall that completely closed off any path to victory the Troll could have taken.

Really wish I could see the redacted language from the license agreements.

Interesting. Really wish we could see those licenses.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com