[xstreaminsanity]

Just read this (didn't look over the patent) but wanted to get everyone's opinion.

http://www.beckett.com/news/2011/07/texa...ringement/

[alberj24]

That's pretty interesting and I think that they may have a pretty good case.

[pacrimcollectibles]

The hard part will be proving that the defendants had any intent to deliberately harm the plaintiff. In the case of several of these companies they had their online portals in development or already live before the date the patent was issued. The others likely will argue that their online systems differ from the plaintiff's system or will claim their online entities are nothing more than a venue to advertise their products and not meant for user use. It will be interesting to see what becomes of this though. Some of these defendants don't seem like they would be able to survive a judgment against them.

[dodgytrousers]

As I understand it Wildcat is a company that exists solely to buy up patents and then troll the wording of the patents in an attempt to find companies that may be using similar technology and then sue them.

However there is nothing illegal about that. The 'electronic trading card' patent is pointed enough that on first glance they seem like they have enough of a case to get a trial. Wildcat's hope is that the companies settle, either with a lump some payment, ongoing royalties or both.

It does seem that the patent is very broad in scope and the patent could get thrown out for that reason alone, which would invalidate the suit. The best bet would be for all the named companies to join together and fight the patent as a group.

[kenarm79]

One thing I want to know is, what did the company do with the patent after they got it? If they can't show any attempt to do anything with it, then what was the companies true intent on getting it? If they want a jury to hear the trial, then wouldn't they take into consideration the motive?