{mosimage}Santa Cruz, Calif., — In its latest bombardments of lawsuits against various and sundry operators of “automated and network-automated databases,” Santa Cruz, Calif.-based GraphOn Corp.; is now dragging Google into court on allegations of patent infringement.
Google, once again has become the center of attraction in a patent infringement lawsuit. On Monday GraphOn Corp., a developer of server-based application publishing and Web-enabling software solutions, today said it has filed a lawsuit alleging that Google Inc.’s Base, AdWords, Sites and YouTube services infringe on four of the GraphOn patents, in U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas.“This district is famous for its specialized regulations for patent-infringement cases and judges are well versed in patent law.”
The company, with its headquartered in Santa Cruz, California, and having an experience of more than a decade in providing “cost-effective, advanced solutions that help customers’ access applications from anywhere.”
The suit filed in federal court in Texas, asserts that the Google products violate on patents that protect GraphOn’s “unique method of maintaining an automated and network-accessible database,” according to a statement from Santa Cruz, Calif.-based GraphOn Corp.
According to GraphOn, four different patents have been mentioned, and these “protect GraphOn’s unique method of maintaining an automated and network-accessible database,” according to the company. The suit alleges that Google is responsible for infringing U.S. Patent Nos. 6,324,538, 6,850,940, 7,028,034 and 7,269,591. The company seeks permanent injunctive relief along with unspecified damages.
“Aggressively defending the technology described in these patent is an important part of maximizing their value to GraphOn,” Robert Dilworth, GraphOn’s chief executive officer, said in a statement.
GraphOn acquired two of the patents and the applications that resulted in the other two patents as part of its purchase of Networking Engineering Software Inc. (NES) in February 2005, the company said.
“The number of patents now owned by GraphOn as a result of the NES acquisition has increased to 23, a number that is expected to continue to increase as patent applications on file at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office mature into issued patents,” Dilworth said.
However, GraphOn is clearly not a patent angel, but has a history of filing suits against companies it believes are infringing on its patents, and the lawsuit against Google is not its only attempt to protect its patents.
GraphOn has already filed a large number of copyright infringement lawsuits, beginning with AutoTrader.com Inc. in November 2005, for allegedly infringing on two of the patents outlined in the Google lawsuit. In January 2008 GraphOn announced a license agreement and the end of its legal dispute with AutoTrader.com.
GraphOn also filed a lawsuit against Juniper Networks Inc. in August 2007, the lawsuit claimed infringement of patents that protect network security and firewall technologies.
GraphOn’s lawsuits are springing up more regular. Also in March, GraphOn filed lawsuits against Classified Ventures, IAC/InterActiveCorp, Match.com, Yahoo, eHarmony.com and CareerBuilder alleging infringement on the same patents cited in its lawsuit against Google.
As we can see, GraphOn is very protective when it comes to its patents, and is set on enforcing those patents; no matter how deep its opponents’ pockets are, as evidenced by the suits against Google, Yahoo and CareerBuilder, in which Microsoft is a partner, and the aspect that we all expect to see now is what “unspecified damages” will mean for Google.
These patents are currently the basis for a motion to render them unenforceable through inequitable conduct before the patent office in the Classified Ventures litigation, said Joe Englander, a patent and copyright lawyer with Shutts & Bowen in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
“According to the motion, GraphOn failed to tell the USPTO all relevant information to the patent examiner, as required,” Englander said. “If the patents are rendered unenforceable in the Classified Ventures case, the patent-infringement claims in the Google case would be rendered moot.”
Besides, some critics though, are suggesting that the GraphOn patents are exceedingly broad. The ‘538 patent, for example, covers such operations as “providing an HTML front-end entry process associated with the Web server;” creating a personal homepage for an owner; and “providing a Web server coupled to a computer network having a database operatively disposed within and accessible on [a] network.”
Nevertheless, the fact that Google’s lawyers have a pretty good track record and the patent suit looks even less serious. Let us keep watching to see what happens, as strange rulings have been known to occur and appeals are almost inevitable.
Publicly-traded GraphOn reported $2.7 million in sales for the six-month period ended June 30, up from $2.4 million in the year-ago period.