Bluetooth patent suit hits Nokia, Samsung and Panasonic

In a move that could spell heap big trouble for that "little wireless standard that could," aka Bluetooth, phone manufacturers Nokia, Samsung and Panasonic have just been sued for violating a patent that purports to underly the ubiquitous wireless standard. University of Washington scientist Edwin Suominen apparently obtained a patent in 1999 for a "simplified high-frequency broadband tuner and tuning method," which he now claims is infringed upon by the free Bluetooth standard developed by Ericsson and pals in the 90s. It seems like prior art would clear this right up, since the Bluetooth standard was set in 1998, but apparently chip manufacturer Broadcom thought there was enough weight to the claim to purchase a license to the dubiously patented technology. Other manufacturers might not be so "lucky," with Bluetooth device makers selling to the US market specifically at risk right now, but with a win in this lawsuit potentially putting the whole of the Bluetooth industry at risk of royalty payments on the heretofore free technology. We'll be keeping an eye on how this one goes down; Nokia says it's "currently studying the claims," while the actual chip manufacturer, CSR, which is unnamed in the suit since it doesn't sell its products directly, says that "The suit is without merit in relation to CSR's Bluetooth chips, and CSR will defend its products vigorously."

[Zeke Skylar @ Jan 3rd 2007 12:59PM]

Bluetooth is the worst "standard" of communication we have going. Just try to mate your cellphone with any car with a bluetooth interface. It all seems dependant on particular models of cell phones. What use is the standard then. Anything that causes bluetooth to die a quick death is OK with me.

[branko.milojic @ Jan 3rd 2007 1:23PM]

zeke,
I agree with you BT does not seem to be the easiest to use at first glance.
I do want to point out that it is not due to the standard which in itself is very well thought: Modular, fully open and free. we wish more would be like this.
in fact, it is a mere definition on the transport method.
the rest relies on "conduits" which are the equivalent of your drivers for HW in your computer.
now the interpretation of the standard itself by the manufacturers is where the point is: not all manufacturers want to implement all the "conduits", and each of them might even want to take over the market, by adding some personal touch, which would render his productunusable with other products that are not from the same brand.

however, if you want to avoid all the cable hassle, the pointing problems (ie: infrared), then stick to know brands, it will work just perfect.

after the first few moments of hassle, I got no problem to work a JABER headset with my PALM, then with my IMATE jas jar.
even with my PC (for listening to music). the caller ID works perfection.
on top of this, my PC, imate, PAM, as soon as they are in close distance, start synchronysing everything automatically (emails, docs...)
I exchange photos, IDcards, docs, without problem to any phone so far wihtout having beeen paired.

just give yourself 2 things, by brands who are known to follow the standards without change (sony is one case), nokia is doing better these days....
spend the few minutes to read the manual, you will then get it to work in no time

[Ben Mullinger @ Jan 3rd 2007 1:12PM]

I'm really fed up of reading about patent infringements in the USA. How can a company sit on a patent for so long then go "oh der yeah that like Bluetooth, I'll sue anyone who uses it in the last 10 years". There should be some life to these patents and claims, or companies who just file and then sit on them shouldnt be able to go after legitimate companies.

[glacia00 @ Jan 3rd 2007 1:47PM]

"It seems like prior art would clear this right up, since the Bluetooth standard was set in 1998" A standard for a protocol almost never tells someone how to implement that protocol in hardware. Therefore having a standard in place for years doesn't mean someone can't come along with a novel way of implementing the protocols and patent it. In fact it happens all the time.

There are innumerable products that follow standards and yet every company who produces a product that follows those standards will have patents on the product they produce. So unless you have very particular knowledge of what is being claimed, to refer to what's patented as dubious is just a demonstration of how uninformed you are of standards, the patent process and technology in general.

Also before the teeth-gnashing about lawsuits begin, no one wants to sue. What you want is to license your patent so no one jumps directly into a lawsuit. There is a requirement that the infringing party must have actual or constructive notice of the existence of the patent. So there are almost always several attempts to work things out before it comes to lawsuit. When people can't agree where else do you go?

[andy @ Jan 3rd 2007 2:03PM]

You're missing the obvious timeline problem too though.

patent issued in 1999 means that it was FILED before 1998. It takes 18mos for an app to be published. Then, you can easily exceed three years from filing in prosecution. It's likely that he filed the application in about 1996; two years before the bluetooth standard was published in 1998. So people developing the bluetooth standard could have looked at his patent when he wrote it.

btw, infringement is a gotcha business. If you are selling /making/importing a product that infringes a patent, the owner does NOT have to contact you except by subponea. It's just that it's much more beneficial for everyone to have a chat first because it can often be resolved with a relatively small amount of money, and if you don't, the courts will order mediation as soon as the case is reviewed anyway.

[scott @ Jan 3rd 2007 2:01PM]

How much experience do you have with the patent process? the patent was *issued* in 1999. It might have been filed many, many years earlier.

And this: "there was enough weight to the claim to purchase a license to the dubiously patented technology." Dubiously? Please share with us your reason for attaching such a label to the patent. Ugh. Has anyone else noticed that Engadget writers are rendering more and more unsubstantiated opinions for the sake of having a hip point-of-view?

[andy @ Jan 3rd 2007 2:05PM]

Yes, I have noticed the seriously misinformed legal analysis posted as of late.

I try, but it's hard to counteract published stupidity.

[glacia00 @ Jan 3rd 2007 2:29PM]

"Has anyone else noticed that Engadget writers are
rendering more and more unsubstantiated opinions for the sake of having a hip point-of-view?"

Yes. But sadly blogs are popularity contests and have nothing to do with accuracy. If it were just opinions about a product it might not be so bad. But there are so many errors in facts and logic that it just makes them look clueless about the subject.

[Matt @ Jan 3rd 2007 3:10PM]

A day doesn't go by without somebody saying somebody stole something, and then a patent lawsuit being slapped on their desks.

[Picky @ Jan 3rd 2007 4:21PM]

So it took him 8 years to realize that Bluetooth, a standard that has been in the works since at least 1998 (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth ), was somehow infringing on his patent?

Yeah, this doesn't scream, "I waited until you were so deep into the technology that you'll almost be forced to settle."

I wish people like this were thrown in prison--they're scum.

[Alex @ Jan 3rd 2007 7:56PM]

uhhh since when was bluetooth broadband??? his patent applies to a "simplified high-frequency broadband tuner and tuning method." Bluetooth is everything but broadband, so his patent shouldn't seem to apply. Although the term broadband can be used loosely, bluetooth bandwidths are comparable to dial-up internet.

[Jim @ Jan 3rd 2007 9:59PM]

Well, it's nice to see that some comment writers stop to think before posting, since the original post writer forgot to. Engadget should probably impose a ban on giving legal opinions, since they are almost universally wrong when they do. Especially with patents, which apparently are automatically "dubious" just because someone is suing.

So, to be specific... I looked at the actual patent, rather than just the news stories. Andy's guess is correct - the patent was originally filed in 1996. Since it hasn't been litigated yet, I can't say whether there is prior art to invalidate it, but I can say with certainty that Paul Miller doesn't know either.

Another point on patents. A patent's validity isn't based on it's title. The patent's claims are what matters. So Alex's point about whether Bluetooth is "broadband" doesn't matter. The actual claims refer to a combination of filters and circuits that perform some function, but don't use qualitative terms like broadband.

[efexor21 @ Jan 3rd 2007 10:21PM]

I don't think this is a big deal... the media are sure giving too much attention to it, the nokia media stock is up 15% today http://www.trendio.com/word.php?language=en&wordid=482