BreezyPrint was accused by the OEM of infringing cloud printing patents, but won the case in the USA.
Legal News Line reported on the culmination of the IP case between third-party mobile printing company BreezyPrint and Samsung’s subsidiary PrinterOn, which took place at the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The case had been based on PrinterOn’s accusation that BreezyPrint had infringed four of its patents relating to cloud printing, with BreezyPrint’s lawyer Alan Laquer interviewed about the case.
The case concluded earlier this month when Judge Lee Rosenthal granted summary judgement to BreezyPrint, stating that the company’s cloud printing system for mobile devices “does not infringe any of the claimed patents”. The four patents date back to 2000, and Rosenthal noted that “they were created not for the cloud technology […] but rather for ‘antiquated technology’”, with Laquer helping by using his “expertise as a software programmer to build a focused, cost-effective case”.
Laquer explained to the court “very early on” that BreezyPrint’s technology was “fundamentally different”, as it “doesn’t require a print driver […] you just upload a file and it gets translated in the ‘cloud’”. The free app from BreezyPrint allows users to “print any file type from any device from any desired printer”, and Laquer added that “we knew as soon as [the lawsuit] was filed [that] the technology was fundamentally different. So we focused on bringing that to the court’s attention”.
The company “provided very early discovery” and “didn’t resist”, giving PrinterOn “everything they needed to see”, including how BreezyPrint’s app worked. In turn, he recommends that smaller companies “don’t roll over” and should “pick [their] battles” in such circumstances, and should “focus in on the critical weaknesses of the other side’s argument”.
Other advice he gives smaller companies is to “perform a cost-benefit analysis on all of the disputes that could come up I also think it’s helpful to select defence counsel that has a firm understanding of both the law and the development technology in the case”. This can save money, and allow smaller companies to “kind of avoid that learning curve expense.
“Patent litigation can be very complex and it can take a long time, so it can become very expensive – but especially if you’re a company in BreezyPrint’s position, where you have a larger company suing you. That can really present a challenge”. He also mentioned that he hopes the case can highlight the ‘patent troll’ issue, which The Recycler has previously covered, noting that he thinks “there are definitely issues that need to be addressed, but I think some people are taking too extreme of an approach”.