Adobe Charged with Patent Infringement

In the filing, ITI alleges Adobe has infringed upon U.S. Patent Number 5,892,908, entitled, "Method of Extracting Network Information." ITI also is claiming that Adobe is infringing on this patent by the production and sale of its Acrobat product line.

Adobe's Acrobat products create documents in the Acrobat portable document format (PDF) that then may be edited within Acrobat Standard or Professional, and viewed with its free Acrobat Reader.

While Adobe representatives declined to comment to MacNewsWorld for this story, the company addressed its response in its 10-Q, writing: "Adobe has not yet been served with the complaint. We believe the action has no merit, and if served, will vigorously defend against it. We cannot estimate any possible loss at this time".

Hyperlinking at Issue

According to documents from the U.S. Patent Office, the patent in question covers the use of hyperlinking in documents on a network to access other sections or files without Internet access.

"Retrieved files are then further processed so that the hypertext links they contain can be made to point to other local files, rather than to files of the Internet. Any image maps in the retrieved files are converted so they will execute locally. In this manner the invention creates a bundle of content that can be executed locally, without the need for Internet connectivity," the inventors wrote in the patent application.

Michael Gartenberg, vice president and research director at Jupiter Research, told MacNewsWorld that ITI's suit provides another example of why patent reform is necessary in the technology sector, where vague and ambiguous patents have generated wasteful litigation.

"Offline hyperlinking and hypertext activities date back to the 1940s and President Roosevelt's science advisor Vannevar Bush, and following him Ted Nelson and the Xanadu project," Gartenberg said. "There is so much existing art predating this patent, that it seems irrelevant."

Patent Infringement Business Model

In an interview with MacNewsWorld, an intellectual property (IP) attorney in the software sector who wished to remain anonymous said there are companies and individuals whose business is solely buying patents and extracting licensing fees out of companies.

"Just Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) for Jerome Lemelson, who may have really pioneered this business model," the IP attorney said. "Not having looked at the case, I would not accuse this firm of doing so, but it does happens in the technology environment."

For his part, Gartenberg believes that to some degree, people need to consider the source of the lawsuit. He pointed out that Adobe is an industry heavyweight reporting profitable earnings, while the plaintiff, in contrast, is an unknown.

"You don't sue poor people and poor companies. However, it is hard to imagine Adobe not prevailing in this case," Gartenberg said.

At the same time, the IP attorney said that some analysis had to have been done in advance of this filing.

"Adobe has deep pockets and the resources to defend itself, so either the plaintiff has successfully tested this with other companies or they are pretty confident in the case," he said. "Just an analysis of a patent alone can cost tens of thousands of dollars."

Stunting Innovation

The worlds of IP and patent litigation often collide and are a double-edged sword, the attorney added, although he did note that his work with software companies leaves him somewhat sympathetic to the plight of those in litigation over patents.

"Sometimes patents can restrict innovation as severely as they can 'incentivize' it. Often the costs of even considering if licensing as an option can put a company out of business," he said.

"However, if a patent litigator were here, he or she would also say that if the case is fair and strong, they have a case -- pay to play," he went on to say.