Google receives a royalty payment order of 6.5% and 6.5% with AdWords patent infringement

By401 (K) 2012

In a patent lawsuit on Google's advertisement display that Google had contested with a company called Vringo (Bringo), the District Court judge recognized Vringo's assertion that "Google is infringing a patent" and 6.5% of Google AdWords revenue as patent royalty I ordered a ruling. This amount is expected to be equivalent to 200 million dollars (about 20 billion yen), and Google's lawyers will appeal.

Case 2: 11 - cv - 00512 - RAJ - TEM Document 1086
(PDF file)

Case 2: 11 - cv - 00512 - RAJ - TEM Document 1088
(PDF file)

Court: Google infringed patents, must pay 1.36 percent of AdWords revenue | Ars Technica

The trialAOL, IAC search & media (,Ganette,target, And was raised in September 2011 against Google.

The patent claiming that "each company is infringing" is related to the search originally developed by Carnegie Mellon University. It was owned by the search engine Lycos, but a company named I / P bought it from Lycos, and after that, Vringo acquired I / P as a subsidiary, it became owned by Vringo. The content of the patent is "It is a part related to monetization" to pick out the most suitable one for users from among a lot of advertisements.

In September 2012, the court acknowledged the plaintiffs' allegation, gave Google 15.8 million dollars (roughly 1.6 billion yen) royalty of 3.5%, AOL $ 7,940,000 I ordered & media $ 6.65 million (about 680 million yen), Ganetto $ 4322 dollars (about 440,000 yen) and target $ 90,833 dollars (about 10.1 million yen) respectively.

AOL and others chose a settlement at this stage, but Google continued the trial. Although this ruling came out this week, the court once again admitted the plaintiffs' side's claim and ruled that the proportion of paying as royalties was increased to 6.5%. According to Ars Technica's estimate, this amount is expected to be in the range of 200 million dollars (about 20 billion yen) to 25 million dollars (about 25.5 billion yen), which is equivalent to 1.36% from the viewpoint of Google's total revenue It is.

Judge Raymond Jackson who sent the ruling decided that once royalty payment increased from 3.5%, it was 4.6% once, but Vringo said that "Google intentionally infringes the patent", a 40% increase Since there was an assertion and thought that this was reasonable, it was finally set as 6.5% as "6.44%" which increased "4.6%" by 40%. The reason for accepting Vringo 's argument is that Google continued torts by leaving the patent infringement part intact, even though the system of AdWords was renewed, and did not take remedial measures.

This time, Becker who was on the Vringo side as expert on damages said that AdWords came to refer to LTV (Long (Life) -Term Value: Total Value) to select advertisements as an update point However, when finally indicating which advertisement to displayCTRI pointed out that the point to refer to has not changed. By the way, Mr. Becker lost the request to Google for payment of 64 million dollars (about 6.5 billion yen) to 128 million dollars (about 13.1 billion yen) in the trial of Bright Response LLC and Google in 2010. In 2013, I participated in a trial between another company and won the suit.

Apart from this, Vringo sued Microsoft as "Bing is infringing the patent" and settled in May 2013 with payment of 1 million dollars (about 100 million yen). According to the financial statements, "We are concentrating on asserting this patent", we also own a large number of patents relating to incoming melodies and incoming movies, raising profits with patent royaltiesPatent · Troll(So-calledGoro patent) It is considered to be. Vringo's lawyer denies "not patent / troll".

The ruling like this time is the best thing that Patent Troll dreams of "being able to continue to receive payment". It is a countermeasure against patent / trollSHIELD billAs it moves, Google'sFederal Circuit CourtI'm wondering what the appeal to the end will be.

in Note, Posted by logc_nt