The settlement with MPHJ is the first time the FTC has
taken action using its consumer protection authority against a patent assertion
entity (PAE). PAEs are companies that obtain patent rights and try to generate
revenue by licensing to or litigating against those who are or may be using
patented technology.
“Patents can promote innovation, but a patent is not a
license to engage in deception,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s
Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Small businesses and other consumers have the
right to expect truthful communications from those who market patent rights.”
According to the FTC’s administrative
complaint, MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, bought patents relating to
network computer scanning technology, and then told thousands of small
businesses that they were likely infringing the patents and should purchase a
license. In more than 9,000 letters sent under the names of numerous MPHJ
subsidiaries, the complaint alleges, MPHJ falsely represented that many other
companies had already agreed to pay thousands of dollars for licenses.
The administrative complaint also alleges that MPHJ’s law
firm, Farney Daniels, P.C., authorized letters on the firm’s letterhead that
were sent to more than 4,800 small businesses. These letters warned that the
firm would file a patent infringement lawsuit against the recipient if it did
not respond to the letter. The letters also referenced a two-week deadline and
attached a purported complaint for patent infringement, usually drafted for
filing in the federal court closest to the small business receiving the letter.
In reality, the complaint alleges, the senders had no intention—and did not
make preparations—to initiate lawsuits against the small businesses that did
not respond to their letters. No such lawsuits were ever filed.
In the proposed consent order, announced today for public
comment, MPHJ, Farney Daniels, and MPHJ’s owner, Jay Mac Rust, agree to refrain
from making certain deceptive representations when asserting patent rights,
such as false or unsubstantiated representations that a patent has been
licensed in substantial numbers or has been licensed at particular prices. The
proposed order also would prohibit misrepresentations that a lawsuit will be
initiated and about the imminence of such a lawsuit.
The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent order was
5-0.
The fall-out from the consent
order will be interesting to watch. According to the press release, a
penalty of up to $16,000 per letter can be assessed for future violations of
the law. The Agreement Containing Consent Order can be found, here. For additional commentary, see Bloomberg, here. (Hat tip to Bloomberg BNA).
No comments:
Post a Comment