AirTight reckons AirDefense is spreading FUD about the strength of its approved and forthcoming patents, and is set to offer some strongly worded documents challenging its competitor’s claims.
AirDefense said Thursday that it has been told by the US Patent and Trademark Office that its third WiFi security patent has been allowed, and that it covers core technology fundamental to all wireless intrusion detection and prevention solutions.
The first three AirDefense patents allowed by the USPTO comprehensively cover wireless intrusion protection, AirDefense’s chief technology office Amit Sinha said in a statement.
AirTight’s vice president of marketing Dennis Tsu said this claim is fundamentally false. He said: Because AirDefense continues to bring a lot of crap into the debate, we’ll be coming out with a paper to clarify the situation a little bit.
AirDefense said last week it has been told its Systems and methods for network security patent application has been allowed, meaning it’s in the final formalities of PTO approval. The company says the patent covers a system for detecting and blocking attacks over WiFi networks.
Tsu said that the patent, far from being broad, refers to a number of specific IPS techniques, and if you don’t use those techniques, you don’t infringe the patent. He claims the patent will be of no commercial value.
The dispute kicked off about a month ago, when AirTight was granted its first US patent on wireless security and AirDefense immediately filed an interference action with the PTO, attempting to have it reexamined and overturned.
Sinha told us at the time that the AirTight patent was quick and dirty, and would not be enforceable against another other WiFi intrusion prevention players, a charge AirTight denies. He continued along those lines in his statement Thursday.
AirDefense opted early on to patent the broadest scope of its intellectual property rather than rush to achieve the faster issuance of more narrow patents, he said, in what could only be interpreted as a reference to AirTight, which had fast-tracked its patent application.
Neither company has approached the other about licenses. There are no threats of lawsuits. Right now, it appears to be mainly just a sales and marketing dispute, focused largely on how patent portfolios are being marketed.
