The plaintiff RFID World Ltd, which was established in recent weeks by the inventor of the contested patent Ronald Bormaster, is seeking unspecified damages.
We have not even asked for an injunction, said lead prosecutor Edward Goldstein of Texan law firm Goldstein, Faucett & Prebeg LLP. It’s not my policy to ask for an injunction for a client who is not a competitor … who doesn’t have a product in the marketplace like this company.
Goldstein said RFID World was not after hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in the case. We plan to allow this technology to be used for a very modest licensing fee.
RFID World owns the US patent called Inventory Control System, which relates to a technology that may be used for inventory control or tracking RFID-tagged items.
It covers RFID collision avoidance technology that prevents signals from multiple RFID-tagged items from colliding, which can interfere with the accuracy of RFID tag reads.
The patented technique can be found in an RFID chip and the way in which the RFID reader reads the signals, Goldstein said. RFID World alleges the technology is currently being used in Wal-Mart’s inventory control system and infringes its patent.
Wal-Mart developed its own technology but we say it’s infringing our technology, Goldstein said. He noted that there was no element of intent in US patent-infringement law.
Wal-Mart has mandated that its vendors also use this technology in order to do business, he said. Wal-Mart suppliers Gillette, Michelin North America, Home Depot USA, Target and Pfizer Health Solutions have also been named in the suit.
A Wal-Mart spokesperson said the Arkansas-based retailer had been issued a summons, but was still studying the suit. And until we complete that process we can’t really comment, he said.
Goldstein said Wal-Mart and its suppliers were sent letters alerting them to the alleged infringement during the past six months, prior to the litigation and the creation of RFID World. He said they all responded but did not present us with any reason why our patent was invalid, Goldstein said.
They all claimed, for example, that they were not using the same collision avoidance technology, Goldstein said. Our research tells us otherwise. Goldstein also said his law firm had investigated the patent, filed by Bormaster in 1999, and believes it has merit.
Defendants are expected to next respond to the complaint, at which time they may ask for the case to be transferred to a different jurisdiction. If not, the early discovery and motion stages of the case would happen during the next two months.
