• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

IBM wins $83 million in licensing battle against Groupon

1. August 2018

Rejected licensing agreements were the focus of years of dispute between IBM and Discount Portal Groupon. On Friday, Groupon was taken in front of a U. S. Court sentenced to high payment for patent infringement. The patent dispute also sheds new light on the old question: to whom does the Internet belong?

Groupon denied licensing agreement

e-commerceClaimant International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”) filed a patent infringement suit against Groupon, Inc. “(“Groupon”). IBM accused the defendant of having built its business model by using several IBM patents. Despite repeated attempts by IBM to negotiate, Groupon has refused to enter into licensing agreements with IBM.

Groupon operates local online retail marketplaces, which primarily offer discounts on goods and services via the website www.groupon.com and also use Groupon mobile applications to draw the attention of consumers to participating retailers.

License battle for patents in e-commerce

IBM alleged that Groupon infringed e-commerce patents previously licensed to other technology giants such as Amazon, Facebook, Google and Twitter. Groupon, in turn, argued that IBM overestimates the scope of protection covered by the disputed patents. Because at the heart of the debate are the basic building blocks of the World Wide Web.

In particular, the essential, permanent and fast connection between client and server in e-commerce is at stake. One of IBM’s contentious patents describes techniques for obtaining government information and a new method for recursively embedding status information in communication between clients and servers. This includes program modules that modify the hypertext – better known as HTML (Hypertext Markup Language, the text-based markup language for structuring).

In another contentious patent, IBM refers to the invention of so-called single sign-on technology, which is the basis for all authentication processes on user accounts on the Internet.

Licensing agreements can be the silver bullet

Since November 2011, IBM has claimed to have sought licensing agreements with the rapidly growing online marketplace operator Groupon, which it rejected. A similar lawsuit between IBM and The Priceline Group came to an end last year. IBM also filed a patent infringement suit against Priceline for the same four patents that IBM also refers to in the proceedings against Groupon. In the judgement of September 2017, IBM was partially victorious, but not on all patents. In December 2017, IBM finally announced that it had reached an agreement and a confidential settlement of the patent dispute between IBM and Priceline before the United States District Court for Delaware. Probably, the parties receive mutual patent licenses for the global patent portfolio of the respective company, using a patent cross-licensing modell.

The District Court of Delaware has now ruled on patent infringement and committed Groupon to pay $83 million to IBM. Considerations about the amount of the payment included the high development costs claimed by IBM on the one hand, but also the license revenues lost for years on the other. Whether this payment will ultimately be made remains to be seen. Because Groupon has already announced to consider an appeal.

Are you interested in patent protection and licensing agreements?

Please take your chance and contact us. Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

 

 

Sources:

Case 16-cv-00122-LPS: IBM versus Groupon

Picture:

salcapolupo / pixabay.com / CC0 License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconInternational Intellectual Property,  Licenses,  Patent Law Tag iconDelaware,  ecommerce,  Groupon,  IBM,  license revenues,  Licensing,  Licensing agreement,  Patent,  patent cross-licensing,  U. S. Court,  U. S. Court of Delaware

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: International Intellectual Property

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

28. January 2022
CFI: Intel rebate system – Intel successfull in legal dispute

CFI: Intel rebate system – Intel successfull in legal dispute

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.