Demand Letter Documents
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ars Technica Web Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Example Demand Letter from Ars Technica Web Page
`
`
`
`
`
`Vermont Attorney General Consumer Protection Complaint
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. A: Example Demand Letter
`
`
`
`Ex. B: Example Letter Threatening Suit
`
`Ex. C: Draft Complaint (sent with Ex. B)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`9
`
`14
`
`25
`
`30
`
`31
`
`HP 1016
`
`1
`
`

`

`Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners | Ars Technica
`
`Main Menu ź My Stories: 25 ź
`
`Forums
`
`Subscribe
`
`Video
`
`Search
`
`Log In
`
`LAW & DISORDER / CIVILIZATION &
`DISCONTENTS
`Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners
`An alphabet soup of patent trolls is threatening end users with lawsuits.
`
`by Joe Mullin - Jan 2 2013, 6:30am PST
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWSUITS STARTUPS 240
`
`TOP FEATURE STORY
`
`FEATURE STORY (3 PAGES)
`Surprise! Mozilla can produce
`near-native performance on
`the Web
`We put Mozilla's JavaScript subset—asm.js—to
`the test.
`
`WATCH ARS VIDEO
`
`Video: Watch us flail in front
`of the Xbox One’s new Kinect
`See the depth-sensing camera that will be
`hooked up to every new system.
`
`STAY IN THE KNOW WITH
`
`LATEST NEWS
`
`Offering rewards boosts blood
`donations despite ban on payments
`
`Taking politics into account helps
`
`Aurich Lawson / Thinkstock
`
`When Steven Vicinanza got a letter in the mail earlier this year informing him that he needed to pay
`$1,000 per employee for a license to some “distributed computer architecture” patents, he didn’t quite
`believe it at first. The letter seemed to be saying anyone using a modern office scanner to scan
`documents to e-mail would have to pay—which is to say, just about any business, period.
`
`If he'd paid up, the IT services provider that Vicinanza founded, BlueWave Computing, would have
`owed $130,000.
`
`Patent troll that wants $1,000 per worker gets
`sued by Vermont A-G | Small state's action is the first
`government lawsuit against a patent troll.
`
`The letters, he soon found out, were indeed real and quite
`serious—he wasn't the only person getting them. BlueWave
`works mostly with small and mid-sized businesses in the
`Atlanta area, and before long, several of his own customers
`were contacting him about letters they had received from
`the same mysterious entity: "Project Paperless LLC."
`
`"I was just mad," he said.
`
`FURTHER READING
`
`Meet the nice-guy lawyers who want
`$1,000 per worker for using scanners |
`"It's not some kind of bull. We're not
`trying to harass people."
`
`Vicinanza soon got in touch with the attorney representing Project Paperless: Steven Hill, a partner at
`Hill, Kertscher & Wharton, an Atlanta law firm.
`
`2
`
`http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/[5/24/2013 9:41:37 AM]
`
`

`

`Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners | Ars Technica
`
`"[Hill] was very cordial and very nice," he told Ars. "He said, if you hook up a scanner and e-mail a
`PDF document—we have a patent that covers that as a process."
`
`It didn’t seem credible that Hill was demanding money for just using basic office equipment exactly
`the way it was intended to be used. So Vicinanza clarified:
`
`"So you're claiming anyone on a network with a scanner owes you a license?" asked Vicinanza. "He
`said, 'Yes, that's correct.' And at that point, I just lost it."
`
`Vicinanza made the unusual choice to fight back against Hill and “Project Paperless”—and actually
`ended up with a pretty resounding victory. But the Project Paperless patents haven’t gone away.
`Instead, they’ve been passed on to a network of at least eight different shell companies with six-letter
`names like AdzPro, GosNel, and FasLan. Those entities are now sending out hundreds, if not
`thousands, of copies of the same demand letter to small businesses from New Hampshire to
`Minnesota. (For simplicity, I'll just refer to one of those entities, AdzPro.)
`
`Ars has acquired several copies of the AdzPro demand letter; the only variations are the six-letter
`name of the shell company and the royalty demands, which range from $900 to $1,200 per employee.
`One such letter, in which AllLed demands $900 per worker, is published below. The name of the
`target company has been redacted. Sources that provided the letters are concerned that speaking on
`the record about their case could result in additional attention or threats from the patent owners.
`
`Led Letter.final.redacted
`
`craft effective recycling message
`
`LIFE-SAVING PRINT JOB
`Doctors save baby’s life with 3D-printed
`tracheal implant
`
`YOUR XBOX IS SAFE
`Motorola loses ITC patent case, can’t ban
`Microsoft’s Xbox
`
`How the Xbox One draws more
`processing power from cloud
`computing
`
`XZIBIT APPROVED
`Yo dawg, we heard you like Start buttons,
`so we put one on your mouse
`
`Law Office of Paul Lozada
`www.criminaldefensesantarosa.com
`Criminal Defense Reasonable Rates
`
`Legal Document
`Management
`smartcollabs.com
`Legal document management solutions
`for law firms and corporate legal
`Auto Attorney California
`www.MichaelSilvers.com
`33 Years Specializing In California W/
`98.6% Success Rate! 24 Locations
`
`SHOW ME MORE LIKE LED LETTER.FINAL.REDACTED
`
`Download
`
`Share
`
`Embed
`
`of 5
`
`Vicinanza’s experience puts him at the heart of a type of "patent trolling" that has taken off in the past
`year. The Project Paperless via AdzPro letter-writing campaign is a kind of lowest-common-
`denominator patent demand. Patent-licensing companies are going after the users of everyday
`technology rather than their traditional targets, the tech companies that actually make technology.
`This year, more than ever, trolls have moved beyond tech in a big way.
`
`Smaller and smaller companies are being targeted. In a paper on “Startups and Patent Trolls,” Prof.
`Colleen Chien of Santa Clara University found that 55 percent of defendants to patent troll suits are
`small, with less than $10 million in annual revenue. Even in the tech sector, a full 40 percent of the
`3
`
`http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/[5/24/2013 9:41:37 AM]
`
`

`

`Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners | Ars Technica
`
`time, respondents to patent threats are being sued over technology that they use (like scanners or
`Wi-Fi) rather than their own technology.
`
`Project Paperless and its progeny don’t have any interest in going after the Canons and the Xeroxes
`of the world. After all, they have patent lawyers on payroll already and are in a far better position to
`push back. Rather, Hill wanted to collect royalties from BlueWave and its customers.
`
`Project Paperless' spawn—AdzPro, AllLed, GosNel, and the others listed above—exemplify the new
`strategy. They send out vast quantities of letters, mainly to businesses that never could have
`imagined they’d be involved in any kind of patent dispute. They send them from anonymous and
`ever-changing shell companies. And at the end of the day, they either file only a few lawsuits—as
`Project Paperless did—or none at all, which has been the AdzPro strategy thus far.
`
`“Going after the end users may ultimately be more lucrative for them,” said one patent litigator at a
`technology company that's closely monitoring the AdzPro situation. “If they extract a small amount
`from each possible end user, the total amount might well end up being a much larger sum than they
`could ever get from the manufacturers. The ultimate pot of gold could end up being much bigger."
`
`"Atlanta's Best Workplaces" become a lot less fun
`
`As a services provider to other businesses—who often sold
`scanners as part of his package—Vicinanza was well-positioned
`to get some sense of the scope of the Project Paperless
`campaign. He personally had conversations with about a dozen
`recipients of the letters and he suspects that about 50 to 100
`companies in the Atlanta area received a letter. Another batch
`was sent out in Virginia.
`
`Vicinanza noticed a few of his customers who had been
`threatened had been on the “Atlanta’s Best Workplaces” list
`published annually by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The “best
`workplaces” list included the number of employees each
`business had, which would have been useful to Project
`Paperless lawyers in calculating their demands. These were
`always on a per-employee basis.
`
`Steve Vicinanza.
`
`Working backward off the “best workplaces” list, Vicinanza was able to get in touch with several other
`Project Paperless targets, suggesting that Project Paperless lawyers were indeed targeting
`companies based on the list.
`
`Reactions to the letters varied. “Without question, some people were livid,” said Vicinanza. “Some of
`the smaller ones were scared out of their wits, in addition to being livid.”
`
`Some were ready to fight back, while others had no intention of doing so. One mid-sized Atlanta
`business in the process of being acquired by a major Silicon Valley tech company paid the Project
`Paperless demand, no questions asked. Some companies just ignored the letters; others talked to an
`attorney. It isn’t clear the companies that did speak to their lawyers about the situation actually fared
`better.
`
`“The patent attorneys typically have a whole different set of objectives,” said Vicinanza. “Now they’re
`in settlement mode. If the company does end up getting sued and the lawyer said ‘ignore them,’ a
`company could find themselves paying treble damages. Even my attorneys told me, settle it, you’re
`crazy to fight.”
`
`But that wasn’t Vicinanza’s style. “I’m an IT guy, so I read the patent—and I was just appalled that
`this could even be called a patent.”
`
`Project Paperless has four patents and one patent application it asserts, all linked to an inventor
`named Laurence C. Klein. “It was a lot of what I’d call gobbledygook,” said Vicinanza. “Just jargon
`and terms strung together—it’s really literally nonsensical.”
`
`Readers wishing to judge for themselves can take a look at the asserted patents, numbers 6,185,590,
`6,771,381, 7,477,410 and 7,986,426. AdzPro also notes it has an additional patent application filed in
`July 2011 that hasn’t yet resulted in a patent. The patents may have been useless from a
`technologist’s perspective, but fighting them off in court would be no small matter.
`4
`
`http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/[5/24/2013 9:41:37 AM]
`
`

`

`Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners | Ars Technica
`
`“My lawyer said, even if you win, this case will cost a million dollars. I said, I don’t think it will—but I’d
`rather pay a million than pay these guys $200,000.”
`
`In 15 years of being in business, BlueWave had never been involved in a lawsuit of any kind. “This
`sort of thing is detrimental to the whole industry,” said Vicinanza. “If everybody just rolls over, that just
`encourages them [patent trolls] to keep going.”
`
`In March, the ball dropped and Project Paperless’ threats against BlueWave turned into an actual
`lawsuit. As he promised, Vicinanza didn’t settle. Instead, he spent $5,000 on a prior art search and
`sent the results to the Project Paperless lawyers. He also hired a new lawyer, Ann Fort, who filed a
`third-party complaint against four of the companies that actually made the scanners—Xerox, Canon,
`Hewlett-Packard, and Brother. That could have compelled the manufacturers to get involved in the
`case.
`
`In the end, Hill and his fellow lawyers at his small Atlanta firm, Hill, Kertscher and Wharton, didn’t
`have a lot of fight in them. Two weeks after he filed the third-party complaint, Project Paperless
`dropped its lawsuit. No settlement, no deal—they just went away. (As a result, the scanner makers
`never actually came to court.)
`
`When Project Paperless dropped its suit, that was the end for Vicinanza and Blue Wave. But
`Vicinanza was proud of standing up. He put out a press release describing his saga as a “small
`victory in the war against patent abuse.”
`
`BlueWave’s win was hardly the end of the Project Paperless patents, however. Today, those patents
`are at the heart of an even more expansive campaign to get cash out of America’s small businesses
`for using everyday office equipment.
`
`Steven Hill wouldn't comment on Project Paperless, saying only that his firm declined to discuss what
`was a “client matter.” Hill also refused to comment on the new entities sending out AdzPro letters
`today, or any links he and his partners have to those companies.
`
`PAGE: 1 2 NEXT ĺ
`
`READER COMMENTS 240
`
`3.1k
`
`Like
`
`679
`
`1,851
`
`Tweet
`
`236
`
`3
`
`Joe Mullin / Joe Mullin has covered the intersection of law and technology — including the world's biggest
`copyright and patent battles — for a number of years, mostly at The American Lawyer.
`Follow @joemulli
`
`ĸ OLDER STORY
`YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
`
`NEWER STORY ĺ
`
`Patent troll that wants
`$1,000 per worker gets
`sued by Vermont A-G
`
`Newegg nukes
`“corporate troll”
`Alcatel in third patent
`appeal win this year
`
`On key software
`decision, top patent
`court grinds to a
`stalemate
`
`5
`
`http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/[5/24/2013 9:41:37 AM]
`
`

`

`Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners | Ars Technica
`
`Main Menu
`
`ź
`
`My Stories: 0
`
`ź
`
`Forums
`
`Subscribe
`
`Video
`
`Search
`
`LAW & DISORDER / CIVILIZATION &
`DISCONTENTS
`Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners
`An alphabet soup of patent trolls is threatening end users with lawsuits.
`
`Log In
`
`by Joe Mullin - Jan 2 2013, 6:30am PST
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAWSUITS STARTUPS 240
`
`TOP FEATURE STORY
`
`FEATURE STORY (3 PAGES)
`Surprise! Mozilla can produce
`near-native performance on
`the Web
`We put Mozilla's JavaScript subset—asm.js—to
`the test.
`
`WATCH ARS VIDEO
`
`Aurich Lawson
`
`Project Paperless is dead—Long live AdzPro! And GosNel and FasLan!
`
`BlueWave was the company that went most public in its fight against Project Paperless, but Vicinanza
`was hardly the only business owner upset about the situation. An anonymous defendant put up a
`detailed website called “Stop Project Paperless,” with information about the patents—and their links to
`the Hill, Kertscher and Wharton law firm.
`
`The document trail suggests that partners at that law firm, including name partners Steven Hill and
`Scott Kertscher, may have ownership interests in the patent-trolling project through a network of other
`shell companies with names like Bonita Sunrise LLC and PCB Intellectual Properties.
`
`Even now, months after its creation, a Google
`search for “Hill Kertscher Wharton” brings up the
`“Stop Project Paperless” site as the second link;
`the site encourages searchers to consider “ending
`patent trolling.” The site is registered
`anonymously; an interview request sent by Ars
`through the site’s contact form received no
`response.
`
`http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/2/[5/24/2013 9:43:35 AM]
`
`6
`
`Video: Watch us flail in front
`of the Xbox One’s new Kinect
`See the depth-sensing camera that will be
`hooked up to every new system.
`
`STAY IN THE KNOW WITH
`
`LATEST NEWS
`
`Offering rewards boosts blood
`donations despite ban on payments
`
`Taking politics into account helps
`
`

`

`Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners | Ars Technica
`
`By August, Project Paperless wrapped up its
`lawsuits against BlueWave and several other
`defendants as well. In September, the company
`unloaded its patents to a newly created holding
`company called MPHJ Technologies. It underwent a dramatic transformation.
`
`Today, no less than eight different licensing companies now send out a nearly identical letter
`demanding payments over the same patents once owned by Project Paperless.
`
`The goal, in part, seems to be keeping the owners of the new project anonymous. The document trail
`is murkier, since it isn’t clear who owns MPHJ Holdings. MPHJ is registered as a Delaware company
`and does not have to disclose any officers or owners. However, it is possible that at least Steven Hill
`and Scott Wharton have some kind of ongoing connection to the new entities. It was Hill and Wharton
`who moved the patents from their personal shell companies, Bonita Sunrise and Wexford Holdings,
`into MPHJ.
`
`Another aim may be to simply make it harder for target companies to find the “Stop Project Paperless”
`website that condemns the project, invites business owners to get in contact, and links the patent-
`trolling project to Hill, Kertscher, and Wharton. Searching for "AdzPro" or "GosNel" doesn't produce
`much.
`
`Still, the links can’t totally be eliminated. Those searching for the patent numbers will tend to find
`BlueWave's lawsuit, leading to Steven Vicinanza’s press release. In fact, Vicinanza’s attorney, Ann
`Fort, has become something of a clearing house for information about the new project.
`
`Through interviews with Fort, independent contact from target companies, and searches at the
`Delaware Secretary of State, Ars has learned the patent threats are going out under at least ten
`differently named LLCs. Those entities are named AccNum, AllLed, AdzPro, CalNeb, ChaPac,
`FanPar, FasLan, FulNer, GosNel, and HunLos.
`
`All the entities send out a letter identical to the one embedded above, with slightly varying licensing
`costs. AllLed asks for a $900 per employee payment, for example, while AccNum demands $1,200.
`
`The maze of new entities “makes it difficult for the defense community to share information,” said Fort.
`But beyond the gibberish company names, the tactics appear to be extremely similar to those of
`Project Paperless: go after small companies least able to pay for legal defense.
`
`“None of these are businesses I would recognize as nationwide—they are regional, at best,” said
`Fort, who has been contacted by many since her win on behalf of BlueWave.
`
`At least some of the companies receiving an AdzPro threat letter also receive follow-up contact from
`Meaghan Whitehead, an attorney at Texas law firm Farney Daniels. Whitehead didn't respond to
`inquires from Ars.
`
`The AdzPro threat: "Conform your behavior" and pay up
`
`The AdzPro letter itself is like a bizarre five-page missive from an alternate dimension. It suggests a
`world in which business owners are happily forking over their money in order to “accept the benefits”
`of the patented technology.
`
`In this brave new world, any office that has a network with a scanner that connects to computers with
`e-mail software, like Outlook or Lotus, is an office that should be paying for AdzPro’s patents.
`
`The letter continues:
`
`You should know also that we have had a positive response from the business community to
`7
`
`http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/2/[5/24/2013 9:43:35 AM]
`
`craft effective recycling message
`
`LIFE-SAVING PRINT JOB
`Doctors save baby’s life with 3D-printed
`tracheal implant
`
`YOUR XBOX IS SAFE
`Motorola loses ITC patent case, can’t ban
`Microsoft’s Xbox
`
`How the Xbox One draws more
`processing power from cloud
`computing
`
`XZIBIT APPROVED
`Yo dawg, we heard you like Start buttons,
`so we put one on your mouse
`
`Upgrade to Windows® 8
`Windows.microsoft.com
`Get a Fast & Fluid New Start. Download
`Now & Upgrade Your PC!
`
`Law Office of Paul Lozada
`www.criminaldefensesantarosa.com
`Criminal Defense Reasonable Rates
`
`Form an LLC in 3 Steps
`www.LegalZoom.com/LLC
`Form a Limited Liability Company.
`Featured by Forbes & Entrepreneur.
`
`

`

`Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners | Ars Technica
`
`our licensing program. As you can imagine, most businesses, upon being informed that they
`are infringing someone’s patent rights, are interested in operating lawfully and taking a license
`promptly. Many companies have responded to this licensing program in such a manner. Their
`doing so has allowed us to determine that a fair price for a license negotiated in good faith and
`without the need for court action is a payment of $900 per employee. We trust that your
`organization will agree to conform your behavior to respect our patent rights by negotiating a
`license rather than continuing to accept the benefits of our patented technology without a
`license. Assuming this is the case, we are prepared to make this pricing available to you.
`
`The AdzPro demands fly in the face of the real history of innovation in this space. The earliest patent
`of that bunch was filed in 1997. Modern scanners have existed since the 1980s, and e-mail was
`widespread by the mid-1990s. The Stop Project Paperless site easily found a Ricoh patent that
`suggests merging the two technologies and was filed in 1996, predating the earliest Klein patent by a
`year.
`
`None of that changes the fact that actually neutralizing the Klein patents would be a very costly legal
`endeavor. Confronted with prior art, the owner of the patents would likely dodge by saying his patents
`actually cover a very specific kind of network not anticipated by earlier patents or other publications.
`That’s what makes killing off patents so hard.
`
`It’s a lopsided system. When confronted with prior art in court, patent owners can insist on the
`narrowness of their patented technology. Yet when they’re sending out demand letters, they can
`claim a vast array of everyday business practices is their “property.”
`
`One big difference between the AdzPro network and Project Paperless is that the new entities haven’t
`filed any lawsuits, at least not so far. The plan may be to never file suit, but rather to see how many
`businesses are intimidated into paying up by letters and e-mails alone.
`
`As problematic as that practice is, it may be a foolproof way for patent owners to score settlements
`with relatively little effort. “I think this model is something that’s going to recur,” noted Fort.
`
`"This is Legal Department. That's all we can say."
`
`The same address and contact phone number is on every variation of the six-letter entities. The
`address is just a mailbox in a UPS store in Newark, Delaware. As for the phone number on the
`letters, 855-744-2360—I called it. The conversation was not enlightening.
`
`“Thank you for calling the legal department,” said a youngish-sounding man. “This is Kevin, how can I
`help you?”
`
`I was calling about a letter I was holding from AllLed, I explained. Kevin asked for my letter’s “file
`number,” which was the one thing I couldn’t give him—it would have revealed the source from whom I
`had received the letter. I told Kevin I was a writer who had been given the letter by someone else. All
`I wanted to do was contact AllLed, LLC directly—so how could I do that?
`
`“We don’t have any information on the entities that send the letter,” he said. It was just an answering
`service. “We don’t have their contact information.”
`
`“Well, who are you the ‘legal department’ for?” I asked.
`
`“Hmmm,” said Kevin. “Legal department.”
`
`“I don’t get it—is ‘Legal Department’ a real company?” I persisted.
`
`“Hmmm,” said Kevin again. “We’re just Legal Department.”
`
`“Well, you work for someone, right? What company do you work for?”
`
`“This is Legal Department. That’s all we can say.”
`
`Use scanners, Wi-Fi, SSL? We're all infringers now
`
`The tech sector has been seeing a growing flood of patent lawsuits for about a decade now. But in
`the history of patent trolls, 2012 may go down as the “year of the user.” The AdzPro letters are a
`particularly alarming example of a practice that has become commonplace in the past year or two—
`8
`
`http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/2/[5/24/2013 9:43:35 AM]
`
`

`

`Patent trolls want $1,000—for using scanners | Ars Technica
`
`going after the users of basic technologies.
`
`Other examples abound. It was just over a year ago when Innovatio IP Ventures began suing small
`chain hotels and corner coffeeshops, with damage demands of $5,000 or less. That model inspired a
`brief stint of negative press coverage, but the lawyers litigating the patents, which originated at
`Broadcom, didn’t back down. Well-known patent plaintiffs’ lawyer Ray Niro issued a full-throated
`defense of the patents and the licensing tactics earlier this year. And it is clear who he thinks should
`pay: absolutely everyone.
`
`“Infringement is widespread," explained Niro in an interview with Gene Quinn, a patent lawyer who
`blogs as IP Watchdog. "Virtually every company in the US operates wireless networks, either for their
`own internal business operations or as a value-added 'hotspot' service to their guests and patrons."
`
`Other companies that have ramped up campaigns against users of technology in the past year
`include TQP Development, which is wielding a patent on the SSL encryption protocol that’s ubiquitous
`on the Web; and ArrivalStar, which is going after public transit systems that increasingly use vehicle-
`tracking technology of some sort, although cities rarely invent that technology themselves.
`
`“I really think that is a smart strategy from the perspective of a patent owner,” said the patent litigator
`who is monitoring the AdzPro campaign. “They’re sending letters to mom-and-pop shops, most of
`whom have zero experience with patents or patent infringement. So, they see the word 'patent' and it
`causes a little bit of panic.”
`
`The best strategy for target companies? It may be to ignore the letters, at least for now. “Ignorance,
`surprisingly, works,” noted Prof. Chien in an e-mail exchange with Ars.
`
`Her study of startups targeted by patent trolls found that when confronted with a patent demand, 22
`percent ignored it entirely. Compare that with the 35 percent that decided to fight back and 18 percent
`that folded. Ignoring the demand was the cheapest option ($3,000 on average) versus fighting in
`court, which was the most expensive ($870,000 on average).
`
`Another tactic that clearly has an effect: speaking out, even when done anonymously. It hardly seems
`a coincidence that the Project Paperless patents were handed off to a web of generic-sounding LLCs,
`with demand letters signed only by “The Licensing Team,” shortly after the “Stop Project Paperless”
`website went up. It suggests those behind such low-level licensing campaigns aren’t proud of their
`behavior. And rightly so.
`
`PROMOTED COMMENTS
`
`Dinglehoser Ars Tribunus Militum
`
`(Full disclosure: I am a patent attorney.)
`
`PAGE: 1 2
`
`jump to post
`
`There are some new procedures under the AIA for slamming the banhammer on useless patents and
`patent trolls. They are quite expensive, and it's still early - they've only been around since September
`- but they are promising.
`
`Piss off the wrong party and a typical patent troll's experience might go something like this:
`
`1. Patent troll gets issued a useless patent (this happens too often, but I digress).
`2. Patent troll uses useless patent to threaten Company A with an infringement suit.
`3. Company A ignores threats, and patent troll sues.
`4. Company A has astute counsel that remembers one of the new post-grant proceedings under the
`AIA, and files an appropriate petition for, e.g., post grant review (PGR) of the patent in question.
`5. Patent troll tries to run away by withdrawing the complaint.
`6. Company A laughs and continues with the PGR process.
`7a. Patent troll disappears, doesn't file any responsive briefs/motions, and the patent is invalidated, or
`7b. Patent troll tries to fight, but since the patent is so obviously ... well, obvious (or even anticipated)
`by the prior art, that no arguments can save them ... and the patent is invalidated (and hopefully the
`troll goes bankrupt from the hefty attorney fees).
`
`9
`
`http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/patent-trolls-want-1000-for-using-scanners/2/[5/24/2013 9:43:35 AM]
`
`

`

`AllLed, LLC
`40 East Main Street, #19
`Newark DE 1971 1
`855-744-2360
`
`1icensing@all—led.org
`October 2, 2012
`
`
`
`Re:
`
`AllLed Patent Licensing Program ~ File No.-
`
`We are the licensing agent for certain U.S. patents listed beiow. We have identified your
`company as one that appears to be using the patented technology. and we are contacting you to
`initiate discussions regarding your need for a license. In this letter, we explain what the patents
`cover, how you likely have an infringing system. explain Why a license is needed, and provide
`you the general terms for such a license. We also answer some frequently asked questions as
`well as explain how you can determine whether you do have an infringing system that requires a
`license. We should note that w have written on with the understanding that you are the proper
`
`person to contact on behalfofilfyou are not the proper person to handle
`
`this matter on behalf of the company, p ease provr e t is letter to the proper person, and notify us
`so that we may update our records and contact them directly in the future.
`
`To turn to the matter at hand. the patents for which we are the licensing agent are listed
`below. The list includes both issued U ,S. patents, as well as a patent application which is
`expected to issue in the future as an additional US. patent.
`
`1. US. Pat. No. 7,986,426 (“Distributed Computer Architecture And Process For Document
`Management”);
`2. US. Pat. No. 7,477,410 (“Distributed Computer Architecture And Process For Virtual
`Coming”);
`3. US. Pat. No. 6,771,381 (“Distributed Computer Architecture And Process For Virtual
`Cepying”);
`4. U.S. Pat. No. 6,185,590 (“Process And Architecture For Use On Stand-Alone Machine
`And In Distributed Computer Architecture For Client Server And/Or Intranet And/0r
`Internet Operating Environments”); and
`5. 13/ 1 82,857 filed July 14. 2011 (“Distributed Computer Architecture And Process For
`Document Management”).
`
`You can find and review each of the issued patents listed above at www.google.com/patents.
`
`
`
`10
`1O
`
`

`

`Page 2
`
`As you may know, a parent’s scope is defined by its claims, and you will see that each of the
`above-listed patents have different claims. While those differences matter and mean each patent
`is distinct, the patents listed above do, as a group, generally relate to the same technology field,
`and cover what at the time was a groundbreaking distributed computer architecture and process
`for digital document management. An illustrative embodiment of the architecture of the patents
`is providedin Figure 28 whichIs reproduced here for your reference.
`
`APPLICATIONS
`
`EMAIL
`
`LOCAL FtLES
`
`%%®
`
`; DicirAiiHLEs
`7
`v
`.8
`.
`‘
`._ _§...,9 a VIRTUAL
`LAN watt
`
`gI
`5
`comes WEB
`1
`[:3
`'
`.
`V
`.
`PERlPHER
`-.
`1: MS:
`
`.
`
`.‘
`
`;
`
`'. e
`
`PRINTER
`
`DlGlTAL OOPEER
`
`MULl'i-FUNGTiONAL
`PEHIPHERAL (lire. FAX)
`
`Fig. 28
`
`A good example of an infringing system, and one your company likely uses. is an office
`local area network (“LAN”) which is in communication with a server, employee computers
`having email software such as Outlook or Lotus, and a third—party scanner (or a multi-function
`printer with scanning functionality) which permits the scanning of a document directly to
`employee email address as a pdf attawchment Such a system would be a typical example of what
`infringes There are other examples listed further below
`
`We note here that the scope of the patents is technically defined by the claims, and the
`language of the claims defines the legal scope of the patents. The more generalized examples
`provided in this letter are for your convenience and should not be considered exact substitutes for
`the more detailed claims. As such, you may find it useful to consider, as illustrative examples,
`claims 1-5 of the '426 Patent. Reviewing those you can see that the patent claims are directed to
`a system having a digital copier/scanner/multifunction device with an interface to office
`equipment (or to the web) and related software, for scanning or copying and transmitting images
`electronically to one or more destinations such as email, applications or other local files.
`Coverage of this type of system, and of the more generally worded example in the previous
`paragraph, is further reflected in claims 1, 8 and 15 of the '410 Patent, claims 12 and 15 of the
`'381 Patent, and claims 9 and 16 of the '590 Patent. Obviously each claim is separately drafted
`and you should consider the scope of each claim separately.
`
`To assist you in confirming that you need a license, we provide illustrative examples of
`infringing systems below in the form of a brief set of fact checklists that you can use to
`determine if your system is one for which you should contact us about a license. If you can
`answer “YES” to each question under any of the scenarios A through C below, then you should
`contact us promptly.
`
`
`
`11
`11
`
`

`

`Page 3
`
`A. Internetworking of ScannerfMFP and Email (SMTP, IMAP, POPS)
`
`Yes E2
`
`
`
`r:
`
`a
`
`[:1
`
`1.
`
`E]
`
`2
`
`Cl
`
`C]
`
`3
`
`
`r:
`
`1:!
`
`4
`
`Does your company use document scanning equipment that is network
`addressable (126.. it has an IP address and can communicate on your network);
`
`Does your company use Microsoft Exchange/Outlook. Lotus Domino/Notes
`or a comparable system for company email;
`
`Are at least some of your employees‘ email addresses loaded into the scanner,
`so that you can select to whom you wish to send a scanned document by
`email; or, alternatively, can you manually input an employee’s email address
`into the scanner to Whom you wish a scanned document