throbber
Case 2:12-cv-02831-JPM-tmp Document 22-4 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 3 PageID 164
`
`Case 2:12—cv—O2831—JPM—tmp Document 22-4 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 3 Page|D 164Case 2:12—cv—O2831—JPM—tmp Document 22-4 Filed 12/20/12 Page 1 of 3 Page|D 164
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT CEXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`

`
`Memphis area firm sues tech giants for patent infringement : Memphis Commercial Appeal
`Page 1 of 2
`Case 2:12-cv-02831-JPM-tmp Document 22-4 Filed 12/20/12 Page 2 of 3 PageID 165
`
`Memphis area firm sues tech giants for patent
`infringement
`
`By Ted Evanoff
`
`Originally published 11:24 a.m., November 20, 2012
`Updated 12:06 a.m., November 21, 2012
`
`Twitter, Google, Facebook and a slew of other tech giants are targets of a patent
`infringement lawsuit filed in Memphis federal court by a new Cordova firm.
`
`B.E. Technologies Inc. claims social media and smartphone companies have made
`use of a computer interface method patented by its chief executive officer in 2004 to
`help track advertising on the Internet.
`
`Three-page complaints were filed in 19 separate lawsuits in U.S. District Court in
`Memphis in September and October.
`
`The lawsuits are signed by Redwood City, Calif., patent lawyer Robert Freitas, an
`attorney known in intellectual property circles for defending dating site eHarmony and
`litigating against manufacturer Seagate Technologies.
`
`B.E. Technologies was formed in September by Martin D. Hoyle, who moved to
`Cordova in 2006 from Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina, Freitas said. Hoyle declined to
`comment and referred questions to Freitas.
`
`Public records show Hoyle, 53, is a manager of Webnet Media LLC, a firm in the
`Memphis suburb of Eads. He earlier headed Big Easy Technologies of Metairie, La,
`and was an information technology manager at Elixir Industries of Destrehan, La.
`Tennessee Secretary of State records list the address of B.E. Technologies as 116
`Viking Drive in Cordova, a Memphis suburb.
`
`In an email, Freitas provided biographical information about Hoyle. It says he was born
`in Sylva, N.C., attended Western Carolina University and developed an interest in the
`Internet in the 1990s."With the explosion of the Internet in the 1990s," the message
`from Freitas says, "Mr. Hoyle began working with several Internet companies and
`programmers, including a group that was developing websites for the Atlanta Olympic
`Village. During this time, Mr. Hoyle gained the knowledge and technical skills that
`inspired him to focus his efforts on Internet technologies."
`
`Trade journals have dismissed the Hoyle lawsuits as patent trolling, a reference to
`broad patents used to snare tech firms in settlements to avoid litigation. In 2011,
`
`http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/nov/20/memphis-area-firm-sues-tech-giants...
`
`12/5/2012
`
`

`
`Memphis area firm sues tech giants for patent infringement : Memphis Commercial Appeal
`Page 2 of 2
`Case 2:12-cv-02831-JPM-tmp Document 22-4 Filed 12/20/12 Page 3 of 3 PageID 166
`
`President Barack Obama signed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, an overhaul of
`the patent system intended in part to diminish trolling.
`
`A recent book, "Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators
`at Risk," contends patent disputes surged in the 1990s after a U.S. appeals court
`allowed plaintiffs "creative re-definitions of patent rights." The book by a pair of Boston
`University professors reports public corporations outside the chemical industry
`generated $3 billion in revenue off patents in 1999 but spent $12 billion litigating patent
`claims.
`
`Freitas, in an interview, described Hoyle as an inventor who formed B.E. Technologies
`expressly to "enforce these patents." Freitas said it is not unusual for a patent holder to
`file an infringement lawsuit years after the alleged theft occurred.
`
`Over the years, the U.S. Patent Office has issued seven patents on 12 applications by
`Hoyle, according to the tracking service patentbuddy.com.
`
`In the Hoyle lawsuits, the complaints are accompanied by patent applications that
`describe a system useful for banner advertising on websites. It lists Hoyle as the
`inventor and names B.E. Technology LLC of Bay City, Mich., as the assignee. It says
`the patents were issued in 2003 and 2004. The complaints single out tablet computers,
`saying the product "directly infringe" on the patents.
`
`Named in the order of filing are Amazon Digital Services Inc., Facebook Inc., LinkedIn
`Corp., Groupon Inc., Pandora Media Inc., Twitter Inc., Barnes & Noble Inc., Samsung
`Telecommunications America LLC, Samsung Electronics America Inc., Sony Computer
`Entertainment America LLC, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Sony
`Electronics Inc., Microsoft Corp., Google Inc., Apple Inc., Spark Networks Inc., People
`Media Inc., Match.com LLC, and Motorola Mobility Holdings LLC.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)© 2012 Scripps Newspaper Group — Online
`
`http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2012/nov/20/memphis-area-firm-sues-tech-giants...
`
`12/5/2012

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket