Issue #2003 - 30 (November 2003)
INFRASTRUCTURE, PRODUCTS & SERVICES
More Information On Padcom & NetMotion Patent Arguments
In a previous newsflash, we reported
on a patent-infringement litigation between Padcom, a company based
in Pennsylvania and NetMotion, a company based in Seattle,
Washington. At the bottom of this dispute are two patents awarded to
Padcom in 2001 and 2002. Padcom has been involved in producing
wireless network connectivity products that allow logical connection
with multiple networks. Their original product allowed connection
between satellite and terrestrial private networks. As such, Padcom
does seem to have precedence in terms of intellectual property.
Based on our limited knowledge that has not been researched
extensively, NetMotion came out with a similar concept in its software a bit
later. According to the company press release, NetMotion was also
granted a patent for wireless data roaming and application session
persistence in 2003.
Should the patents cover the general
concepts that are utilized in wireless data roaming software and if
NetMotion is using the same methods and concepts, one would think
that NetMotion should license this technology from Padcom. These are
assumptions that we can not verify.
For more information: http://www.padcomUSA.com
MobileInfo Comments and Advisory: There
is no doubt from our external perception that NetMotion is a more aggressive marketing company
that is exploiting an idea and succeeding in doing that much more
than Padcom did. Padcom, on the other hand, appears to be focusing
on its wireless software engineering expertise. Should Padcom
benefit from NetMotion's success is a question for the courts to
decide. It does have a huge potential and benefit to Padcom if its
claim is upheld.
NetMotion is saying that it does not
see any merit in Padcom's legal challenge and that its software does
not infringe on Padcom's intellectual property - a position
generally expected from a defendant. It is only between the lawyers
of two sides in confidence and in the courts in public that the real
merits of a business litigation emerge.
Note: This news release may contain
forward-looking statements within the meaning of section 27A of the
Securities Act of 1933 and section 21E of Securities Exchange act of
1934 in USA. Similar provisions exist in other countries. There is no
assurance that the stipulated plans of vendors will be implemented.
MobileInfo does not warrant the authenticity of the information.
Readers should take appropriate caution in developing plans utilizing
these products, services and technology architectures. All
trademarks used in this summary are the property of their respective