Boston, MA 08/18/2014 (wallstreetpr) –The patents case involved between software developer for mobile phones Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRNG) and the search engine giant Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOGL) has thrown out an interesting question over the AdWords platform used by Google. Though the court ruling was undoubtedly unfavorable to Vringo, the court had provided enough hints on the loopholes in evidence to defend the patents.
Court Rule Against Vringo
The Federal Circuit Panel comprising three-judges in Washington had delivered a verdict with the majority terming that the invention was clear to any skilled person in the sector. It was not a unanimous verdict, and the votes were divided into 2-1. There was dissention from Judge Raymond Chen. Separately, Judge Haldane Robert Mayer had emphasized the importance of patent protection for software.
On Friday, an appeal court in the U.S. had rejected the claims made by Vringo subsidiary against a number of technology companies, including Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOGL), AOL, etc. I/P Engine, a Subsidiary of Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRNG), was awarded $30 million by a Jury earlier earlier on finding that the search engine giant’s AdWords platform had infringed two patents of Vringo subsidiary on internet search results filtering. Now, the court had declared that Vringo’ subsidiary claims were not valid on the two patents.
Google To Bother More
What was more interesting from the observation of the court was that Google Inc (NASDAQ:GOOGL)’s evidence of its commercial success of its AdWords platform cannot be construed as proof of evidence to claim patent protection. The search engine company needs to clear the air so as to avoid the recurrence of facing such suits since the ruling provides clue to Google’s rivals for a possible arm-twisting to divert its focus.
Vringo’s Embarrassment
In delivering the judgment, Judge Mayer said that the latest Supreme Court case law’s limiting the patents of software should make the inventions of Vringo, Inc. (NASDAQ:VRNG) as not eligible for any patent protection irrespective of its genuineness. The judge had also gone a step further to say that unnecessary litigation, and close to two weeks of trial could have been avoided. Vringo said that it would explore options.
