Press room


Tse v. Tech Thugs, Google et al.



The Technology Thugs

This is their business model. On one hand, they stereotype everyone who sues them for patent infringement as “a patent troll”, and seek the Congress and the courts to “protect” their interests; but on the other hand, they illegally misappropriate other’s inventions, especially when the patent owner is a small business or individual inventor who does not have the wherewithal to go after them. They have no sense of guilty.

Unfortunately, up till now their business model pans out very well and allow people involved to get a lot of easy money, despite very dirty.

The following is a sad story, and at the end you will be surprised to know how capable those technology thugs are, in invalidating any patent they misappropriate, with the help of the courts sided with them.

The Infringed Patent 6,665,797 (“ ‘797 patent”)

Before the advent of the present invention, purchased software was protected by means of a piece of specific hardware, such as a dongle, which is not practical for Internet sales.

The invention of ‘797 patent is directed to using “a positive determination of existence of a payment program, or a valid account”; as a precondition for permitting protected software to be used— without causing a payment to be made with the program/account.

Accordingly, the independent claims of the '797 patent have "No Charge" limitations, all written to preclude payment for permitting software use, but not all identical in the language used.

And, the following story is how Google et al. colluded with the courts to invalidate the '797 patent in a Summary Judgment, by lying that the original filed application fails to disclose and support the "No Charge" limitations, while the fact is, there are "No Charge" limitations in the originally filed claims 1, 12.

Google Told Tons of Lies to the Court

As any patent owner would do, Tse (Our Ex-director) sued Google et al. in a Texas district court in 2012, after sending them numerous notices of infringement of his  ‘797 patent but without receiving a response.

Surprisingly, in its Answer to Tse’s Complaint filed with the court, Google denied everything it’d done, from as simple as “the use of a password to sign into a Google account” (see COMPLAINT ¶ 26 & RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT ¶ 26), to “the use of the password for purchasing an App” (see COMPLAINT ¶ 27 & RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT ¶ 27), then to “the use of the same password to authorize an android device to re-download an App and play the App” (see COMPLAINT ¶ 28, 29 & RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT ¶ 28, 29), as follows :



Google, through its virtual Stores “Android Market”, “Google Play” and website http://play.google.com (formerly “http://market.android.com”), has required/requires users to open accounts with Google and submit information of their financial account, such as credit account, to Google, in order that the users can purchase at Google’s virtual stores “Android Market” and “Google Play”.


Google denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 25 of the Complaint.



Each Google account can be signed in to with a respective username and password.


Google denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 26 of the Complaint.



Upon receiving a correct username and password of a Google account, Google is authorized by the account holder, to make use of the financial account information the account holder previously submitted to Google, to receive payment from his/her financial account, so that the account holder can purchase application programs from the virtual Stores “Android Market” or “Google Play”, by using the username and password as a means for authorizing payment.


Google denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 27 of the Complaint.



Once an account holder has purchased an application program, Google allows the account holder to re-download for an unlimited number of times, the same application program from the virtual Store “Android Market” or “Google Play”, to any Android Device, without repaying for/re-purchasing the application program.


Google denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 28 of the Complaint.



Google requires an account holder to sign in to the virtual Stores “Android Market” or “Google Play”, with the username and password of the account used for the purchase of a purchased application program, in order that the account holder may re-download the application program, with no charge on the account, to an Android Device which is not already signed in.


Paragraph 29 is vague and unintelligible as written, and on that basis, Google denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 29 of the Complaint.



Google uses/has used DRM software and/or hardware for preventing a user from using a purchased App on an Android Device other than the one used for making the purchase, unless the Android Device is authorized to execute the App, by a user using the Android Device to access the virtual Store “Android Market” or “Google Play”, then signing in with the username and password of the account used for the purchase. Google doesn‟t charge the account for the authorization.



Google denies each and every allegation in Paragraph 30 of the Complaint.


Obviously, Google knew too well from the very beginning that it was infringing a valid patent, i.e., the ‘797 patent, and therefore, it told the court tons of lies in its Answer! Otherwise it doesn’t have to do all these at all.

Shortly thereafter, Google et al. filed a motion to transfer venue, and the case was then transferred to Northern California, as they wish, because the court bought their story that the case would need discovery on Google’s people and technologies in California.

But don’t be naive, Google would never let any discovery take place. What they really wanted was nothing but a court in Northern California, to do a dirty job for them.

And, this is the beginning of the story --


Pat-rights Ltd. All rights reserved (c) 2013-2016