“How Newegg crushed the ‘shopping cart’ patent and saved online retail”

Backed by big-firm lawyers, a non-producing company that claimed its patents underlay the online shopping cart sued dozens of retailers and extracted tens of millions of dollars in settlements and verdicts in the Eastern District of Texas and elsewhere — until an appellate ruling declared its patents invalid. Despite its absence of products, the company’s website offered “tech support.” [Joe Mullin, Ars Technica]


  • Great news!

    But the article does not give sufficient credit to the appeals judges who got it right. Maybe my eyes are tired, but I did not see (1) their names, (2) what Appeals Court they were on, or (3) A link to their opinion.

  • Hugo,

    The opinion is linked in the article in the fourth paragraph, the last sentence.

    Here is the link: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/2011-1009.Opinion.1-17-2013.1.PDF

    (I sympathize with tired eyes.)

    Take care.

  • end of the judgement. ‘Licences were taken to avoid the cost of litigation, not to use the…flawed… product’.

    This must be what they mean when they say the the patent system is vital for encouraging innovation. Encouraging innovation for lawyers maybe.