Hacker News Reader

Comment by dahdum | Hacker News Reader

I'd love to see a patent lawyers view of this case. On the face it looks insane to expect retailers to individually weigh patent claims and somehow force suppliers into licensing agreements with third parties.

View on HN

You don't need a patent lawyer, just read 35 U.S. Code § 271. " . . . whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the the patent therefor, infringes the patents.

Amazon, Walmart, etc. aren't likely the ultimate targets of the suit. The suits are designed to bring in the producers under the indemnity portion of their contract with the retailer. Its a jurisdictional hook and way to effectively multiply the amount of pressure on the actual infringer, by threatening to cut off their access to the retailer (which could be accomplished in the ITC) and leverage possible contractual damages they face from the retailer. The ultimate goal is to pressure Everlight, Eaton, and whoever else is making the light bulbs to pay for a license, and using Amazon and Walmart to force them to do so.

this really looks like they are truly after these five large retailers because they probably cannot affect the manufacturers of the products. so in effect a retailer simply should be able to discontinue selling the product but from the press release that is not the goal of the suit. They clearly state they want products using the technology sold but they want to put the onus on the retailer.

to be blunt it is because these retailers have the means to pass on this fee and not necessarily just by individual product sales.

The retailers have their own store brand filament led bulbs, this alone makes them bigger targets as they are electing to manufacture bulbs with their own branding on them.

Walmart, Amazon and Ikea all make their store-brand bulbs so that makes them a bigger target. Not because they are retailers alone.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-LED-Filament-Light-Bu... https://www.ikea.com/us/en/catalog/products/90432392/ https://www.amazon.com/AmazonBasics-Equivalent-Clear-Non-Dim...

It looks like Amazon may have even pulled their stock now.

Hah, from the court paperwork

> For example, the packaging of the Defendant’s infringing Great Value LED Vintage Edison Light Bulb 4w Deco 2pk (Model: CAD4W22G-2P) touts 13 years of life and savings of up to $184 versus a comparable incandescent light bulb—in a product the Defendant sells for $7.72 per 2-pack as reflected in Exhibit B, discussed below. Case 2:19-cv-06570-PSG-RAO Document 1 Filed 07/30/19 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:5

FWIW, Ikea manufactures their own bulbs.

Unlikely. Resellers don't do their own specialized electronics manufacturing. They likely do like other resellers and have them contract manufactured or slap their brand on some generic parts.

Ikea isn't just a reseller. And they might not own any factories, but neither does Apple.

In many segments, IKEA acts like apple but there are other segments were IKEA is like Amazon Basics. It just depends if they've the patents/know-how which they can leverage, if yes - act like apple, if no - act like Amazon Basics.

That's actually not how IKEA works at all. Sure, they may not own all the factories but you won't find (parts of) any of their products under other brand names.

A strange claim. You can reliably find white label stuff sold under their brand, just like of any other big company.

In a traditional business, if a retailer imports an item for sale, who else would be responsible for making sure it complied with US law?

As another ooster has said. The law is pretty clear. Anyone selling is responsible.

What matters is the supplier agreement between retailers and suppliers. As another poster has said, that should heavily favor the retailers. Very interesting case because the fly by night operators that are amazon suppliers will be forced out, leaving a few that will de facto have to comply with US IP laws, even though de jure, they would be inmune

Reply on news.ycombinator.com