Behind the scenes in the RIM/NTP patent war
If you thought theBlackberry patent battle between RIM and NTP was just a fight between a successful wireless company and a greedy patentfarmer, this lengthy article from the Toronto Globe and Mail may be an eye-opener.
Context & Ripple Effects
The Globe and Mail's deep dive lands at the most contradictory moment yet in the RIM/NTP fight. In December 2005 alone, NTP monetized its portfolio beyond RIM with a license deal with Visto, even as the Patent Office moved against the very patents in suit — first signaling it would likely back the BlackBerry maker, then formally rejecting key BlackBerry claims on December 31. A confirmed 2002 win and prior infringement ruling mean NTP holds the legal high ground while its patent estate erodes underneath it.
That split — court judgment versus reexamination — is exactly what the Globe and Mail piece unpacks, pushing back on the framing of NTP as a simple 'patent farmer.' It matters because an injunction against RIM would cut off BlackBerry service for U.S. users even if the underlying patents are being invalidated, making this less a clean dispute than a race between two arms of the patent system.
First-order effects
- RIM faces a possible injunction that would shut down U.S. BlackBerry service even though the Patent Office has just rejected the patents at issue, leaving the company negotiating from a losing courtroom position despite winning the reexamination track.
Second-order effects
- NTP's Visto licensing shows the same portfolio being monetized across the wireless e-mail market while the RIM suit runs, so other mobile e-mail vendors face parallel royalty demands regardless of how the reexaminations end.
Third-order effects
- If courts can impose injunctions faster than the Patent Office can invalidate the underlying claims, holders of litigated portfolios gain leverage independent of patent validity — pressuring Congress toward reexamining how reexaminations and infringement suits interact.
The trend: Mobile patent disputes are becoming races between courtroom injunctions and Patent Office reexaminations, letting non-practicing holders monetize claims whose validity is simultaneously collapsing.