A U.S. non-practising entity is using an old BT patent to attack Apple, Google, Motorola, HTC, Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile and others. However, BT denies any connection with the suit, saying it sold away all rights around the broad patent.


Oh look, it’s another mobile-related patent lawsuit. This time the plaintiff is an obscure Delaware-registered limited liability company called Steelhead, and the patent covers ‘mobile radio handover initiation determination’ – in other words, choosing which cellular base station has the best signal as the handset moves from one place to another.

And the defendants? Everyone, really: Apple, Google, Motorola, RIM, HTC, Sony, LG, NEC Casio, Pantech, Kyocera, ZTE, Sprint, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile and MetroPCS. All of them have committed the mortal sin of allowing their mobile phones to function as mobile phones. So far, so trollish. But the interesting thing about this particular suit is the origin of the suit – or, more precisely, the reporting around that origin.

U.S. Patent No. 5,491,834 comes from BT, or British Telecom as it was once known. Filed in 1993 and granted in 1996, the patent is still listed by the USPTO as belonging to BT. In its court filings (the Motorola/Google example is here), Steelhead notes that it “owns all rights of recovery under the ‘834 Patent, including the exclusive right to recover for past infringement”.

Yet there have still been several reports of this being a case of BT “aggressively monetizing” its patent portfolio. That’s not entirely without foundation – BT has sued Google over alleged patent infringement in Android – but it seems a bit unfair to go blaming the company this time.

Indeed, BT has a pretty firm line on what’s going on here, if you ask them:

“BT sold all of its rights to the patents last year. We have no involvement in Steelhead Licensing LLC’s litigation activity.”

And, just to drive it home, a BT spokesperson also told me that “BT doesn’t share in Steelhead’s licensing income”.

So, will Steelhead’s action succeed? The patent’s origins are certainly as respectable as any software patent can be (i.e. not very much, at least in my opinion), but what it describes is very common. It’s rather tricky to have a mobile phone work to an adequate standard if it can’t choose which cell to connect to. This is not something you can easily work around.

You’re subscribed! If you like, you can update your settings

  1. Paul Jarl Klaszus Monday, January 7, 2013

    I look forward to the day when people seek compensation for products and services they actually produce.

  2. @Paul Jarl Klaszus
    Sadly compensation is deemed impossible to governments foreign to the US, CA, EU nations, and AU such as China.

  3. We are developing an insurance product to protect against weak patent assertions. Its only a fit for a subset of situations, but it is a positive step. It also has an advantage over defensive patent aggregation in that it does not increase the price of weak patents, it decreases the price of those patents. http://www.altageneral.com/patent-insurance.php

Comments have been disabled for this post