USPTO invalidates some of Forgent Networks' JPEG patent claims

New York (NY) - The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has rejected some of Forgent Network’s JPEG patent claims during a patent reexamination process that was initiated by the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat) last year. According to the PubPat, the office invalidated "the broadest claims of the patent" in a non-final ruling.

Forgent Networks, however, feels that it was victorious in the proceeding. The firm said that the office upheld a "majority of the patent" - 27 of 46 claims made in what is commonly referred to as ’672 patent are still in place. In a brief statement, the company said that it will vigorously defend the remaining claims that were not initially upheld in this first office action."

Forgent acquired the patent through the purchase of Compression Labs in 1997. The company initiated a series of patent infringement lawsuits in 2004 and is currently involved in more than 30 legal proceedings against firms such as Apple, Canon, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Microsoft, Sun and Tivo. Forgent said that its "intellectual property program" has brought in more than $105 million in revenues over the past years - primarily as a result of the ’672 patent.

"We understand this is an extended process and we are pleased with the progress of the patent reexamination," said Richard Snyder, chief executive officer and chairman of Forgent Networks, in a prepared statement. "We believe the remaining claims are also valid, and we will work directly with the Patent and Trademark Office to clarify and defend our position."

PubPat’s position is somewhat different as the organization believes that Forgent may be losing more than just a few claims. "The Patent Office has agreed with our conclusion that it would have never granted Forgent Networks’ ’672 patent had it been aware of the prior art that we uncovered and submitted to them," said Dan Ravicher, Pubpat’s Executive Director, also in a prepared statement. "Making matters worse here is that this new prior art was known by those who filed the application that led to the ’672 patent, but none of them told the Patent Office about it, despite their duty to do so."