Final week, a significant hashish model was sued for patent infringement by Geographic Location Improvements (“GLI”) within the District Courtroom of Colorado. The Grievance alleges GLI is the proprietor of the ‘285 Patent, titled “System, System and Methodology for Remotely Coming into, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Data System,” which amongst different issues, permits a consumer to request an tackle, such because the tackle for a retailer, from a server. The server determines the requested tackle and transmits it to the consumer. The system also can decide route steering to the shop tackle based mostly not less than partly on the situation of the consumer.
The defendant’s web site has an analogous retailer locator system that GLI claims infringes the ‘285 Patent. A consumer is ready to enter an tackle and the web site will present a listing of the closest retail places. The web site may even load navigation if the consumer requests instructions. If you happen to’re studying this and considering “wow, most retail web sites I’ve accessed currently have this function,” you’re completely proper. GLI has been busy – our search of the federal courts discovered that GLI has filed 49 lawsuits since 2016, with 11 of them nonetheless ongoing. And naturally, it bears mentioning that this development of patent infringement litigation will solely turn into increasingly more prevalent within the trade as gamers deal with their on-line presence.
The true takeaway I’ve from reviewing this lawsuit is that this: do you have got mental property protections in place? Most of our shoppers are visionaries which might be constructing and implementing their enterprise plans, establishing enterprise relationships, and many others. They’re additionally establishing their on-line presences, however the precise work of making a web site is being outsourced to internet builders most of the time. In such conditions, it’s essential to not gloss over the indemnification provisions of the settlement.
Some builders, who’re conscious that mental property trolls are on the rise, flat out refuse to comply with any indemnification. These builders really feel they’re simply constructing what the consumer is requesting, and the consumer ought to due to this fact bear the burden of potential patent infringement. Nevertheless, if the developer is suggesting options, or utilizing “house grown” templates or instruments, full mental property indemnification might be correct and must be fought for (or not less than, paid a premium for). Given each state of affairs is completely different, your arguments for keen on full indemnification might change, however in completely each case, the dangers and advantages which will end result from this sometimes “boilerplate” provision should be weighed.
As you’ll be able to see from the cautionary story above, it might serve you very effectively to have correct indemnification clauses in place. In any other case, if you end up in litigation over one thing you had little or no to no management over, you is likely to be left holding the bag for another person’s mistake. Don’t depend on your internet developer for authorized recommendation. Our mental property group has seen all of it and is right here to assist.
For previous posts on the significance of indemnification provisions in different contexts, see: