Patent on Streaming Porn Tossed Out

slfisher 4 Tallied Votes 378 Views Share

A company that has been attempting to obtain licensing fees from adult companies, as well as other providers such as Internet radio stations and leading satellite and cable companies such Echostar, DirectTV, Time Warner Cable, and CSC Holdings, Inc., has had its patent thrown out by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Acacia Research's patent on streaming media technology had been targeted by the Electronic Frontier Foundation as part of its Patent Busting Project for being overly broad. "Laughably broad patent would cover everything from online distribution of home movies to scanned documents and MP3s," the EFF described it.

The company systematically acquired a number of patents on streaming media, with an eye toward making money on licensing fees, according to a 2003 .

"The company's digital media strategy began in earnest several years ago," the article said. "It had determined that it owned about a third of the patents it needed to mount a licensing strategy for Web streaming, and its attorneys spent considerable time researching the rights held by another set of companies that Acacia ultimately purchased in 2001. By the time Acacia finished, it owned five U.S. patents and 17 international patents dating back to 1991."

Acacia started with the adult website market. "The case reaches all the way back to 2002, when Acacia began sending out media packets to online adult companies asserting that the companies were violating patents associated with its Digital Media Transmission technology, which Acacia claimed covered virtually any manner of transmitting and receiving digital and audio content over the Internet," according to an article in XBIZ Newswire. "Although Acacia was able to secure settlements from a number of adult companies, other companies fought back, and eventually coalesced into the united Adult Defense Group effort, spearheaded by Homegrown Video parent company New Destiny Internet Group."

In 2003, the company began targeting Internet radio providers, and obtained licensing fees from a number of them, including Radio Free Virgin, the online music division of Richard Branson's Virgin corporation.

, it moved on to colleges and universities, sending letters demanding licensing agreements of a minimum of $5,000 to more than 100 of them.

The company has not yet commented but is expected to appeal the ruling.

Mia_375 commented: A federal judge has thrown out a patent that a company had been using in an attempt to block popular porn sites from operating. Judges in Louis +0

Dani AI

Generated

As reported, this episode is a good reminder that aggressive licensing demands are not an automatic win for the sender and that a measured, documented response can flip the economics. ’s “fishing trip” observation matches what regulators and researchers call patent‑assertion‑entity behavior, so treating such letters as business risks rather than inevitable bills is sensible. (ftc.gov)

Immediate practical checklist (do these before negotiating or paying):

  • Preserve all related materials (emails, logs, snapshots, contracts, source or build artifacts).
  • Do not admit infringement or explain how your system works; route communications to counsel.
  • Ask the sender to provide a written claim chart that maps each asserted claim to the accused product/service and demand proof of assignment/ownership.
  • Get a quick freedom‑to‑operate/prior‑art triage so you can decide whether to litigate, seek USPTO review, or negotiate. (jonesipl.com)

If the matter merits challenge, there are administrative paths (ex parte reexamination, supplemental examination, and AIA post‑grant proceedings such as IPR/PGR) in addition to district‑court defense. The PTAB route can be attractive because it uses a lower “preponderance” evidence standard than district courts’ “clear and convincing” standard, but timing, estoppel effects, and costs differ — get advice on which forum is strategically best. (uspto.gov)

Claim charts and a well‑documented prior‑art record often force a realistic reassessment by the asserting party; when the sender is a non‑practicing assertion entity, weigh the economics of settlement vs. defense plus possible USPTO challenge. Meticulous records and a quick counsel‑driven triage are the most reliable defenses against opportunistic licensing demands. (softwarelitigationconsulting.com)

MktgRob 7 Nearly a Posting Virtuoso

I have seen similar actions attempted by companies in terms of supposedly trademarked terms. One company I have worked with received a letter from a law firm that threatened them with a possible cease and decisit order if they did not stop using a specific term or paid an annual fee to keep using it. It turned out to be a fishing trip to generate revenue for a dubious claim of trademark infringement. The company I was working with had their lawyer send a reply inviting the cease and decist action and received no response. Acacia is operating at a much hgher level but it sounds like the only business they are in is a form of extortion using unsubstantiated claims.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.