Patents are granted for original ideas. Unilock has a
U.S. patent that describes in broad terms a system for licensing the use of images online. The company is claiming that stock agencies are infringing their patent when they license image use through online sites.
Most people believe patents are a way for inventors to protect their invention for a limited period of time enabling them to benefit economically from their creation. The exclusive right granted to a patentee in most countries is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission.
However, it is also possible to obtain a patent that describes a system for doing business. Often these can be quite vague and overly broad.
Before issuing a patent the Patent Office is supposed to determine that the process has not already been described or is in use by someone else. However, in the early days of an industry patent examiners often don’t have access to what a variety of start-ups are doing. In such cases they may issue a patent for something that is already in use by someone else. When it can be proved that an invention had been described, or was in use prior to the date of the patent by someone other than the patentee, that is known as “prior art,” and the patent on the invention is not valid.
Patent Trolling
Some companies – Unilock being one of them – make a business of buying up patents that have not been exploited by the patentee and then trying to collect royalties on any activity that relates to the patent. Such companies are known as patent trolls. Patent trolls typically bring their claims in the Eastern District of Texas, which is a favorable jurisdiction for plaintiffs.
Initial claims were brought against Dreamstime, Inmagine, Revostock and Depositphotos. Patent litigation is extremely expensive, and many companies will settle just to avoid costs. Dreamstime settled with Unilock for an undisclosed sum. The cases against Inmagine, Revostock and Depositphotos were dismissed with prejudice before any judicial ruling on the patent claim.
Undeterred, Uniloc filed new patent claims in Texas against a numbers of other companies including:
Getty, Corbis, iStockPhoto LP, Age Fotostock America Inc., SS SPV LLC, Envato PTY Ltd., Fotolia LLC., PhotoShelter, Inc., Photo Stock Plus, and VectorStock Media Limited
Any company that is notified of a claim by Uniloc should recognize that it may be helpful to join forces with other defendants and publicly share as much information as they can to discourage these claims.
PACA is willing to be the central point for collecting information. They also suggest that anyone contacted by Uniloc might want to get in touch with Tamany Bentz, a patent attorney from Venable LLP in Los Angeles, at 310-229-9905 who represented Dreamstime.
Another resource is Ellen Boughn (
ryyra@ryyraobhtua.pbz) who worked with Ms Bentz to prepare an expert report for the Dreamstime case on early stock photo industry practices. While Dreamstime choose to settle, it appears that other defendants whose cases were later dismissed also used Ellen’s report.