Key parts of JPEG patent rejected by government

Jun 2, 2006 8:00 AM, Strategic Content Management e-newsletter

    

The federal government has rejected the broadest claims by a Texas company that has attempted to charge license fees for the popular JPEG digital image standard.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected 19 of the 47 claims in a patent held by Forgent Networks, an Austin company that is currently suing about 30 companies for license fees to the image compression technology.

The action came after a request for reexamination of the controversial patent by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT), a non-profit group that seeks to overturn unfair patent claims. The foundation said it had found prior art or previous related inventions that made Forgent's patent invalid, the IDG News Service reported.

At issue was the Forget '672 patent, nickname for U.S Patent No. 4,698,672. It describes a technique for compressing data by replacing strings of code that appear frequently with code strings of a shorter length.

“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.

“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,” Ravicher said.

Forgent had claimed the technique outlined in the patent is employed in the JPEG format, which is used in a wide range of digital imaging products. The USPTO's decision, issued last week, overturned the broadest claims in Forgent's patent, including the description “a method for processing digital signals … to reduce the amount of data utilized.”

Forgent said it would “vigorously defend” the rejected patents, though an appeal could result in the company losing all claims to the technology. Forgent is currently suing about 30 companies to secure licensing deals for the technology, including Apple Computer, Eastman Kodak, Microsoft and TiVo.

So far, Forgent has secured licensing deals with more than a dozen other companies that it sued, generating about $105 million in revenue, the company said.




Want to use this article?
Click here for options!
Get Copyright Clearance

Share this article

blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Current Issue

Online captioning compliance

May 2012

The FCC has issued captioning requirements for all online video. Learn how to meet the requirements of the new rules and how to automate the technical process.

Read More articles...

Related Newsletter

Automation Technology Update
A twice-monthly newsletter covering the world of automation technology.

Related Posts


Confused about the terminology in an article? Find definitions of common terms and abbreviations in Broadcast Engineering's Glossary.

 


Video Compression, Editing and Displays

Video Compression, Editing and Displays

Video compression, editing and displays is an in-depth tutorial on MPEG compression technology, editing MPEG content and evaluating color video monitors written by long-time video expert, trainer and writer Steve Mullen, Ph. D.

File Based Technology and Workflow

File Based Technology and Workflow

File-based technologies have replaced video tape methods for a majority of production and broadcast operations. The worlds of AV and IT are coalescing to create new methods and workflows for media

Sound Off Podcasts

 

Broadcast Engineering Digital Reference Guide

Browse Back Issues

Back to Top