Samsung has filed suit against Dyson in the Seoul Central District Court and is seeking 10 billion won (around US$9.4 million) in compensation because, it states, it has suffered reputational damage as a result of “groundless” patent infringement claims made by the UK technology company.
A spokesperson for the Korean company told the Korea Times that it had launched the suit because Dyson’s “previous litigation has hurt Samsung’s corporate image” and that “Samsung’s marketing activities were negatively affected by Dyson’s groundless litigation, which is intolerable”.
Dyson sued Samsung in the UK High Court last year, asserting that the Korean company’s Motion Sync vacuum cleaner had infringed on its patent for a ‘a cleaning appliance with steering mechanism’. At the time, Dyson founder and owner Sir James Dyson, named as a co-inventor on the steering mechanism patent, described Samsung’s allegedly infringing product as looking “like a cynical rip-off”, adding: “Samsung has many patent lawyers so I find it hard not to believe that this is a deliberate or utterly reckless infringement of our patent.”
However, Dyson later dropped its lawsuit. According to the Guardian, Samsung was able to produce prior art. It would appear that whatever evidence was presented to the UK company’s legal team was enough to make them believe that their chances of winning the case had been substantially reduced.
This could count as a significant blow for Dyson, which has gained something of a reputation for forthright enforcement of its IP rights. If Samsung has indeed been able to demonstrate prior art that convinced Dyson to drop its infringement claim, then the UK company’s ability to effectively enforce its steering mechanism patent will have been permanently impaired. Withdrawing its infringement suit may have saved it a lot of time and money, and reduced the immediate risk of invalidation, but to some observers, it could look like the company has lost confidence in the strength of its right. That might provide an invitation to others to attack Dyson’s patent in the courtroom and at patent offices.
However, the PR fallout now facing Dyson - which advertises extensively about its patents - could prove to be far more damaging than its failed lawsuit. In reference to the dispute with Dyson, the Korea Times quotes a Samsung executive as saying: “Samsung is going to take a hard-line stance against patent trolls that use litigations as a marketing tool.” And because Dyson was unable to follow through on its infringement claims, Samsung has been able to deploy emotive terms such as “groundless litigation” and “patent troll” against the UK company.
Dyson reportedly made £1.2 billion (around US$2 billion) in revenue in 2012 and has invested massively in research, product development and marketing. It also possesses a reputation as an innovator and has been diligent in obtaining and enforcing IP rights to protect its internally-developed inventions. That is a far cry from the genuine ‘troll’ which acquires patents of questionable quality and asserts against multiple parties in the hope of extracting low level licensing returns.
But now that ‘troll’ and 'trolling' have become such emotive and loosely applied terms, we find ourselves in a situation where even a company such as Dyson can be labelled in that way. This may indicate that in the future we could see more of what Samsung is now doing. If that is the case, patent owners that initiate suits but then contemplate withdrawing them may face a difficult decision: are the costs saved by dropping claims outweighed by the long-term reputational harm that may come with opting not to fight a case through to its conclusion, and the risk of being labelled a troll in the court of public opinion.
IP management, IP politics, Brands, IP litigation, IA management, Patents
Jack, I totally agree with your statement that the use of the word 'troll' to describe Dyson is absurd. Indeed, the word 'troll' is on its way to become devoid of any useful meaning, just like originally quite precise and useful words in other areas of knowledge such as 'fascist' or 'sustainable'. But to what extent is Dyson itself to blame? According to your posting, Dyson used words such as 'cynical rip-off' to describe Samsung's behavior. That is not the best way to start a serene, let alone constructive discussion, is it?Henricus Rijnen, Rijnen Consulting on 18 Feb 2014 @ 21:29
I agree with Henricus's comments on the childish remarks of Dyson (oh, dear; I hope this doesn't make me liable to a suit from Dyson?!), but could Dyson counter-sue on the grounds that its reputation has been damaged by Samsung calling it a troll?
....and so the game continues, keeping the lawyers in business...Stephen Potter, Iprova Sàrl on 20 Feb 2014 @ 07:41
The "cynical" observation was a mistake. All the fluff around "troll" is just that fluff and mostly for PR marketing related battles and obviously has some impact there with the uninitiated. Not surprising when you have deliberate confusion on the part of some and just plain sloppiness on the part of others who should know better in the IP space.
But for various Dyson watchers this is a trivial side show much loved of the IP chattering classes. For real IP pundits there is much more at stake here. What is much more important is how did Dyson get to this position and what could it mean? Dyson has significant resources so how did they try to enforce a patent that was "embarrassingly" discovered to be invalid using "an army of lawyers"? Is Dyson's army up for the fight? Does Dyson not have the resources to either make sure it secures valid patent rights or at least checks they are not duds before trying to fire them off? Not good for Dyson. But even worse is this.
How much of Dyson's large patent portfolio is equally as useless? He may come to regret casting Samsung as "cynical" but he may come to regret even more from using the patent system and Dyson's IP portfolio as a cornerstone of their marketing campaigns and as an indicia of the company's value.
We all know that value based on no of patents is value based on foundations of sand. As Dyson has so rudely discovered quality trumps quantity every time.Nicholas White, Tangible IP on 02 Mar 2014 @ 09:49