News
Issue #2003 - 30 (November 2003)
(Updated Nov. 26, 2003)

INFRASTRUCTURE, PRODUCTS & SERVICES

More Information On Padcom & NetMotion Patent Arguments

In a previous newsflash, we reported on a patent-infringement litigation between Padcom, a company based in Pennsylvania and NetMotion, a company based in Seattle, Washington. At the bottom of this dispute are two patents awarded to Padcom in 2001 and 2002. Padcom has been involved in producing wireless network connectivity products that allow logical connection with multiple networks. Their original product allowed connection between satellite and terrestrial private networks. As such, Padcom does seem to have precedence in terms of intellectual property. Based on our limited knowledge that has not been researched extensively, NetMotion came out with a similar concept in its software a bit later. According to the company press release, NetMotion was also granted a patent for wireless data roaming and application session persistence in 2003.

Should the patents cover the general concepts that are utilized in wireless data roaming software and if NetMotion is using the same methods and concepts, one would think that NetMotion should license this technology from Padcom. These are assumptions that we can not verify. 

For more information: http://www.padcomUSA.com

MobileInfo Comments and Advisory: There is no doubt from our external perception that NetMotion is a more aggressive marketing company that is exploiting an idea and succeeding in doing that much more than Padcom did. Padcom, on the other hand, appears to be focusing on its wireless software engineering expertise. Should Padcom benefit from NetMotion's success is a question for the courts to decide. It does have a huge potential and benefit to Padcom if its claim is upheld.

NetMotion is saying that it does not see any merit in Padcom's legal challenge and that its software does not infringe on Padcom's intellectual property - a position generally expected from a defendant. It is only between the lawyers of two sides in confidence and in the courts in public that the real merits of a business litigation emerge.

Note: This news release may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 21E of Securities Exchange act of 1934 in USA. Similar provisions exist in other countries. There is no assurance that the stipulated plans of vendors will be implemented. MobileInfo does not warrant the authenticity of the information. Readers should take appropriate caution in developing plans utilizing these products, services and technology architectures.  All trademarks used in this summary are the property of their respective owners.