Interval Licensing, a patent holding company owned by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, filed patent-infringement claims on August 27, 2010, against eleven of the biggest names in Internet-based commerce: AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube. Interval’s complaint alleges that those companies incorporated technologies in their web sites that fall within the scope of four patents owned by Interval. However, as reflected in the substantial share of online activity dominated by those companies, Interval’s suit arguably represents one company laying claim to core components of the infrastructure of Internet business – components that vast numbers of businesses small and large employ every day in order to attract customers.

The four patents identified by Interval in its complaint are:
  • Patents No. 6,034,652 and 6,788,314, issued March 7, 2000, and September 7, 2004: “Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device.”
  • Patent No. 6,263,507, issued July 17, 2001: “Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented by Audiovisual Data.”
  • Patent No. 6,757,682, issued June 29, 2004: “Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest.”

While the patent titles do not provide deep detail, the combined scope of the patents upon review is nearly breathtaking, when you consider the ways many of us use the Internet today. Potentially implicated by Interval’s claims are video-streaming sites, news aggregators, and services providers that allow users to customize the displayed content and to receive email alerts when there has been a change to that content.

Interval apparently is prepared to show that all or some of the defendants knew or should have known that they were infringing its patents. However, to the extent that it is unable to do so, considering the widespread use of these concepts across the Internet, it would appear that a case of accidental infringement would be strong. That likely would only reduce the available damages, though – if Interval otherwise is successful in pursuing these claims the potential windfall it would receive in terms of licensing fees would be huge.

At least in part because they have the potential to entail such broad technological scope, business process patents like the ones at issue in the Interval lawsuit often combine to form fields of IP landmines for the unaware. Companies with a heavy dependence on technology must continue to recognize patent exposure as a cost of doing business, and they must be ready to work closely with knowledgeable counsel to evaluate the integrity of any patent claims with which they are presented.