Quantum Bayesian Networks

September 1, 2015

Is Suing Cambridge Quantum Computing & Grupo Arcano For Patent Infringement Feasible?

Filed under: Uncategorized — rrtucci @ 8:30 am

My company artiste-qb.net owns 11 USA quantum computing software patents (5 granted, 6 pending). If Cambridge Quantum Computing is infringing on our patents, we would definitely sue them and their main investor Grupo Arcano, which has an office in Miami.

Suing for patent infringement can cost millions of dollars per case. Such high costs put it far out of the reach of a small business like us. But there is a way around this obstacle: hiring patent lawyers on a contingency basis. Nowadays, there is a whole “patent troll” industry of law firms that specialize in suing rich companies for patent infringement, and such firms often offer to work for you on a contingency basis, meaning that you don’t pay them anything. They subtract their fees from the final money settlement.

Quite frankly, if we were to sue Cambridge QC, we would not care if the lawyers got 99% of the settlement money. Our goal would not be to make any sort of profit from the lawsuit but to inflict maximum damage on Cambridge QC.

The following article is a good introduction to this method of patent litigation:

Patent Contingent Fee Litigation, by David Schwartz on March 25, 2012

Excerpt:

In the last decade, a substantial market has begun to develop for contingent fee representation in patent litigation. Wiley Rein — a traditional general practice law firm with hundreds of attorneys practicing all areas of law — represented a small company, NTP, Inc., in its patent infringement lawsuit against Research in Motion, the manufacturer of the Blackberry line of devices. The lawsuit famously settled in 2006 for $612.5 million, and the press reported Wiley Rein received over $200 million because it handled the lawsuit on a contingent fee basis. And Wiley Rein is not alone in doing so. Many patent litigators around the country have migrated toward handling patent cases on a contingent fee basis.

3 Comments »

  1. How can you not do this? It’s so obvious they are infringing on your patents. It’s a slam-dunk, open and shut case. I volunteer to testify as an expert witness. Also, you should name Seth Lloyd as an unindicted co-conspirator, whatever that is.

    You should of course file your case in east Texas, because the judges there have a high degree of expertise in quantum computing.

    Comment by Max Born — September 1, 2015 @ 4:20 pm

  2. Hi Max,
    It hadn’t crossed my mind that Seth Lloyd could be involved in this deal, but it would not be so surprising given that, according to Wikipedia, he studied at Cambridge Univ., UK. For now, I doubt it because he is not mentioned in the CambridgeQC website.

    Comment by rrtucci — September 1, 2015 @ 5:01 pm

  3. As far as I know Cambridge QC doesn’t have any patents at this time (at least not US ones), and I am sure they will be careful at performing extensive patent searches. They certainly will be able to afford good patent attorneys🙂

    So while it’s always good to be vigilant I don’t think there’s much reason for concern.

    But it sure is great to have undead Max Born as expert witness …

    Comment by Quax — September 2, 2015 @ 4:44 am


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: