Dell sued over DE's US 6,460,020

BusinessWeek reports that on Oct. 27, 2004 Dell was sued in a U.S. District Court by the Virginia company DE Technologies, which alleges that the PC giant has infringed claims of its US Patent 6,460,020 covering a system for "facilitating international computer-to-computer commercial transactions." BusinessWeek also noted that critics of the USPTO have long said it lacks the resources to fully vet Internet business-method patents. The number of applications for such patents soared to 8,700 in 2001, from 927 in 1997. Last year, patent examiners received 6,000 such applications.

To date (Nov. 3, 04), the '020 has not been cited by any US patent.

The first claim of the '020 patent recites:

A computer implemented process for carrying out an international commercial transaction comprising:

running a transaction program on a computer system so as to integrate processes including:

(a) selecting a language from a menu in which to view cataloge information on products;

(b) selecting a currency from a menu in which to obtain price information;

(c) selecting a product to be purchased and a destination for shipping such product to be purchased;

(d) accessing at least one local or remote database for obtaining

(i) price information for the product to be purchased; and

(ii) a product code for an international goods clasification system pertinent to such product; and

(iii) international shipping information related to an origination point of such product and said destination;

(e) calculating costs involved in moving such product to said destination based upon said destination and such product;

(f) determining a total cost of the transaction that includes a price of the product;

(g) receiving an order for such product thereby triggering an electronic process for confirming existence of available funds; and

(h) upon confirmation of availability of said funds, accepting said order, generating an electronic record, such record including the content of a commercial invoice, to facilitate passage of such product to said destination.

Technically, this method claim has only one step ("running a transaction program") with the itemized claim elements being processes that must be integrated. Of these processes, one notes no element --confirming the availability of such funds--.


Independent claim 13 recites:

A system for carrying out an international commercial transaction over a network of computers, the system comprising:

means for running a transaction program so as to integrate components including;

(a) means for determining a language in which to view catalogue information on products;

(b) means for determining a currency in which to obtain price information;

(c) means for receiving a selection of a product to be purchased and a product to be purchased and a destination for shipping such product to be purchased;

(d) means for accessing at least one local or remote database for

(i) price information for the product to be purchased; and

(ii) a product code for an international goods classification system pertinent to such product; and

(iii) international shipping information related to an origination point of such product and said destination;

(e) means for calculating costs involved in moving such product to said destination based upon said destination and such product;

(f) means for receiving an order for such product thereby triggering an electronic process for confirming existence of available funds; and

(g) upon confirmation of availability of said funds, means for generating an electronic record, such record including the content of a commercial invoice, to facilitate passage of such product to said destination.




The businessweek article began:
-->Remember when dot-coms discovered the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office? In the late '90s, no puffed-up Internet idea was complete unless it included plans to file for patents that would supposedly recognize claims of being the first to do this or that in cyberspace. Scads of applications were made, and some patents were granted, but none was sillier than Amazon's (AMZN ) failed 1999 attempt to keep rival Barnes & Noble (BKS ) from copying its "one click" payment system.<--
To recall history, amazon.com got an injunction from the district court, which injunction was later vacated by the CAFC. Amazon and Barnes & Noble later settled the case.