spend matters spend matters About this site
Advertise with Spend Matters
Advertise with Spend Matters
 

February 09, 2010

 

Ariba Prevails in Patent Litigation Against Emptoris

Earlier this morning, Ariba announced that it had prevailed in its patent suit against Emptoris. According to Ariba’s press release on the subject, "Yesterday, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas returned a verdict that Emptoris has willfully infringed an Ariba patent covering key functions for electronic auctions and found infringement on a second patent also pertaining to electronic auctions. The jury awarded Ariba $4.9 million in damages. Due to the finding of willful infringement of one of the patents, the court has discretion to increase the award related to that patent up to three times. In addition, Emptoris voluntarily filed a request to dismiss with prejudice its own patent infringement case against Ariba which was pending in the same court in exchange for Ariba’s agreement to dismiss its counterclaims in that case. The judge has granted this request and dismissed the action against Ariba in its entirety."

While I need more time to dig into the specifics of the ruling -- which I plan to do tonight and over the weekend and report back on these virtual pages next week -- my initial thoughts are as follows.



First, let me get out on the table my bias for the record -- the patent madness has got to stop. Last year, I wrote that the “software patent race and enforcement has got to stop unless we want the lawyers to win at the expense of innovation.” Who won here? Without question, Ariba and Emptoris both spent millions of dollars in legal fees to take this to trial. So Ariba won (as we know). But so did a bunch of attorneys slaving over papers and depositions for $600+ per hour.

Second, and more important to Spend Matters readers, is the impact the ruling will have on Ariba, Emptoris and the market. From an Ariba perspective, I suspect that we might see additional suits against other competitors just as ePlus took on some larger providers following its victory over Ariba (which ended up costing Ariba far more than it will cost Emptoris from a monetary award standpoint). As to Emptoris, my greatest concern here has little to do with the features the patent ruling impacts -- I have no doubt they will find suitable work-arounds to the features in question (which I will share with Spend Matters readers when I know more). Perhaps most important, the ruling does not impact any Emptoris products outside of sourcing – spend visibility, contract management, performance management, etc. are not affected.

Rather, my concern with Emptoris in this case is to what degree the final damage settlement will dip into Emptoris’ balance sheet. My own estimates based on discussions with various investment firms over they past year or so suggest tht Emptoris has somewhere between $6 million and $20 million cash on hand. They also have receivables and deferred reveue as well. But will cash-on-hand and near-term receivables be enough to cover a potentially treble damage award? Since the maximum damages appear to be somewhere in the $10-11 million range based on a rough estimate, it would appear that Emptoris can cover the potential liability (which to reiterate, we do not know yet).

More important, I suspect that Emptoris will be able to raise additional capital if necessary as it emerges from this judgement. It’s also worth noting that until the actual damage rulling, it would be too early to jump to any conclusions on the overall balance sheet impact on Emptoris. In the meantime, I will make the judgement call that while Emptoris customers and prospects have the right to be worried about the impact of the ruling, they should not be overly concerned that the jury decision or judge's monetary damages will cause a material disruption to their Emptoris deployment, planned deployments and ongoing product support and maintenance. Based on what I know at this point, I suspect that Emptoris will emerge from this ruling with a weaker balance sheet but still as a viable, long-term player with some of the most competitive products in the sector.

Stay tuned for further analysis.

- Jason Busch

Comments
You can say what about the patent madness but everyone who has invested in intellectual property owns that property and has a responsibility to the shareholders to protect them.

If the US patent office says that what has been patented is unique and has value then those are the rules we ALL need to live by...and tha tis good enough for me. The blame here lies with supposed 'innovators' (Emptoris?) who did not properly use understand what was available for them to use.
# Posted By RickyMan | 10/30/08 9:31 AM
Call Emptoris what you want: a victim, a supposed innovator, etc. It does not matter. Ironically, Emptoris claimed from day one to have filed for patents itself, so perhaps there is a subtlety to this settlement that is not lost on the likes of those who knew the young IP-touting company at the time. But what matters here is the fact that a couple of little features -- and I mean little because I used them when I was running auctions at FMKT before Ariba acquired the patent rights during the acquisition -- are going to negatively transform the balance sheet of a major player in the market. Call it what you will, but above all, I believe competition is good for this market. And when its stifled by court filings and judgements -- I should also point out that Emptoris has pursued legal action against another vendor so they're also guilty of using the courts as well -- we will all suffer in the end. BTW .. agreed -- patents can be a good thing. No arguments that the protection of intellectual property matters. But process patents have gotten out of control. Moreover, let's assume Ariba gets somewhere in the neighborhood of $5-$11 million in this case. My guess is the attorneys from both sides will collectively make out with fees approaching this amount (or at least a significant portion of it). Something is very wrong with this picture unless, of course, you are one of those lawyers.
# Posted By Jason Busch | 10/30/08 10:47 AM
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is known as a Plaintiff friendly venue. Their judges often rejected venue challenges under the reasoning that if a product was available in the jurisdiction, that was enough for venue—even if no other connection links the case to the Eastern District of Texas. It has been written the Eastern District of Texas is to the Plaintiff's bar what Delaware is to corporate management in public companies. Marshall’s federal court is referred to as a “rocket docket”. Patent holders win 78 percent of the time, compared with an average of 59 percent nationwide, according to LegalMetric. To paraphrase the Texas band Bowling for Soup, “Plaintiff attorneys come back to Texas, it’s just not the same since you went away”.

Visualize witnesses from Emptoris taking the stand to explain scaling-based algorithms for multi-commodity auction management to ten of their peers who are considering what to pick up at Wal-Mart on the way home?

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/business/24ward....
# Posted By steve | 10/30/08 11:46 AM
Jason, do you know if Ariba or Emptoris used a reverse auction for selecting their attorneys? It would be fascinating to see if they took their won medicine.

What if Ariba secured an attorney at $400, but then lost the case?

Have you heard about the implementation failure at a leading UK bank that auctioned £150 million in legal services?

Andy.
# Posted By Andrew Moorhouse | 10/31/08 1:24 AM
Andrew,

Good to hear from you. I'd like to learn more about that legal sourcing fiasco.

BTW ... there are only a handful of lawyers in Marshall, Texas to choose from -- at least those who know the judges! Read the NYT article Steve linked to ...
# Posted By Jason Busch | 10/31/08 3:10 AM
I am not a legal expert, but don't Emptoris customers have infringement protection for the affected software and if so, they would typically have rights that include Emptoris replacing it with non infringement software and/or potentially getting a full refund of the software + services. This could potentially be very damaging to Emptoris's balance sheet. It will be interesting to monitor this closely.
# Posted By SpendFan | 11/1/08 7:11 AM
If you're interested in the final outcome of the Ariba v. Emptoris case, you can read about the conclusion here:

http://www.emptoris.com/newsroom/pressreleases/new...

The Court has rejected Ariba's motion for review of the Emptoris "patch" effectively concluding the trial.
# Posted By Dan Cahill | 3/10/09 11:25 AM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us   © 2004-2010 Spend Matters, LP All rights reserved