SHARE
Facebook X Pinterest WhatsApp

U.S. Appeals Court Tosses Bar-Code Patent Case

Written By
thumbnail
Evan Schuman
Evan Schuman
Sep 14, 2005

A U.S. Court of Appeals panel this week issued a ruling in a long-running patent infringement lawsuit that threatened retailers using bar-code readers. The panel affirmed a lower court ruling that the patent infringement case should not go forward.

The case involves several bar-code system manufacturers—including Symbol Technologies, Accu-Sort Systems, Intermec Technologies, Metrologic Instruments, PSC, Teklogic, Zebra Technologies, Cognex and Telxon—that were sued by a foundation that owns the patents from an early bar-code inventor named Jerome Lemelson.

The Lemelson Medical, Education and Research Foundation owns about 185 unexpired patents—some dating back to 1954—that involve machine vision and bar-code identification. After pursuing bar-code vendors for many years, Lemelson more recently sent letters to major retailers suggesting that they might be targets as well. Among the retailers involved were CompUSA, Wal-Mart, Sears, LensCrafter and The Home Depot.

Some retailers have already paid money to Lemelson to settle the case, said Ray Sweigart, an attorney representing a friend of the court filing from the National Retail Federation.

The appellate panel accepted a decision from a Nevada U.S. district court panel that rejected Lemelson’s lawsuit for a few reasons, including that “Lemelson’s 18-to-39-year delay in filing and prosecuting the asserted claims under the fourteen patents-in-suit was unreasonable and unjustified.”

Analysts and RFID industry executives are upbeat over a proposed patent licensing consortium. Click here to read more.

The court also said that today’s techniques—used by Symbol and the other defendants—are so much more sophisticated than what the patent described in the 1950s that it didn’t make sense to force the defendants to pay royalties.

“Because Symbol’s devices used modern tools such as laser and CCD cameras and programmable computers and because the district court refused to construe Lemelson’s claim terms as encompassing such devices, the court held that Lemelson failed to prove that Symbol’s products infringed the asserted patent claims,” according to a copy of the appellate panel’s decision.

The case is not necessarily over, as Lemelson has various appeal options, including asking for the U.S. Supreme Court to make a ruling.


Retail Center Editor Evan Schuman can be reached at Evan_Schuman@ziffdavis.com.

Check out eWEEK.com’s for the latest news, views and analysis on technology’s impact on retail.

Recommended for you...

What do Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, and IBM Have in Common? Tape Storage
Drew Robb
Aug 15, 2022
What Does Quantum Computing Mean for IT?
Devin Partida
Aug 11, 2022
Solving the Video Surveillance Retention Challenge 
Drew Robb
Jul 28, 2022
Top 6 IT Challenges in Healthcare
Lauren Hansen
Jun 21, 2022
CIO Insight Logo

CIO Insight offers thought leadership and best practices in the IT security and management industry while providing expert recommendations on software solutions for IT leaders. It is the trusted resource for security professionals who need to maintain regulatory compliance for their teams and organizations. CIO Insight is an ideal website for IT decision makers, systems integrators and administrators, and IT managers to stay informed about emerging technologies, software developments and trends in the IT security and management industry.

Property of TechnologyAdvice. © 2025 TechnologyAdvice. All Rights Reserved

Advertiser Disclosure: Some of the products that appear on this site are from companies from which TechnologyAdvice receives compensation. This compensation may impact how and where products appear on this site including, for example, the order in which they appear. TechnologyAdvice does not include all companies or all types of products available in the marketplace.