Intellectual Property Law

Nacre v. Silynx (or QuietPro v. QuietOps): Garnering Lots of Attention

By Brian Wm. Higgin

     Of the many IP cases summarized on the Maryland IP Law blog recently, two have garnered the most attention from site visitors: Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom, which I summarized in November, and Nacre v. Silynx Communications, which I discussed in October. I can understand why the Technology Patents case has received attention: the patent infringement allegations involve popular text messaging technology, and the number of defendants that have been sued (131) makes the lawsuit one of the largest ever filed in the District Court for the District of Maryland.

     It is not as apparent, however, why the Nacre v. Silynx case has received the attention that it has. Perhaps it is the subject matter of the lawsuit, which, according to Nacre's complaint involves “two-way radios and wireless communicators for use in combat, in battlefield conditions, in military, military special forces, and law enforcement activities.” This would seem to be a huge market today.

     Or perhaps it is the competitiveness between the parties, both of which claim on their respective websites to be the "world's leader" in communications equipment that incorporates sophisticated noise canceling/noise protection technology. Nacre sells to the U.S. and foreign governments. Rockville, MD-based Silynx Communications states on its website that its headsets are used by the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), U.S. Army, USMC and the world’s elite Special Forces.

     I'll track the docket and maybe learn other reasons why many are drawn to the case.

Update:

• Silynx filed is answer to Nacre’s complaint on November 28, 2007. In it, Silynx makes the standard denials of Nacre’s allegations, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims (i.e., declaration of trademark and patent non-infringement, trademark and patent invalidity, and patent unenforceability).
  
  
• Silynx also asserted a defense of “government contractor immunity” under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 (that statute has been used by private parties to establish that they cannot be held liable for infringement for any goods “used or manufactured by or for the United States”).
  
  
• Silynx’s unenforceability allegation is based on claims that “those involved in patent prosecution failed to disclose to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at least one publication by one of the inventors entitled “Active Noise Reduction In An Ear Terminal” given on March 18, 1999 at the Technical University of Berlin as part of the 137th Regular Meeting of the Acoustical Society of America 2nd Convention of the European Acoustics Association: Forum Acousticum 99 integrating the 25th German Acoustics DAGA Conference.”
  

Comments:

• Plaintiff Nacre AS is a Norwegian company that claims to own the U.S. registered trademark QUIETPRO, U.S. Patent No. 7,039,195 (“Ear Terminal”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,567,524 (“Noise Protection Verification Device”).
  
  
• Silynx is reportedly seeking a federal trademark for its QUIETOPS mark
  
  
• Nacre is represented by Andrew Kopsidas of DC's Fish & Richardson (with Gregory A. Madera, Ahmed J. Davis, Adam J. Kessel, and Charles Hieken admitted pro hac).
  
  
• Silynx is represented by Paul J. Lambert of DC’s Bingham McCutchen (with Robert C. Bertin, Timothy A Molino, and Richard S. Taffet admitted pro hac)

Full post as published by Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog on December 05, 2007 (boomark / email).