Google loses $85m to SimpleAir over patent infringement

Google Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) was ordered by a federal judge to pay SimpleAir $85 million in damages. The dispute was over patent infringement impeded through mobile device notifications. SimpleAir is a technology licensing company that owns intellectual property in wireless content delivery, mobile application, and push notifications.

SimpleAir claimed that Google breached their U.S. Patent No. 7,035,914, which involves connecting online network computers in real-time for data communication. The case was brought before U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap for the Eastern District of Texas.

Google patentThe suit is based upon Google’s Cloud Messaging and Cloud Device Messaging. Any phone or tablet, using Google’s Android OS, can send messages through the system. In addition, it offered push notifications via Facebook, Twitter and Gmail.

SimpleAir initially filed their suit in 2011, and it included claims against Google, Samsung, Microsoft and Nokia. Three of the companies settled, and Google remained to dispute the five claims of infringement. In January, a separate jury ruled that Google had indeed infringed the patent.

At first, SimpleAir sought to win damages in excess of $146 million. In stark contrast, Google asserted their claims were worth no more than $6 million. Google also said their proposed amount should be enough to cover past and future use of intellectual property through 2017. Unfortunately for Google, the jury decided that $85 million was a more fair number. Moreover, this may include future hearings for further damages. It is interesting how far apart Google’s offer was from the actual ruling.

John Payne, the lead inventor and majority owner of SimpleAir stated, “The jury understood that Google profits tremendously from its infringing use of our invention and we believe that is reflected in its verdict. We appreciate the jury’s service and their fairness in considering and validating a large damages claim made by such a small company against a company that is so widely known.” Google had declined to comment on the case.