CrakRevenue Wins Appeal in 'Virtual Affiliate' Patent Fight
 

It?s a big day for us. We fought for something we believed in, although a settlement would have certainly been less costly than litigation, we couldn?t let patent trolls continue to bully us and others in our industry. We can now focus on the goal we set four years ago: centralize all the industry?s top offers with the CrakRevenue network

This is good news for the affiliate marketing industry because it means Essociate cannot assert its claim against other networks. The court?s holding is also good news for the affiliate marketing industry because it makes it far less likely that other parties will attempt to assert similarly unfounded patent infringement claims.

http://blog.crakrevenue.com/wp-conte...Blog_cr-01.png

On Friday, March 11, 2016, the US Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed U.S. District Judge James V. Selna?s ruling confirming the unpatentability and invalidity of Essociate?s patent.

Last February, the parent company of CrakRevenue won the first round of a hard-fought patent battle filed by Essociate, Inc. Essociate claimed the company was infringing on their patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,804,660.
Their patent described a method and system for configuring an existing affiliate network to receive ?virtual affiliates? from an affiliate pooling network. Essociate has used its patent to sue more than 20 companies in the affiliate networking space for infringing on the ?660 patent.

Essociate sued CrakRevenue?s affiliate program in April 2014 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Essociate alleged willful patent infringement and asked to be awarded damages, lost profits, attorney fees, and a permanent injunction.

But unlike many other companies, Nicolas Chrétien ? Founder & President of CrakRevenue ? chose not to settle. In January 2015, after months of litigation, he obtained an order from the District Court striking all of Essociate?s infringement contentions. The parent company of CrakRevenue then teamed up with Clickbooth.com, which had also been sued, to challenge the validity of the Essociate patent. The District Court granted the CPA network motion, declaring Essociate?s patent claims invalid.

A year ago, this was a significant case for companies accused of infringing on patents that try to monopolize on abstract ideas on common Internet business practices when Essociate made an appeal of the judgment.

The US Federal Circuit?s decision settles this judicial battle once and for all, sending a loud and clear message.

Parent Company of CrakRevenue Wins Appeal in Patent Fight Against Essociate | CrakRevenue

CrakRevenue Wins Appeal in 'Virtual Affiliate' Patent Fight - XBIZ.com

Crakmedia Wins Appeal in Patent Fight Against Essociate -- QUEBEC CITY, March 15, 2016

Much respect :thumbsup

:GFYBand

Congrats on the win!

Congrats Guys!

Congrats Nik. This was an import fight for many affiliate networks, whether they realize it or not. Nice win, albeit an expensive one. Patent trolls are little more than a hindrance to progress.

Congratulations for the win.

Congradulations ...

Congrats guys.
Who are these patent trolls?

GFY Bros. HuntingMoon. XPays. They even have their own forum here.

good stuff right there

Congrats:thumbsup:thumbsup

Nice work Crak!! :)

Congrats :thumbsup

Congrats guys :)

28 minute of pure joy - The Appeal Hearing audio

http://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.g...=2015-1332.mp3

And here the a transcript of the best parts.

Fed. Circ. Skeptical Of Arguments To Restore Web Patent
Share us on: By Michael Macagnone

Law360, Washington (March 9, 2016, 10:09 PM ET) -- Federal Circuit judges Wednesday grilled the inventor of a web referral patent nixed under the Supreme Court's Alice decision about whether any aspect of the system could satisfy the high court's standard that patents cannot be granted to abstract concepts.

Federal Circuit Judge Todd M. Hughes led the questioning on whether to overturn U.S. District Judge James V. Selna’s February 2015 ruling that Essociate Inc. had claimed an abstract idea with its e-commerce patent that allowed online merchants to track user traffic from sites that weren’t part of their affiliate system.

Judge Hughes said that given the abstract nature of referral systems, which allow web sites to determine advertisement rates based on how much traffic the ads generate in getting users to follow links to the vendor’s own site, Essociate’s patent would have to demonstrate further improvements to the ideas to receive patent protection.

“The referral system is abstract; it is unpatentable,” Judge Hughes said. “In improving an abstract idea, you still haven’t convinced me you have improved in a way sufficient to be patentable.”

Essociate had launched patent infringement suits against Clickbooth.com Inc. in 2013 and Crakmedia in 2014, and the two defendants moved for judgments on the pleadings. That resulted in U.S. District Judge James V. Selna’s summary judgment of patent invalidity and the current appeal.

The patent simply covered the abstract idea of keeping track of which customers come from various referrers, Selna ruled.

“Regardless of whether a merchant is seeking customers on or off the Internet, it is a fundamental economic practice to keep track of who is directing customers to one’s business, and compensate or provide incentives to that referring source to ensure the continuing flow of customers from that source,” Judge Selna wrote.

But Essociate counsel Derek Newman said Wednesday the patent doesn’t deal with those sorts of abstract concepts. He said the patent allows for easing the previously complicated process of getting the referral system up and running, a problem inherent to the Internet.

“The gist of the patent is access. The gist of the patent is not the abstract idea of tracking and receiving a referral,” he said.

Judge Hughes took issue with that description, however, saying, “You’re talking about this [access] as if the claims actually say this,” while he pointing to the described steps in the patent, which detail the handling of referrals.

Clickbooth.com pushed even further, saying Essociate’s claimed invention only reorganized the economic relationship between vendor and website so Essociate could insert itself as a middleman. Darren Franklin, counsel for Clickbooth.com, said it was “really a system that takes over the bookkeeping from the broker’s computer and moves it to the Essociate’s computer.”

Franklin said the supposed “access” provided by Essociate's patent is just putting bookkeeping for a referral program on a computer.

“‘Access’ is just the flip side of receiving and tracking referrals, and Essociate’s patent is directed to the tracking and receiving of referrals,” Franklin said.

The U.S. Supreme Court rendered its decision that abstract concepts could not be patented in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International in June 2014.

The patent-at-issue is U.S. Patent Number 6,804,660.

Federal Circuit Judges Jimmie V. Reyna, Evan J. Wallach and Todd M. Hughes sat on the panel.

Essociate is represented by Derek Alan Newman, Derek Linke and Keith P. Scully of Newman Du Wors LLP.

Appellee Clickbooth.com is represented by Darren Matthew Franklin and Andrew T. Kim of Shepard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP and Richard Newman of Hinch Newman.

Appellee 4355768 Canada Inc., also known as Crakmedia, is represented by Ben M. Davidson and William G. Jenks.

The case is Essociate, Inc. v. Clickbooth.com, LLC, case number is 15-1332, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Congrats to the winners (lawyers)!

This is awesome news! :thumbsup

Great news! Congratulations Nick! now let's get to work!

Great news. Congrats Crak. :thumbsup

You're still here? How's things? :)

A patent has to be a unique idea and a new process.

1. Counting on a abacus or a computer there is no difference -- counting is counting.
2. You cannot patent selling either -- it is a commonly used method of commerce.
3. You cannot patent brokering sales either -- brokering is not unique or a new process.

The patent should never been granted.
Too bad you had to spend all that money on the legal challenge and I hope you were awarded your costs in damage compensation :2 cents:

Great news, Congrats!!!!!

:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup:thumbsup

congrats :thumbsup

Congrats Nik, great win and kudos for fighting it out.

kind of ironic

Much respect for taking this the distance. Hopefully this will cost Evan and Michael a shit ton in lost revenue in the future, patent trolls are scum.

This is awesome. Gratz :thumbsup

Congrats Crakrevenue!!

Sweet win Congrats!!

If you check out the interview Evan did on Domain Sherpa back in 2011 he claims he made over a million a year from enforcing his patent and licensing fees.

Hopefully those paying can use your win to their advantage.

Again big props to Crak! :thumbsup

My gaydar is going off, is he a cock sucker?

Does it make you gay if you only fuck other in the ass?

A hole is a hole is a hole.

I don't have anything against gays, or jews (you are one after all :winkwink:)

Hey dig, I'm around occasionally :) I'm good thanks. How's things on your end. PM me for my contact info if you want to catch up.

Fuck yeah! Congrats, Nik and Crak!

Wasn't he the Heb who used to sue everyone for anything?

Yes they did sued and settled with a lot of people and great compagnies , some even claim they got Azoogle out of business.

https://dockets.justia.com/search?query=Essociate+Inc


Thanks everyone for the good words, this is really appreciated as this was an immense source of stress, lost of focus as, it was very time consuming and as you can imagine immense legal fee's.

well done!

Sounds like a great news.congrats :thumbsup

Good work!

CrakRevenue numero uno