Patent Power Comes to Intrusion Prevention
Page 1 of 1
Anyone with a Blackberry is probably well aware of how patents can impact the lives of... anyone. For a corporation, a patent awarded by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) can mean a lot of things toward its intellectual property (IP) rights: the ability to demand licenses, horse-trading with other vendors, having a leg to stand on in court over infringement of the rights, or just to look good to potential suitors.
AirTight Networks says it wants to lean toward the last item, with the announcement this week that it was awarded Patent #7,002,943 for its intrusion prevention system (IPS). Specifically, the patent covers a method and system for monitoring a selected region of an airspace associated with local area networks of computing devices. This technology is put to use in AirTights SpectraGuard line of products, which it also licenses to vendors like Colubris Networks and Extreme Networks.
However, this patent could already be in question, at least by rival company AirDefense. The maker of the eponymous AirDefense product line filed a patent interference action, claiming it filed patent requests covering the same technology two years prior. AirDefense says it filed in 2002; AirTight in 2004.
The AirTight patent as awarded is relatively broad, and could overlap with the IPS methods used by a number of companies though AirTight does state that competitors like AirMagnet and Aruba Networks do not appear to infringe, based on research conducted by the Tolly Group comparing various products.
Dennis Tsu, Vice President of Marketing at AirTight, says his companys IPS system has three key elements: the ability to detect and classify devices and events over the air, the ability to perform some sort of active prevention over the air (and not only by wire), and finally, the ability to locate the source of the problem.
We believe that if someone builds an effective intrusion prevention system then they will almost by definition be infringing or stepping into the area our patent covers, says Tsu. What weve seen is that some competitive systems dont do what we claim they dont do over-the-air-prevention, only over the wire. Some do over-the-air, but then dont locate.
That said, AirTight says it has no plans, at the moment, to litigate or demand license fees from anyone. In most places, litigation is usually the last resort, says Tsu. Theres reasonable steps most companies should take before that.
But it is an asset, and you, in the course of normal business, dont want to let people trample on it or not protect it, just like you wouldnt with a trademark, or it is deemed worthless. Theres a fine line to walk.
AirTight has 14 other patent applications under review with the USPTO; AirDefense has 16.