More Real Estate Organizations Sued over Search Patents
photo credit: bloomsberries
An old lawsuit over real estate search patents has resurfaced again.
Florida inventor Mark Tornetta and Real Estate Alliance LTD (REAL), who owns Tornetta’s patents (Nos. 4,480,576 and 5,032,989), have announced today they have moved in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to sue the industry’s largest trade association and several national brokerages, home builders and online real estate players.
Named in the suit were:
- The National Association of Realtors (NAR), with approximately 1.3 million real estate broker and agent members nationwide;
- Nationwide real estate brokerage firms, including RE/MAX and Keller Williams Realty;
- Home builders, such as Pulte Homes and Ryland Group;
- The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB);
- Enterprise computer software providers to the real estate industry, including Fidelity National Real Estate Solutions, First American Corporation, and others;
- MOVE, Inc., the company that operates flagship real estate websites such as Realtor.com, MOVE.com, HomeBuilder.com, RentNet.com, and SeniorHousingNet.com; and
- More than 25 other defendants representing nationwide classes of claimed infringers: real estate brokers, agents, multiple listing services, new home builders, and rental property owners/managers.
The patents, which were applied for in 1986, were granted by the U.S. Government in 1989 and 1991 and cover online search methods. From their press release:
[The patents] cover user-friendly mapping methods “for locating available real estate properties for sale, lease or rental using a database of available properties at a central location and remote stations which use a graphic interface.” The patents also cover certain online usage involving a “drilldown” feature, under which specific areas can be displayed in greater detail.
The suit is seeking compensatory as well as 3x damages.
This time around, REAL has retained the law firm Proskauer Rose LLP to lead the litigation. Proskauer has a well known track record of successfully litigating cases around intellectual property – most recently leading class action efforts against YouTube and Google (YouTubeClassAction.com).
Back story. In 1998, the same group sued Microsoft over their HomeAdvisor site and in 2005 they sued a Pennsylvania real estate agent over their listings search method.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
Make sure to follow Inman News on Twitter too!
Bob Carney | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
I think I patented the way you click the submit button.
Toronto condos | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
It is just one big show and it’s possible everybody will be profiting
At least there will be another nice big causa to watch. I am not sure if the REAL’s patents are so excellent to be copied…We provide just Toronto MLS and I am sure the key to successful real estate company is not hidden in search engine…
jay | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
funny bob. The way I write I’ve had to patent the backspace button.
loren nason | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
What a bunch of crap the lawsuit is. All they are is a bunch of Patent Trolls.
Hmm i’ve figured out a way instead of looking at a piece of paper that has a list of properties on it for sale i’m going to look at a printed map that has pushpins marking the houses for sale.
Maybe I should apply for a patent.
Now if the software that does the crunching had something spectacular that nobody else does i think you could patent the code, but not the idea of looking at a map.
I hope they lose.(the patent trolls that is)
Thogek | Feb 28, 2008 | Reply
I want to patent the act of looking at a paper map in order to acquire driving directions. Has that been patented yet? :-/
Anthony Longo | Feb 29, 2008 | Reply
This should be interesting???
TimJ | Feb 29, 2008 | Reply
I believe the correct patent number for one of their patents is 4,870,576.
Scott | Sep 2, 2008 | Reply
There certainly were a lot of clever quips and comments on how absurd these patents must be. In 1984-85 before the first edition of Windows even came out graphical interfaces were in their infancy. That’s when the inventor spent months creating the technology and defining the method that he later spent $10’s of thousands of dollars to file.
He cited virtually every patent and technology in existence regarding this application and the US patent office went over it with a fine tooth comb for many months, refining and defining the invention.
To treat this process as though it were a systematic plot designed to TROLL for undue revenues shows true ignorance of the facts and of patents generally. To relegate it to merely comedy of errors by the USPTO or a ridiculous administrative oversight on two separate occassions is similarly disengenuous.
The fact is that the NAR assembled a LEGAL WAR CHEST of Millions of dollars to attempt to show that this patent was invalid, unenforceable, or didn’t apply to their member agents. Everyone of their defenses was dismissed. PLUS their defense ended up with motions for sanctions for having destroyed evidence and separate motion for perjury.
The implication is that indeed the patent is valid, is probably being infringed, and that most of the NAR members, including those that joked about the absurdity of the patent, have incurred some liability.
JDallas | Sep 5, 2008 | Reply
It appears as if patents and their enforcements are getting out of control. What strikes me is how the patent cites a graphical user interface (GUI) before there were any color monitors. In addition I thought that patents expired after 17 years, if it was filed in ‘84 as of ‘08 24 years have passed ?