IBM sued over patent infringement on FDPR

IBM has been landed with a lawsuit by an inventor over the apparent patent infringement of a “post compile optimiser for linkable object code”.

In a lawsuit filed at the District Court for the Easter District of Texas on 19 November, plaintiff James M Taylor has alleged that computer manufacturer IBM has illegally infringed on his November 21 1995 patent (referenced as the ‘‘572 patent’)  for a ‘post compile optimiser for linkable object code”.

It is alleged that the defendant, IBM, has been “and is now directly infringing; inducing others to infringe; and/or committing acts of contributory infringement, one or more claims of the ‘572 patent by making, using, offering for sales and/or importing in or into the United States, without authority, products or practices that fall within the scope of one or more claims of the ‘572 patent, including but not limited to the Defendant’s use and sale of the FDPR and FDPR-Pro and Post-Link Optimization for Linux on POWER products.”

It is alleged that these products “perform post compile optimisations upon object code,” which would be infringement upon Taylor’s own patent. 

Taylor’s own patent describes “A system for processing a complete object code data set, to be linked into an executable program.”

“The system features means for facilitating optimization analysis based upon the complete object code data set and also means for modifying the object code data based upon the optimization analysis results. The system allows for the specification of static instruction ranges that are to be isolated from the optimization process.

“Indirect and external process transfer of control destination ranges are identified in order to formulate the proper control flow information necessary to retain the optimized object code data integrity. The system enables the implementation of a class of optimizations which are supplemental to the standard class of optimizations performed during the initial object code generation process,” according to the patent.

It is alleged that IBM has infringed on the patent since before May 2004 and has knowingly done so since then being informed by Taylor at that point.

In reparation for what Taylor sees as “irreparable damage”, he seeks an injunction against IBM using his design and seeks “damages, costs and expenses… in an amount adequate to compensate Plaintiff for defendant’s infringement of the ‘572 patent”.

Furthermore, he seeks enhanced compensation for the periods within which IBM allegedly knowingly flouted the patent.