AirTight refuted claims by one of its competitors that US Patent No. 7,002,943, granted on Tuesday 21 February 2006 is unenforceable

February 27, 2006

2 Min Read

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. -- AirTight Networks, the leading provider of wireless perimeter security solutions, today refuted claims by one of its competitors that US Patent No. 7,002,943, granted on Tuesday 21 February 2006 is unenforceable. This patent granted by the US PTO (Patent and Trademarks Office) covers key technologies that are core elements of wireless intrusion detection and prevention.

In AirTight Networks' patent, it cited the relevant previous patent applications of this competitor, to ensure that the US PTO was aware of them. Of the four earlier patent applications filed by this competitor, two were rejected in their entirety, and two are still in process. These applications of this competitor do not describe, anticipate or allude to the novel ideas which AirTight has invented in the space of wireless intrusion detection and prevention. The fact that the AirTight patent was granted in less than half the time of these competitive applications speaks for itself.

AirTight Networks' SpectraGuard Enterprise has established its industry leadership position by delivering the key elements of an effective wireless intrusion prevention system (WIPS):

  • detecting and correctly classifying wireless threats - to catch all threats, while minimizing false alarms

  • preventing (multiple, simultaneous) wireless threats - while continuing to scan for new ones

  • accurately locating the wireless threats on a floor map - so they can be removed.

This patent addresses technologies implementing these functionalities, which are fundamental to wireless intrusion prevention.

"As I stated last week, this seminal patent validates AirTight's leadership position as the first company to deliver and now patent a truly effective WIPS solution," said David King, Chairman and CEO of AirTight Networks.

"The claims being made by our competitor are false and misleading, and illustrate their lack of sophistication of how to manage the US Patent process. Their patent interference claim has been attached to a patent application which has already been rejected by the US PTO. The expedited patent examination process which AirTight Networks employed is commonplace and well understood by intellectual property professionals. And, once a patent is granted, which ours has been, there is no difference in the law based on what patent approval process was used. Our competitor's wild accusations are a direct slap-in-the-face to the quality of the US PTO's examination process and the professional conduct of the examiner. We view these statements as totally unfounded and irresponsible in the extreme. We intend to aggressively protect our intellectual property and build on our technology and product leadership."

AirTight Networks Inc.

Subscribe and receive the latest news from the industry.
Join 62,000+ members. Yes it's completely free.

You May Also Like