Spring Design seeks injunction barring Nook sales

Could a legal challenge threaten the launch of Barnes & Noble's Nook e-reader?

In a new lawsuit, start-up Spring Design is seeking not only monetary damages from Barnes & Noble, but also is looking to get an injunction barring sales of the Nook, which it says misappropriates its trade secrets.

Spring Design said in a statement Monday that it had filed a lawsuit against Barnes & Noble, but the statement did not specify what damages it was seeking.

However, it turns out that the lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Jose, Calif., seeks both monetary damages as well as a halt to sales of the Nook.

According to the lawsuit, a copy of which was seen by CNET News, Spring Design says it is seeking "preliminary and permanent injunctive relief... restraining and enjoining B&N from use or disclosure of Spring's confidential information or trade secrets, including the sale of the Nook."

The Nook, like Spring Design's Alex, combines a color touch screen with an e-ink display, and both readers use the Android operating system. In its lawsuit, Spring Design says it showed its plans for the Alex to Barnes & Noble, which showed interest in the product and gave no indication it was working on a similar device.

The Nook, a clear and present challenger to Amazon's Kindle, is due to go on sale later this month for $259.

Barnes & Noble has declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying it does not discuss litigation matters.

Court papers filed by Spring Design also include a confidentiality agreement, signed in February, between the company and Barnes & Noble, as well as early Spring Design presentations and e-mails between Barnes & Noble and Spring executives.

As a reminder, here's a look at Spring Design's Alex (left) and Barnes & Noble's Nook (note--the images are not to scale):

(Credit: Spring Design)

(Credit: Barnes & Noble)

[flanagan]

Is it possible for Barnes and Noble to have seen the Alex in Feb and by Nov have a production model in what I'd hope would be in large quantities?

In any case, the Nook looks different enough and doesn't use it's bottom screen for content nor does it web browse.

[gerrrg]

Well, if it matters, I think the nook is far more elegant.

[JoeF2]

Ditto.
The Alex is just ugly, and the big color display on the bottom distracts more from reading than anything else.
They obviously use it for browsing the web, which is not what the color display on the Nook is used for.

[jessicainmd]

I agree. Alex's is ugly. If i wanted ugly and bulky I would buy a kindle.

[Xenophons_Gunny]

Timing is everything.

[BeamerMT]

I think the lawsuit is bogus. If you look at Spring Design's website, the color screen looks like it does a lot more then just flipping thru ebooks as the nook does.

[cyrusfox]

They are definitely destroying relations with Barnes & Noble here. Who is going to distribute the Alex now, when and if it ever comes out?

[rgunther]

Oh, gee, a reader that's part color and part e-ink. I'm sure that no two people could have possibly conceived of that at the same time.

[atish505]

Both devices use Android 1.5 and 90% of the same open source programs and toolkit. So where does the IP really lie?

[-fjtorres-]

SD claims they have a patent for the *idea* of a dual screen ebook reader where the second screen provides a touch UI. If the patent is valid (big if) for the ebook reader space, they have a case. How good is up to the lawyers.
This is not a code case. But even if it were, there is still the matter of any proprietary algorithms that might underlie the Alex. Just because the gadgets both use Android doesn't mean all the code is open source...
There is more to IP than just code.

[toomath]

Oh come on these devices are in the same category, but are in no way identical. By this argument, spring design could argue that if it created a pretty pencil nobody else could make an ugly one.

[-fjtorres-]

Guys, the issue is not trade dress but rather a patent for dual displays on ebook readers, where the second display provides a touch interface for the first. Remember that for patent infringement it is the *idea* that matters not the implementation.
B&N needs to prove that the Nook does not infringe the patent or that the patent is invalid.
And those fights, as we've seen, go on forever.
Key issue is that the judges start from the assumption that that patent is valid.
Odds look good for an injunction, actually.

[Mr_7235]

Trade secrets are very different from patents. Trade secrets, unlike patents, never expire; but if anyone else ever figures out the secret (through legal means), they offer 0 protection. That's why Coke has had a monopoly on its recipe for so long.

[-fjtorres-]

Yes, trade secrets are a different situation altogether. And in some ways they offer the strongest (eternal) IP protection.
But I was referring to trade *dress*, the term for the product's appearance, in reference to the folks who think that B&N is free and clear because the Nook is white and uses a smaller screen. Trade dress issues are about,, in effect, false advertising; making your product look like somebody else's to "confuse" buyers into linking your product to the other guy's.
What SD is saying is that they showed their product to B&N and then (they allege) B&N copied the core idea. They're not saying they copied their design or that they copied the implementation; just that they copied the idea without paying for it.
It's the kind of stuff that happens in China every day but as long as the rip-off products stay in China no suits are filed because the chinese legal system makes it a fruitless endeavor. With the (alleged) rip-off product shipping into the US, though, this particular suit is non-trivial.
B&N has some 'splaining to do...

[gggg sssss]

@ fjtorres- in which case Apple an dPalm before that have them all beaten

[TogetherinParis]

Patent infringement, especially by a big company, should be a criminal matter. The offending executives and corporate attorneys should be punished with many years of jail time. The criminal culture that set this thieving in motion must be crushed.

Business people should set examples of honesty and integrity, not wrong doing and perfidy. B&N obviously sent out the Alex design to a Chinese manufacturer as soon as they saw it. The Alex people should take over B&N from the bandits who now run it and do with it what they will. Nothing else will serve justice.

[Booogle]

I've been using an ebook reader on my Nintendo DS for a couple of years, two screens, colour and one of them has touch control. I would say this idea has already been done.

[zyxxy]

Nowhere in the article does the word 'patent' show up. This is about non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements, not patents, not 'trade secrets'. When you sign a non-disclosure, you enter into a legally binding agreement with the other party. The form and content of that agreement are what matter, and no one here appears to have actually seen that agreement yet.

[EmbSysPro]

I'd have to agree with -fjtorres-. As a professional product developer whose entire business is based on prototype development for OEM's and ODM's I'm constantly worried about a prospective client that looks at one of my designs, passes on it and then 9 months later comes out with a strikingly similar product.

This happens all of the time and NDA's are practically useless. We can only hope that we are dealing with a company that has integrity. Spring Designs Alex appears to be a near production ready, proof of concept prototype and the Nook appears the next step, the RTM version of the design.

[highlordxanthus]

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next weeks. I was actually interested in getting a nook, doing alot of research between in and the kindle. Physically I prefer the nook, but deep down they are very very close with the kindle coming ahead on features like web and such. That didnt mean much to me. If you can believe it, I actually want one for reading . . . books !!

[rayrandall_dotmac]

So make the window at the bottom black and white or do away with it all together who cares. The sleek design and lack of buttons to accidently hit is the clear winner here especially for the computer challenged that just likes to curl up and read like the one I have pre-ordered one for Christmas. I can't imagine trying to read while at the same time trying to balance that other monstrosity.