Mobile payments startup Square finds itself in a legal pickle

The high-profile startup Square has filed a lawsuit against a company to clear up the rights to its invention, which allows you to pay for products by swiping your credit card into a card reader plugged into your mobile phone.

Square and its chairman Jim McKelvey have filed a lawsuit against REM Holdings 3 because of a dispute over the filing of a patent that is fundamental to Square’s business.

Based on Square’s version of the story, inventor McKelvey couldn’t sell a piece of glass art because he couldn’t accept a credit card as a payment. He moved on to invent the simple reader device that plugs into a mobile phone and carries out the transaction via the phone network.

McKelvey worked with Jack Dorsey, co-founder of Twitter, to set up Square as a startup to exploit the invention. About the same time, in February, 2009, McKelvey consulted his friend Robert Morley to help build a prototype magnetic card reader that could be plugged into a cell phone jack.

They built a working prototype that used a circuit designed by Morley. That circuit takes the card’s magnetic stripe and turns it into an audio signal the iPhone can process. They contacted a patent attorney, David Chervitz, to search for other patents. Then Chervitz filed a patent application in June, 2009. The patent was granted — No. 7,810,729 — but McKelvey’s name was inadvertently left off the application. Only Morley was awarded the patent.

Morley, an associate professor of electrical engineering at Washington University, said in an interview in 2009 that he had planned to assign the patent to Square in exchange for shares in the company, but the two sides couldn’t agree on the amount of shares. Square says they tweaked the design and did not use Morley’s circuit. In any case, Square argues that the patent should have had both names.

[via TechCrunch]

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FUUP2NOBVDPEDTSN6C6YGBQGOQ KevinR

    Engineers don't normally just invent things out of the blue, there is always a catalyst. I think McKelvey should have been on the patent. Morley should stop being greedy and realize he built the thing but didn't come up with the idea. I think 10 percent of the company is ok.

  • http://venturebeat.com deantak

    yeah, seems like this is a negotiation gone bad

  • wolfmanjeffrey

    Agreed, everyone involved should have been on the patent. I find it very interesting that someone thought that simply changing the circuitry is going to change the strip reader’s core function and void the patent, this is a load!

    Patents are like stories, no mater how you word the story, if the message or ending is the same on each one, it’s the same story! Regardless of what circuitry they use, the reader still “transforms” a magnetic strip signal into an audio signal the software can understand.

    I'm actually surprised Jack Dorsey even got involved in an underhanded trick to alter the device and avoid the patent, he's smarter then that, right?

blog comments powered by Disqus