These days, looking up info about a home online using maps and listings data may seem as simple as falling off a log. But in 2002, the process must have looked a lot more complicated.

It was then that the U.S. Patent office granted patent No. 6,385,622, a method of “accessing a common database from a remote communications port, at any qualified location, to generate a map or other positional information which locates selected items of interest.”

Now, the decade-old patent is coming back to haunt the real estate industry.

Virginia-based CIVIX-DDI, owner of the patent in question and several others related to it, has launched several lawsuits against real estate websites, MLSs and technology vendors seeking damages from patent infringement. Now, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) is attempting to work out a deal with the company which would help protect the industry from further suits. The deal would require MLSs and vendors to pony up at least $7.5 million over the next several months.

And the clock is ticking: As of May 18, NAR leaders have 90 days to convince enough MLSs and vendors to sign on to fulfill their part of the deal, with the first deadline set for June 18.

Local MLS leaders are still coming to grips with the implications of the deal.

“We definitely heard about the suits that were happening around the country,” said Sandra Carroll, CEO of the Berkshire County Board of Realtors, which operates the Berkshire County MLS. “This was the first time we had heard about an offer of settlement. It was the first time we actually had concrete numbers about the costs to license.” The Berkshire County board is meeting on the matter and will decide what to do within 30 days, she said.

Kathy Condon, CEO of MLS PIN, said that her board, too, would be making a final decision about whether to settle in the coming week. As one of the larger MLSs in the country, PIN had been aware of and concerned about the litigation, Condon said.

Henry DiGiacomo, CEO of the Cape Cod and Islands MLS, said that he was still waiting to get full details of the plan from NAR but anticipated that the board would be taking up the matter shortly.

Expensive Agreement

CIVIX filed suit against Realtor.com in 2005 on the basis of the patents; that case has since been settled. It was only late last year, when the Virginia company sued two large MLSs – MRED in Illinois and MRIS in Virginia – that many in the industry became aware of the company’s patent claims.

The MLSs which have previously been sued are some of the largest in the country, with tens of thousands of members. But even if CIVIX pursues its claims against the largest MLSs and vendors first, that may yet leave them plenty of time to pursue smaller fry: A patent holder can file suit for up to six years after a patent expires, says attorney Lisa Treannie of Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton in Waltham. The CIVIX patent expires in 2015.

NAR’s settlement deal will allow the national organization to issue licenses to participating MLSs for an anticipated fee of approximately $9 per member total, which will cover the four years remaining before the patent is set to expire. Vendors will also be asked to contribute to the fund. Participation is voluntary, but MLSs will have to assess the merits of the deal fairly quickly: If the national organization cannot convince enough members to contribute funds within the deadlines laid out in the proposal, it’s up to CIVIX to decide whether to “terminate the agreement and proceed independently,” said David Sheikh, an attorney for Niro, Haller & Niro, a Chicago-based intellectual property law firm representing CIVIX.

At the first deadline NAR will have had to procure one third of the outstanding total due to CIVIX, roughly $2.5 million.

Dangerous Precedents

Such staged rollouts are typical of blanket licenses in patent litigation, said Treannie. Any particular firm may decline to participate, but “if you don’t participate in the license agreement then you’re at risk, as one of the outstanding MLSs, to be sued separately,” she said. “You either participate with the group or take your chances on your own.”

Though her organization had yet to come to a decision, Condon said the terms were an improvement over previous offers.

“When you consider what they were initially asking for, which was $6 per member per year until the expiration of the patent [in 2015], I think the $9 is reasonable,” Condon told Banker & Tradesman.

Opting out is not uncommon, however. “Somebody might look at a patent and say, ‘this is junk, we’re not going to pay you guys, this patent is invalid,’ or ‘we think we don’t infringe it’ for whatever reason. It really depends on the circumstance,” Treannie said.

Caroll’s MLS was also still weighing the potential costs. “The errors and omissions insurance coverage, the deductible we have is so high – it’s $100,000 for our national policy. So for us, obviously, having to pay $5,000 or $6,000 is a considerable difference, when you’re having to weigh it against legal costs that may arise,” Carroll said. “It’s a lot more expensive than if we don’t get sued, but it’s sure a lot less than if we do.”

Some out of state MLS leaders had other concerns. Donald Hull, president and CEO of the Greater Fairfield County MLS in Connecticut, worried about the example settling might set for future litigation.

“It appears that the logic is, ‘although it’s entirely possible that we would prevail as an industry in fighting this suit, it’s more expensive to fight than to settle, and therefore we should settle it,’” he said. “I’m not sure that sets a good precedent, either.”