decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Lodsys - An update
Tuesday, August 02 2011 @ 09:00 AM EDT

In the various Lodsys cases there have been a number of items filed with the various courts (as can be seen from the docket update below), but there has not been a whole lot of material activity in any of the cases. Nothing overly exciting here, except for the dismissal of small developer defendant Richard Shinderman in the Lodsys v. Combay case.

At least one so-called IP expert has suggested that Shinderman bought his way out of the case. That just isn't likely. If I buy my way out of a lawsuit, I want out on a permanent basis. That is, I would only pay if the lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice. Shinderman was dismissed without prejudice, meaning that Lodsys could always re-institute the suit against Shinderman. No lawyer would recommend that to his/her client.

There had to have been some other reason for dismissing Shinderman, and it is likely the same reason that Lodsys previously dismissed Wulven Games by not including them in the Amended Complaint. The reason probably has to do more with lacking jurisdiction than anything else. It certainly doesn't have to do with a payment.

In each of the Illinois cases the plaintiffs bringing the declaratory judgment actions have been granted the right to conduct limited discovery for the purpose of establishing whether the Illinois court has personal jurisdiction over Lodsys or its CEO, Mark Small. Small insists that neither Lodsys nor he have a presence in Illinois (Small claims to live in Wisconsin); however, Small's LinkedIn page lists him as being in the Greater Chicago area (see this exhibit [PDF] filed by the New York Times). I suppose the southeastern corner of Wisconsin could be consider in the Greater Chicago area, but keep in mind that such a designation is made by the LinkedIn subscriber, not by LinkedIn itself.

These cases will pick up more in September when ESET v. Lodsys (Wis.) has a scheduling conference and ESET v. Lodsys (Cal.) has a hearing.

*************

Docket Updates:

Lodsys v. Combay:

30 - Filed & Entered: 07/28/2011
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE FROM CLERK re [29] Response in Opposition to Motion. Clerk has modified entry to reflect that this document (response) is a REDACTED version. (Complete version filed separately under seal) (sm, )

31 - Filed & Entered: 07/28/2011
Additional Attachments to Main Document
Docket Text: Additional Attachments to Main Document: [30] Sealed Response to Motion.. (Attachments: # (1) Declaration in Support of Opposition, # (2) Text of Proposed Order)(Huck, Christopher)

32 - Filed & Entered: 07/29/2011
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Lodsys, LLC of Dismissal of Defendant Richard Shinderman without Prejudice (Huck, Christopher)

Lodsys v. DriveTime (Texas):
12 - Filed & Entered: 07/28/2011
Summons Returned Executed
Docket Text: E-GOV SEALED SUMMONS Returned Executed by Lodsys, LLC. DriveTime Automotive Group, Inc. served on 7/14/2011 by CM RRR, answer due 8/4/2011. (ehs, )

Filed & Entered: 07/29/2011
Application Granted for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint Docket Text: Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint is GRANTED pursuant to Local Rule CV-12 for ForeSee Results, Inc. to 9/3/2011; LivePerson, Inc. to 9/6/2011. 30 Days Granted for Deadline Extension.( sm, )

13 - Filed & Entered: 07/29/2011
Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint Docket Text: Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re ForeSee Results, Inc.(Low, John)

14 - Filed & Entered: 07/29/2011
Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint Docket Text: Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re LivePerson, Inc..( Bauer, Steven)

15 - Filed & Entered: 07/29/2011
Notice of Attorney Appearance
Docket Text: NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael E Shanahan on behalf of ForeSee Results, Inc. (Shanahan, Michael)

16 - Filed & Entered: 07/29/2011
Unopposed Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint Docket Text: Defendant's Unopposed First Application for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint re OpinionLab, Inc..( Kennerly, Christopher)

DriveTimevLodsys:
8 - Filed & Entered: 07/27/2011
Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
Docket Text: *MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Lodsys LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit)(Erickson, Douglas) *Modified from Motion to Dismiss to Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Modified on 7/28/2011 (TLJ).*

9 - Filed & Entered: 07/27/2011
Corporate Disclosure Statement
Docket Text: Corporate Disclosure Statement by Lodsys LLC. (Erickson, Douglas)

ESET v. Lodsys (Wisconsin):
4 - Filed & Entered: 07/28/2011
Consent/Refusal to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge
Docket Text: Refusal to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Eset LLC. (Pisano, Nicola)

Filed & Entered: 07/29/2011
Case Assigned/Reassigned
Docket Text: Due to the non-consent of the parties, this case has been randomly reassigned to Judge J P Stadtmueller; Magistrate Judge Aaron E Goodstein no longer assigned to the case (vkb)

5 - Filed & Entered: 07/29/2011
Notice of Hearing
Docket Text: NOTICE of Hearing: Scheduling Conference set for 9/9/11 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 425, 517 E Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI before Judge J P Stadtmueller. (cc: all counsel)(nm)

ESET v Lodsys (CA):
8 - Filed: 07/25/2011
Entered: 07/26/2011
Order on Motion to Continue
Docket Text: ORDER: The Court grants the (Doc. [7]) Joint Motion for Continuation of Hearing. The hearing scheduled for 8/8/2011 regarding Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is continued to 9/12/2011. The dates for filing of the opposition and reply briefs on the foregoing motion are rescheduled, in accordance with Local Rules 7.1(e)(2) and (3), to reflect the new hearing date. Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 7/25/2011. (mdc)
ForeSee v. Lodsys (Ill):
29 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
Terminated: 07/26/2011
motion for discovery
Docket Text: MOTION by Plaintiff ForeSee Results, Inc. for discovery Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Limited to the Issue of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1)(Hawkins, Brent)

30 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
notice of motion
Docket Text: NOTICE of Motion by Brent Allen Hawkins for presentment of motion for discovery[29] before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Hawkins, Brent)

31 - Filed & Entered: 07/26/2011
attorney appearance
Docket Text: ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Lodsys, LLC by William W. Flachsbart (Flachsbart, William)

32 - Filed & Entered: 07/26/2011
order on motion for discovery
Docket Text: MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion hearing held on 7/26/2011. Motion by Plaintiff ForeSee Results, Inc. for Leave to Take Discovery Limited to the Issue of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue [29] is granted as to personal jurisdiction discovery only. Status hearing reset to 9/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, )

NYTimes v. Lodsys:
17 - Filed & Entered: 07/20/2011
text entry
Docket Text: MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Minute entry dated 7/20/11 [doc. 16] is corrected as follows: Notice of motion set for 7/21/11 is stricken. Joint motion for extension of time for Local Patent Rule Deadlines 14 is granted. Due date for Local Patent Rule 2.1 Initial Disclosures is fourteen (14) days after Lodsys files its Answers; provided, however, if Lodsys asserts a counterclaim against The New York Times Company, the parties have fourteen (14) days after the latest date on which The New York Times Company may file its answer to that counterclaim.Mailed notice (cjg, )

18 - Filed & Entered: 07/21/2011
motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction
Docket Text: MOTION by Defendant Lodsys, LLC to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction [Amended Motion] (La Porte, Michael)

19 - Filed & Entered: 07/21/2011
notice of motion
Docket Text: NOTICE of Motion by Michael R. La Porte for presentment of motion to dismiss/lack of jurisdiction[18] before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. (La Porte, Michael)

20 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
Terminated: 07/26/2011
motion for discovery
Docket Text: MOTION by Plaintiff The New York Times Company for leave to take discovery limited to issues of personal jurisdiction and venue (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit 1)(Paguia, Sara) (Docket text Modified by clerk's office on 7/25/2011 (ca, ).

21 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
notice of motion
Docket Text: NOTICE of Motion by Sara Anne Paguia for presentment of motion for discovery[20] before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Paguia, Sara)

22 - Filed & Entered: 07/26/2011
attorney appearance
Docket Text: ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Lodsys, LLC by William W. Flachsbart (Flachsbart, William)

23 - Filed & Entered: 07/26/2011
order on motion for discovery
Docket Text: MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion hearing held on 7/26/2011. Motion by by Plaintiff The New York Times Company for Leave to Take Discovery Limited to the Issue of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue [20] is granted as to personal jurisdiction discovery only. Status hearing reset to 9/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, )

OpinionLab v. Lodsys:
26 - Filed & Entered: 07/20/2011
text entry
Docket Text: MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman:Minute entry dated 7/20/11 [doc. 25] is corrected to read as follows: Notice of motion set for 7/21/11 is stricken. Joint motion for extension of time for Local Patent Rule Deadlines 23 is granted. Due date for Local Patent Rule 2.1 Initial Disclosures is fourteen (14) days after Lodsys files its Answers; provided, however, if Lodsys asserts a counterclaim against OpinionLab, Inc., the parties have fourteen (14) days after the latest date on which OpinionLab, Inc. may file its answer to that counterclaim.Mailed notice (cjg, )

27 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
Terminated: 07/26/2011
motion for discovery
Docket Text: MOTION by Plaintiff OpinionLab, Inc. for discovery (Barz, Robert)

28 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
notice of motion
Docket Text: NOTICE of Motion by Robert J. Barz for presentment of motion for discovery[27] before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Barz, Robert)

29 - Filed & Entered: 07/26/2011
attorney appearance
Docket Text: ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Lodsys, LLC by William W. Flachsbart (Flachsbart, William)

30 - Filed & Entered: 07/26/2011
order on motion for discovery
Docket Text: MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Motion hearing held on 7/26/2011. Motion by by Plaintiff OpinionLab, Inc. for Leave to Take Discovery Limited to the Issue of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue [27] is granted as to personal jurisdiction discovery only. Status hearing reset to 9/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, )

LivePerson v. Lodsys:
26 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
Terminated: 07/26/2011
motion for discovery
Docket Text: MOTION by Plaintiff LivePerson, Inc. for discovery Limited to the Issues of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue (Spector, Catherine)

27 - Filed & Entered: 07/22/2011
notice of motion
Docket Text: NOTICE of Motion by Catherine J. Spector for presentment of motion for discovery[26] before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman on 7/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. (Spector, Catherine)

28 - Filed & Entered: 07/25/2011
exhibit
Docket Text: EXHIBIT by Plaintiff LivePerson, Inc. (Exhibit 1) regarding MOTION by Plaintiff LivePerson, Inc. for discovery Limited to the Issues of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue[26] (Spector, Catherine)

29 - Filed & Entered: 07/26/2011
attorney appearance
Docket Text: ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant Lodsys, LLC by William W. Flachsbart (Flachsbart, William)

30 - Filed & Entered: 07/26/2011
order on motion for discovery
Docket Text: MINUTE entry before Honorable Ronald A. Guzman: Status hearing set for 9/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. Motion hearing held on 7/26/2011. Motion by by Plaintiff LivePerson, Inc. for Leave to Take Discovery Limited to the Issue of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue [26] is granted as to personal jurisdiction discovery only. Status hearing reset to 9/26/2011 at 09:30 AM. Mailed notice (cjg, )


  


Lodsys - An update | 75 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
No lawyer would recommend that to his/her client.
Authored by: ionic on Tuesday, August 02 2011 @ 09:36 AM EDT
That is assuming he consulted a lawyer and didn't just roll over and pay
something to "make it go away" withoutb realising what he was agreeing
to.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, August 02 2011 @ 09:57 AM EDT
please list any errors that you notice.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, August 02 2011 @ 09:58 AM EDT
For comments that are not on topic.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newspicks
Authored by: Kilz on Tuesday, August 02 2011 @ 09:59 AM EDT
Please mention story name in title of your post.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lodsys - An update
Authored by: 351-4V on Tuesday, August 02 2011 @ 10:17 AM EDT
It's not uncommon for firms to claim they are "near" Chicago in an effort to
increase their business. For instance, the airport located in Rockford,
Illinois calls itself the "Chicago Rockford Airport" in an effort to increase
traffic by drawing travelers from the Chicago area some 90 miles away. It is
quite possible for this gentleman to live in Wisconsin and yet claim to be in
the Greater Chicago Area. As you pointed out, this distinction has been created
by the gentleman himself just as the Rockford Airport itself chose to associate
with the Chicago area in an attempt to benefit from the association.

It would
seem there is logic to uphold the Illinois jurisdiction. The gentleman himself
chose his venue based upon his belief that he would benefit from that
association.

[ Reply to This | # ]

So-called IP export
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 02 2011 @ 11:53 AM EDT
I read "so called IP expert", followed by a statement that some developer would
have done something utterly stupid, and I think "Florian Mueller". I post this
before I read any further to confirm it, but I bet it must be our good friend
Florian.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Don't link to Florian Mueller
Authored by: cjk fossman on Tuesday, August 02 2011 @ 07:21 PM EDT
Let's not give him page hits originating from Groklaw.

Post the URL instead.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hooray!
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 03 2011 @ 08:29 AM EDT
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/08/03/lawyers_fined_file_sharing/

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )