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 - Another DJ Action in Wisconsin
Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 02:39 PM EDT

This one [PDF] was filed by Wolfram Research Inc. and Wolfram Alpha LLC. Once again it was triggered by the aggressive licensing letter and claim chart from Lodsys. So the Wisconsin actions are starting to pile up. Lodsys has yet to add either RightNow Technologies or Wolfram as defendants in any of its infringement actions in Texas. I have not reproduced the letter and claim chart below as these are the same documents we have seen before.

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

Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSON

WOLFRAM RESEARCH, INC. and
WOLFRAM ALPHA LLC
Plaintiffs,
v.
LODSYS, LLC
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. ______________

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Wolfram Research, Inc. (“Wolfram Research”) and Wolfram Alpha LLC, (“Wolfram Alpha”) (collectively, “Wolfram”), by and through its attorneys, for its complaint against Defendant Lodsys, LLC, (“Lodsys”), allege as follows:

THE PARTIES

  1. Plaintiff Wolfram Research is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware having its principal place of business at 100 Trade Center Dr. Champaign, Illinois 61820.
  2. Plaintiff Wolfram Alpha is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware having its principal place of business at 100 Trade Center Dr. Champaign, Illinois 61820.
  3. On information and belief, Lodsys is a Texas limited liability company and alleges to have a place of business at 505 East Travis Street, Suite 207, Marshall, Texas 75670. The Texas Secretary of State lists the corporate address of Lodsys, LLC as 800 Brazos, Suite 400, Austin, Texas 78701.
  4. On information and belief, Mark Small is the Chief Executive Officer of Lodsys, LLC and is Lodsys’s sole employee.
  5. On information and belief, Mr. Small conducts Lodsys’s business from an office located in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin, within this judicial district. Accordingly, on information and belief, Lodsys’s primary place of business and/or headquarters is located within this judicial district.
  6. On information and belief, Mr. Small lives and works in Wisconsin, holds a Wisconsin driver’s license, is registered to vote in Wisconsin, and is a resident and a citizen of Wisconsin.
  7. On information and belief, Lodsys owns U.S. Patent No. 5,999,908 (“the ‘908 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,133,834 (“the ‘834 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,222,078 (“the ‘078 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,620,565 (“the ‘565 patent”) (collectively, the “Lodsys Patents”). A true and correct copy of each of the Lodsys Patents are attached hereto as Exhibits A-D, respectively.
  8. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  9. This is an action under the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, for a declaration pursuant to the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., that the Lodsys Patents are not infringed by Wolfram Research and/or Wolfram Alpha.
  10. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (action arising under an Act of Congress relating to patents). This Court has personal jurisdiction over Lodsys because it has constitutionally sufficient contacts with Wisconsin so as to make personal jurisdiction proper in this Court. Lodsys maintains an office within this district and conducts or solicits business within this district.
  11. 2

  12. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b), (c) and 1400(b).
  13. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

  14. On April 26, 2011, Mr. Small on behalf of Lodsys sent a letter to Mr. Stephen Wolfram, Founder and CEO of both Wolfram Research and Wolfram Alpha. (Attached hereto as Exhibit E.) In that letter, Mr. Small alleged that Lodsys is the owner of the Lodsys Patents and stated the alleged applications and benefits of those patents. Further, Mr. Small alleged “[w]e have reviewed your use of the Lodsys Patents” and enclosed claim charts demonstrating one instance of the alleged use of the Lodsys Patents. Moreover, Mr. Small offered to license the Lodsys Patents as part of a licensing arrangement. A notice at the bottom of the April 26, 2011 letter provided that “Lodsys LLC reserves all rights with regard to the ‘908, ‘834, ‘078, and ‘565 patents, including: (1) the right to seek damages anytime within the last six years that your company started to make use of Lodsys’ patented technology; (2) the right to change its royalty rates at any time; (3) the right to change this licensing program at any time without notice, including variance to conform to applicable laws.”
  15. The April 26, 2011 letter was directed to a company by the name of “Mathmatica” even though no such company exists. Wolfram Research manufactures a software product under the trade name “Mathematica” which provides an environment for technical computing. Wolfram research also publishes a journal under the name “Mathematica.”
  16. Attached to the April 26, 2011 letter was a claim chart directed at “Mathmatica – Wolfram Alpha” entitled: “Infringement Claim Chart for Claim 1 U.S. Pat. No. 7,222,078. The claim chart depicted a software program manufactured by Wolfram Alpha.
  17. By virtue of Lodsys’s actions, both Wolfram Research and Wolfram Alpha are in reasonable apprehension of an imminent patent infringement suit relating to the Lodsys Patents.
  18. 3

  19. Both Wolfram Research and Wolfram Alpha deny that they infringe any valid claim of the Lodsys Patents.
  20. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Wolfram Research and Lodsys concerning whether Wolfram Research and/or its customers infringe any valid claim of the Lodsys Patents. Wolfram Research now seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe any valid claim of the Lodsys Patents.
  21. An actual and justiciable controversy also exists between Wolfram Alpha and Lodsys concerning whether Wolfram Alpha and/or its customers infringe any valid claim of the Lodsys Patents. Wolfram Alpha now seeks a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe any valid claim of the Lodsys Patents.
  22. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
    (Declaratory Judgment Of Non-infringement Of The ‘908 Patent)

  23. Wolfram incorporates by reference paragraph 1 through 17 above as though fully set forth herein.
  24. By virtue of Lodsys’s Letter and attached claim chart, an actual controversy exists between Wolfram and Lodsys as to whether Wolfram’s products and/or one or more Wolfram customers infringe the ‘908 patent.
  25. Wolfram is not directly infringing, contributorily infringing, or actively inducing others to infringe valid claims of the ‘908 patent.
  26. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, a judicial determination of respective rights of the parties with respect to Wolfram’s non-infringement of the ‘908 patent is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.
  27. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
    (Declaratory Judgment Of Non-infringement Of The ‘834 Patent)

    4

  28. Wolfram incorporates by reference paragraph 1 through 21 above as though fully set forth herein.
  29. By virtue of Lodsys’s Letter and attached claim chart, an actual controversy exists between Wolfram and Lodsys as to whether Wolfram’s products and/or one or more Wolfram customers infringe the ‘834 patent.
  30. Wolfram is not directly infringing, contributorily infringing, or actively inducing others to infringe valid claims of the ‘834 patent.
  31. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, a judicial determination of respective rights of the parties with respect to Wolfram’s non-infringement of the ‘834 patent is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.
  32. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
    (Declaratory Judgment Of Non-infringement Of The ‘078 Patent)

  33. Wolfram incorporates by reference paragraph 1 through 25 above as thoughfully set forth herein.
  34. By virtue of Lodsys’s Letter and attached claim chart, an actual controversy exists between Wolfram and Lodsys as to whether Wolfram’s products and/or one or more Wolfram customers infringe the ‘078 patent.
  35. Wolfram is not directly infringing, contributorily infringing, or actively inducing others to infringe valid claims of the ‘078 patent.
  36. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, a judicial determination of respective rights of the parties with respect to Wolfram’s non-infringement of the ‘078 patent is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.
  37. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
    (Declaratory Judgment Of Non-infringement Of The ‘565 Patent)

    5

  38. Wolfram incorporates by reference paragraph 1 through 29 above as though fully set forth herein.
  39. By virtue of Lodsys’s Letter and attached claim chart, an actual controversy exists between Wolfram and Lodsys as to whether Wolfram’s products and/or one or more Wolfram customers infringe the ‘565 patent.
  40. Wolfram is not directly infringing, contributorily infringing, or actively inducing others to infringe valid claims of the ‘565 patent.
  41. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, a judicial determination of respective rights of the parties with respect to Wolfram’s non-infringement of the ‘565 patent is necessary and appropriate under the circumstances.
  42. PRAYER

    WHEREFORE, Wolfram requests entry of judgment in its favor and against Lodsys as follows:

    1. For a declaration that Wolfram Research and Wolfram Alpha do not infringe any valid claim of the Lodsys Patents.
    2. For such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Wolfram hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable in this action.

Dated this 9th day of August, 2011

/s/ Bradford P. Lyerla
Bradford P. Lyerla
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 North Clark Street
Chicago, IL 60654

6

Attorney for Plaintiffs
Wolfram Research Inc. and
Wolfram Alpha, LLC


  


Lodsys - Another DJ Action in Wisconsin | 77 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 03:26 PM EDT
Please summarize the error->correction or s/error/correction/ in the Title
box to make it easier to scan the list for Mark to see what needs to be
corrected and for readers to see what has already been noted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic threads
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 03:30 PM EDT
Please stay off topic in these threads. Use HTML mode to make your links
clickable as they are so much more fun that way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 03:32 PM EDT
Pick your News here. Please put the title of the News Pick article you are
discussing in the Title box of your comment and include a clickable link in HTML
mode to the article to assist readers after the News Picks article has scrolled
off the sidebar.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES goes here
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 03:34 PM EDT
Please post Comes transcripts here, posting the HTML markup in Plain Text mode
so PJ can easily copy and paste it.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mathematics / Mathematica
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 03:54 PM EDT
Isn't mathematics supposed to be unpatentable? Does Mathematica do anything other than mathematics?

Note that I haven't read the patent, so I have no idea what it's actually about. Maybe it's a genuine innovative non-mathematical software patent, such as a method of improving the aerodynamics of a CD by burning the software to it, and then using the CD as a frisbee.

\Cyp

[ Reply to This | # ]

Where is Mr. Small? Illinois or Wisconsin?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 04:55 PM EDT
In the ForeSee v. Lodsys case, ForeSee alleges that Mr. Small
resides in the greater Chicago, Illinois area and that an
Illinois Federal court is the proper venue to sue Lodsys.

But here, using almost the same phrasing, Small is alleged to
reside in Wisconsin, thus giving another court jurisdiction
over him.

So where, oh where does this troll lay in wait?

[ Reply to This | # ]

What is Lodsys' strategy?
Authored by: Yossarian on Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 05:26 PM EDT
There is something that I miss.
If I'd want to fight a war then *I* would pick one enemy in
a
time, so I can concentrate my resources. (Bismarck, one of
the best statesman, made his best to avoid a two front war.)

When Lodsys attacks everything under the sun it gives the
other
companies good reasons to help each other. They have self
interest to help each other, and so bleed Lodsys' resources,
and get help from each other and save on research costs.

So why does Lodsys do so?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lodsys - Another DJ Action in Wisconsin
Authored by: jacks4u on Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 05:38 PM EDT
short n sweet!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Lodsys - Another DJ Action in Wisconsin
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 05:50 PM EDT
A question: Wolfram Research states "Both Wolfram Research and Wolfram Alpha deny that they infringe any valid claim of the Lodsys Patents.". They could have said "Both Wolfram Research and Wolfram Alpha deny that any claims of the Lodsys Patents are valid".

My understanding is that in a case about "Declaratory Judgment" Lodsys can either go to court and fight it (costing them money) or give up (admitting what Wolfram Research wants). If they gave up on this case, and Wolfram Research had sneaked in such a statement, would that count as admitting they have no valid patent claims?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Consolidation?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 05:53 PM EDT
What is the probability that Lodsys will be able to successfully consolidate all
of these actions?

It seems obvious that they will try.

I have heard that the Federal Courts favor consolidating related actions based
on a particular occurrence or set of facts to a single court. It makes sense
that expertise in the subject can be developed.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Consolidation? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 13 2011 @ 01:22 AM EDT
Hows my driving?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10 2011 @ 09:10 PM EDT
I want to know when Lodsys is going to start suing every truck with a "Hows
my driving, call 1-800-xxx-yyyy" bumper sticker.

All this waste just because of greedy lawyers, morons in the patent office, and
ideological nitwits on the CAFC.

Ick.

[ 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 )