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 On The Lodsys Cases
Monday, September 26 2011 @ 09:00 AM EDT

Not a great deal has happened in the various Lodsys cases since we last wrote. A lot of the activity pertains to whether Lodsys will get dragged into federal district court somewhere other than the Eastern District of Texas.

To recount all of the cases, Lodsys has four pending cases in the Eastern District of Texas against a variety of defendants. In turn, Lodsys is the defendant in eight active declaratory judgment actions - four in the Northern District of Illinois, two in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, one in Arizona, and one in the Southern District of California. There was a fifth declaratory judgment action brought against Lodsys in the Eastern District of Wisconsin by ESET, but ESET has voluntarily dismissed that action.

The Lodsys v. Brother, et al case in the Eastern District of Texas is the furthest along, and it has been set for trial . . . in September 2014. 126 [PDF] So much for the Eastern District of Texas's "rocket docket." In the meantime the initial case management conference has been set for October 31. The interesting thing about the late trial date is that it likely provides sufficient time for the presently pending reexaminations to run their course before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office before the Markman hearing occurs in 2014.

In the Lodsys v. Combay case we are still awaiting answers from a number of defendants, and most importantly, we are awaiting the court's ruling on whether Apple is to be allowed to intervene. No hearing or ruling date has been set on Apple's motion, but all of the responses and replies have now been filed.

The only significant matter to occur in the Lodsys v. adidas case has been the dismissal of Stanley, Black and Decker. 52 [PDF] That dismissal is with prejudice, so Lodsys cannot entertain a new suit against Stanley. Adidas has also answered the complaint. 46 [PDF] The only other minor change has been the substitution of CVS Pharmacy Inc. for CVS Caremark Corporation, a change requested by CVS and consented to by Lodsys.

Nothing meaningful has occurred in the Lodsys v. DriveTime case.

Most of the declaratory judgment actions are still involved in attempting to establish ties between Lodsys and those other jurisdictions. Of course, this is challenging since Lodsys is a shell company with a storefront office in Texas, what appears to be a storefront office in Illinois, and a CEO and sole employee who lives in Wisconsin. That hasn't stopped the various plaintiffs in these actions from doing their best to tie Lodsys to these other jurisdictions.

The DJ action where we have the most insight into the jurisdiction issue is the action brought by DriveTime against Lodsys in Arizona. DriveTime filed 15 different exhibits supporting their argument that Lodsys is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal court in Arizona. (See our earlier story on the DriveTime argument) At the same time, we gain some insight into Lodsys's arguments as to why it should not be subject to jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Illinois from the New York Times declaratory judgment action, and Lodsys CEO Mark Small's declaration (7 [PDF]) in support of Lodsys's motion to dismiss that action. Small's primary arguments: I live and work in Wisconsin; Lodsys has no offices or employees in Illinois; and all of the infringement suits Lodsys has brought have been in Texas which is the only place where Lodsys maintains a [pseudo] office. I added the "pseudo" adjective because the only "office" Lodsys has is a shared office space, and it is clear no one works from that office.

We have also added two declaratory judgment actions we weren't previously following: the DJ action brought by RightNow Technologies in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the DJ action brought by Wolfram Alpha, also in the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

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

Documents

LodsysvBrother-126:

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

___________________________

LODSYS, LLC

V.

BROTHER INTERNATIONAL

CORPORATION, ET AL.

___________________________

CIVIL NO. 2:11-CV-90(TJW)

ORDER

___________________________

Due to the undersigned’s pending retirement and the fact that there is currently uncertainty regarding who will take over as Magistrate Judge in the Marshall Division, the Court finds it is unnecessary to hold a status conference. The main reason the Court holds the status conferences in the patent cases is to give the parties a trial setting and a claim construction setting and then allow the parties to announce whether they will consent to the Magistrate Judge. The Court assumes parties will be reluctant to consent to a Magistrate Judge when it is not currently known who that will be,1 so it would be futile to require the parties to attend a hearing merely for this Court to give the parties a trial setting and claim construction setting. Rather, it is the purpose of this Order to assign the parties that setting.

This case is now set for jury selection on September 2, 2014 and for a claim construction on May 8, 2014. The parties shall submit their proposed docket control and discovery orders to the court on October 14, 2011 If the parties are unable to resolve their disagreements concerning these orders, the parties shall submit to the court their competing proposals along with a summary of their disagreements. For purposes of computing the time deadlines under the local patent rules, the court

________________________

1 The Court may, at a later date whenever a new Magistrate Judge is appointed, require the parties to notify the Court whether they will consent to the new Magistrate Judge.

deems October 31, 2011 to be the date of the initial case management conference. As a result, the “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions” is due on October 21, 2011.

It is so ORDERED.

Signed this 22nd day of September, 2011. /s/T. John Ward
T. JOHN WARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


LodsysvAdidas-52:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION

___________________

LODSYS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

ADIDAS AMERICA INC.;
BBY SOLUTIONS, INC.;
BEST WESTERN INTERNATIONAL, INC.;
CVS CARMARK CORPORATION;
SAM’S WEST, INC.;
STANLEY, BLACK & DECKER, INC.;
THE CONTAINER STORE, INC.;
THE TEACHING COMPANY, LLC;
VEGAS.COM, LLC;
VITAMIN SHOPPE, INC.,
Defendants.

____________________

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-283

NOTICE OF DISMISSAL

____________________

Plaintiff Lodsys, LLC (“Lodsys”), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), hereby notifies the Court of its dismissal of all claims in this action between Lodsys and Defendant Stanley, Black & Decker, Inc., with prejudice and with each party to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

Dated: September 20, 2011.

Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Christopher M. Huck
Michael A. Goldfarb
(admitted pro hac vice)
Christopher M. Huck
(admitted pro hac vice)
KELLEY, DONION, GILL,
HUCK & GOLDFARB, PLLC
[address, telephone, fax, email]


NYTvLodsys-7:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

______________________

THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

Defendant.

_______________________

Civil Action No. 1 l-cv-4004

The Hon. Charles R. Norgle, Sr.

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

_______________________

DECLARATION OF MARK SMALL IN
SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

I, Mark Small, declare as follows:

1. I am the Chief Executive Officer for Defendant Lodsys, LLC ("Lodsys"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness, could and would testify completely to such facts under oath.

2. I reside in Wisconsin. I own a home in Wisconsin, and have lived in that home for the past 10 years. I have a Wisconsin driver's license. I am registered to vote in Wisconsin. And I stand ready, willing, and able to provide the Court any relevant documentary evidence concerning my Wisconsin residency.

3. I conduct business for Lodsys from Wisconsin. During the time I have provided services for Lodsys, I have not resided in or conducted business from Illinois.

4. Lodsys is a Texas limited liability company, and its principal place of business is at 505 East Travis Street, Suite 207, Marshall, Texas. Lodsys maintains an office at its headquarters in Marshall, Texas.

5. Lodsys does not have (nor has it ever had) any employees, offices, or facilities in Illinois. It does not maintain any bank accounts or other assets in Illinois. Nor does it lease or own any real or other property in Illinois.

6. Lodsys has not entered into any exclusive licenses (in Illinois or elsewhere) of U.S. Patents Nos. 5,999,908; 7,133,834; 7,222,078; or 7,620,565. Nor does Lodsys control or direct the business operations of its licensees. And Lodsys has not filed any lawsuits for patent infringement (or otherwise) in Illinois.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the preview page of my web profile on Linkedln, which references the "Greater Chicago Area." I have not updated the geographical reference on my Linkedln profile for several years. I was previously employed by a company with a regional office in Chicago, Illinois. While employed by that company, I still lived in and conducted business from Wisconsin.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of the complaint Lodsys filed on February 11, 2011 in the Eastern District of Texas, styled as Lodsys, LLC v. Brother International Corporation, et al, Case No. 2:1 l-CV-90.

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the complaint Lodsys filed on May 31, 2011 in the Eastern District of Texas, styled as Lodsys, LLC v. Combay, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:ll-CV-272.

10. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the complaint Lodsys filed on June 10, 2011 in the Eastern District of Texas, styled as Lodsys, LLC v. adidas America, Inc., etal, Case No. 2:ll-CV-283.

2

11. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the complaint Lodsys filed (or is in the process of filing) on July 5, 2011 in the Eastern District of Texas, styled as Lodsys, LLC v. ESET, LLC, et al.

12. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the contact information for Lodsys's registered agent in Austin, Texas.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 5, 2011, at Oconomowoc, Wisconsin.

/s/Mark Small
Mark Small

3



  


Lodsys - An Update On The Lodsys Cases | 205 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections Here
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 09:03 AM EDT

Please place corrections here.

---
a small fish in an even smaller pond

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 09:05 AM EDT
discussion about recent News Picks items.


---
a small fish in an even smaller pond

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off topic
Authored by: YurtGuppy on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 09:06 AM EDT
Discuss items of interest to Groklaw readers.

---
a small fish in an even smaller pond

[ Reply to This | # ]

Comes
Authored by: stegu on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 09:14 AM EDT
Please post your hard work here, in text format with HTML markup so it can be
easily cut and pasted into the archives.

[ Reply to This | # ]

On to Wisconsin
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 10:50 AM EDT
Did the CEO just make an admission of a connection to Wisconsin?

Does that mean the Wisconsin cases are likely to stick?

---
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 | # ]

  • On to Wisconsin - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 12:57 PM EDT
    • On to Wisconsin - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 01:49 PM EDT
Illinois office?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 12:36 PM EDT
I must have missed it; what evidence was there that there was an Illinois shell
office?

[ Reply to This | # ]

"Due to the undersigned’s pending retirement..."
Authored by: cpeterson on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 12:58 PM EDT
So - Judge John T. Ward is retiring? That may be the most effective wrench
thrown into the East District of Texas' RocketDocket so far.

With the current shortage of new federal judges, could this be a lasting
impediment? Will there be political pressure from NPEs for Congress to produce
an heir to the bench?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unusual Claims
Authored by: sproggit on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 04:56 PM EDT
I had a look at the first patent that Lodsys used when claiming against "Brother et al" in the first case recorded here at Grokloaw.

The abstract for this patent describes the claim as follows:
A network, including a product sub-system that interacts with a user, gathers information from the user, communicates the information to the product's vendor, and receives new pre-programmed interactions from the vendor for future interactions with the user. The sub-system is in or attached to a product. Further components include a data processing system for constructing and downloading pre-programmed interactions to the product sub-system; a communications sub-system for transmitting the data from the product sub-system to the vendor's computer; a communications apparatus for reading the product sub-system's data, transmitting it to the vendor's computer, and downloading new pre-programmed interactions to the product sub-system; a data processing system residing in the product sub-system for conducting interactions with a user; and a data processing system residing in the vendor's computer for analyzing and reporting information gathered from users.
By way of illustrations, the patent goes on to use illustrations specifying common office appliances. This patent was filed on August 25th, 2006 and awarded November 17th, 2009.

I got to thinking of different scenarios in which I had seen technology fitting this description in actual use. Here are just a couple of examples:-

1. Bull DPS7000 Computer Systems
Between 1986 and 1998 I worked for an organisation which used computer systems from Honeywell Bull. This range of mid-range - to mainframe systems adopted an Operating System that became known as GCOS7 (General Comprehensive Operating System). Among the later machines came a range known as the DPS7000 systems, which had an amazing internal architecture including a unit known as the Service Processor, which ran SPOS -the Service Processor Operating System. This was like a system-within-a-system, a small micro-controller built into the heart of a much larger mainframe, and able to interact with it and with the operator. This component could perform basic hardware diagnostics and could communicate with "head office" via an installable modem. The unit could interact with it's operators, and through the interaction allowed both local client and remote Bull technicians to communicate with the mainframe and it's various systems.

I appreciate this is "old hat" by today's standards, but when this was emerging technology, the concept of one of my field engineers walking in to my office with a circuit board box under one arm to cheerfully announce, "Your machine thinks it's going to lose a memory board some time in the next couple of days. When can I get in there and swap it for this good one please?" was quite the revelation. The fact that I could interact with the device and with the vendor through this sub-system was, at the time, nothing short of a miracle...


2. McLaren Automotive
In 1992 McLaren (of Formula One motor racing fame) began production of the F1 Road Car, still the most powerful normally aspirated road car ever to see production (19 years later...). Among the myriad technical marvels associated with the car, it's designer, Gordon Murray, included a comprehensive internal diagnostics and remote control technology.

I've seen film footage of an F1 being "remote controlled" by the factory, with the remote engineer starting and stopping the engine, turning the windscreen wiper on and off, and harvesting all sorts of state about the performance of the car, with the engineer working in tandem with the owner/driver.


3. Sky Satellite Television Adapters
In the UK the dominant supplier of satellite TV, Sky, has been operating a "set top box" for years, with these devices being connected to both satellite dishes and to the user's domestic telephone line. This 2-way linkage allows the user to undertake a whole range of features and services. The vendor can monitor the user's TV watching habits, while the user can, for example, request access to additional products and services such as pay-per-view sporting events. The vendor can download remote updates and upgrade the unit, run diagnostics, and enable a range of other services.

Whilst I abhor the idea of giving some third party access to this kind of information, it remains a fact that such features have been in use around the world for many years.



I would be tempted [IANAL and especially not a Patent Attorney] to state that there are going to be literally scores of "prior art" examples in which "user interaction" includes dialogue between users and appliances.

I find myself, once again, wondering what is supposed to be so unique and innovative about this Lodsys idea that made it patent-worthy.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Google asks court to dismiss lawsuit over Microsoft-only cloud contract
Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 06:07 PM EDT
Google asks court to dismiss lawsuit over Microsoft-only cloud contract

---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

Declaration of Mark Small
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 10:24 AM EDT
The declaration of Mark Small can be summarised thus:
I am a patent troll. Kick here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • ROFL - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 05:59 PM EDT
    • ROFL - Authored by: stegu on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 06:41 PM EDT
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 )