|
|
| 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
|
|
|
|
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- my fondness for O'Reilly - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 09:51 AM EDT
- Deconstructing Fairsearch.org's Google Antitrust Consumer Survey - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 11:28 AM EDT
- "The Move Toward Mini-Markmans" - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 11:31 AM EDT
- oVirt uses ASL2.0 as the primary license? Is that an ok license? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 01:24 PM EDT
- States debate judicial elections versus appointed bench - Authored by: tknarr on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 01:41 PM EDT
- Forbes article on Samsung v. Apple - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 01:43 PM EDT
- Analysis reveals South Korea fastest, most reliable; US “above average” at 26th; Eastern Europe - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 04:11 PM EDT
- Android beats iPhone 2-to-1 in new smartphone purchases - Authored by: SilverWave on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 06:04 PM EDT
- Facebook extends tentacles into D.C. - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 11:12 PM EDT
- try posting that betanews about facebook publicly!!! - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 09:39 AM EDT
- facebook tracking... is this a killer? - Authored by: YurtGuppy on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- Facebook confirms ‘Like’ data collection, will fix three cookie-related issues within 24 hours - Authored by: betajet on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 02:17 PM EDT
- Does "iPad 80% market share" news make sense? - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 04:52 PM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- Samsung vs Apple - The Hague - Authored by: complex_number on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 09:27 AM EDT
- Anyone know of status of "GNU Free Call" (SIPwitch)? Any Youtube videos? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 09:45 AM EDT
- Just who is pulling Nokia’s strings? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 11:45 AM EDT
- Patent wars in the olden days - Authored by: red floyd on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 12:06 PM EDT
- Facebook tracks you online - even after you log out - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 01:39 PM EDT
- Linus Torvalds’s Lessons on Software Development Management - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 06:04 PM EDT
- Air force secure Linux... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- Apple denied Multi-touch Trademark - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 01:49 PM EDT
- Novell v MS and hearing impaired access - Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 02:29 PM EDT
- Patent Office offline by server failure - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 27 2011 @ 03:27 PM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
- Illinois office? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, September 26 2011 @ 12:58 PM EDT
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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 | # ]
|
| |
| 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
|
|
|
|
