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
Allen v World - Stay Lifted - Expect A Rough Ride ~mw
Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 06:00 AM EDT

The Court has lifted the stay in the case of Interval Licensing against AOL, Apple, eBay, Facebook, Google, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube. (269 [PDF; Text]) Acknowledging that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has already affirmed all of the asserted claims of the '652 patent and is all but certain to do so also with respect to the '314 patent, the Court says it is time to move this case along.

For all of those who have enjoyed the outcome in the Oracle v. Google case, expect this one to be far different. In the Oracle case the Court narrowed the number of claims that Oracle was allowed to assert and Google was able to persuade the USPTO that a number of the remaining asserted claims were invalid. That is not going to be the case here. Interval Licensing has been far more selective in deciding what to assert and has reason to be confident that, at a minimum, an invalidity defense will not work. Interval has also been far more specific in the Interval complaint than Oracle ever was in the Oracle complaint as to the basis for the infringement assertions.

It is also a bit hard to take a shot at Interval as being a troll. While many (most?) of us don't care for so-called software patents, Interval did not acquire these patents. The patents all come from individuals who were employed by Interval at the time of invention.

Since an invalidity defense is unlikely to be successful, the parties here are going to have to establish that they did not infringe these patents. That is not an impossible task, but given the care that Interval has taken in deciding which patents to assert, the task will be formidable.


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

Docket

06/25/2012 - 269 - ORDER granting pltf's (261) Motion to Lift Stay in case 2:10-cv-01385-MJP in case 2:11-cv-00708-MJP in case 2:11-cv-00709-MJP in case 2:11-cv-00710-MJP in case 2:11-cv-00711-MJP in case 2:11-cv-00712-MJP in case 2:11-cv-00713-MJP in case 2:11-cv-00714-MJP in case 2:11-cv-00715-MJP in case 2:11-cv-00716-MJP in case 2:11-cv-00717-MJP Joint Status Report due within 15 days; no status conference necessary until after the parties meet and confer by Judge Marsha J. Pechman.(RS) (Entered: 06/25/2012)

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

269

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

INTERVAL LICENSING LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
AOL, INC.,
Defendant.

_________________________________

This Order Relates to: C10-1385 MJP, C11-708 MJP, C11-709 MJP, C11-710 MJP, C11-711 MJP, C11-712 MJP, C11-713 MJP, C11-714 MJP, C11-715 MJP, C11-716 MJP, C11-717 MJP. ______________________________

LEAD CASE NO. C10-1385 MJP

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
LIFT STAY AND DENYING
REQUEST FOR STATUS
CONFERENCE

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion to lift the stay with respect to the ‘652 and ‘314 patent track and request for status conference. (Dkt. No. 261.) Having reviewed the motion, the response (Dkt. No. 263), the reply (Dkt. No. 265), and all related

1


papers, the Court GRANTS the motion to lift the stay, but DENIES the request for a status conference.

Background

The Court divided this case into two tracks: one as to the ‘652 and ‘314 patents, and another as to the ‘507 and ‘682 patents. On June 16, 2011, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to stay the case pending reexamination of all four patents. (Dkt. No. 253.) A little under a year later, Plaintiff filed the instant motion seeking to lift the stay as to the ‘652 and ‘314 patents. Plaintiff informs the Court that reexamination of the ‘652 patent is complete, after the PTO confirmed the original asserted claims without amendment and allowed new claims added during reexamination. Defendants have no right to appeal. As to the ‘314 patent, the Examiner confirmed all of the claims without amendment and allowed new claims added during reexamination. Apple has filed an appeal, which is pending before the USPTO Board. Briefing of the appeal should have been complete on June 18, 2012.

Analysis

The Court finds a stay no longer proper in the ‘314 and ‘652 patent track. Reexamination of the ‘652 patent is complete, and only the appeal of the ‘314 patent remains. The Court notes that Plaintiff succeeded in defending all of the asserted claims in the ‘314 patent and even added new claims. Apple’s appeal thus faces an uphill battle, which, according to the briefing, may take as long as five years to reach final resolution. This Court can try the case in a much shorter period of time than any appeal might take. Continued delay for the purpose of waiting for a final resolution of what appears a difficult appeal is far outweighed by the Court’s interest in resolving the pending dispute in a timely manner. Moreover, the parties have already engaged in a substantial amount of discovery before the stay issued, and were on the verge of engaging in the

2


Markman hearing. The Court is aware that it has denied motions to lift stays in other cases (which Defendants cite), but each case stands on its particular facts. Plaintiffs received affirmation of its two patents in reexamination, and only one appeal remains ongoing. That was not the same scenario the Court faced in Wre-HOL v. Pharos Science, C09-1642 MJP, Dkt. No. 141 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 27, 2011), and Defendants’ reliance on it is not persuasive. The Court is confident the stay of this patent track is properly lifted. The Court GRANTS the motion to lift the stay.

The Court does not find it necessary to hold a status conference at this time. Instead, it orders the parties to meet and confer and discuss what portions of the original scheduling order need to be modified. (Dkt. No. 248.) The parties are ordered to discuss what dates and deadlines remain and how they should be changed to accommodate a speedy resolution of the case. The parties should also discuss whether any of the protocols need to be changed in light of the reexamination process. The parties must meet and confer within 10 days of entry this order and submit a joint status report within 15 days of entry of this order. Should the parties wish to have a scheduling conference after meeting and conferring, they should indicate the request in the JSR.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the motion to lift the stay as to the ‘314 and ‘652 track. The Court finds good cause to resume the prosecution of this case. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer within 10 days of entry of this order to discuss a trial schedule, and to submit a JSR within 15 days of entry of this order. The Court does not find it necessary to hold a status conference until after the parties meet and confer, and DENIES the request.

3


The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

Dated this 25th day of June, 2012.

/s/Marsha J. Pechman
Marsha J. Pechman
United States District Judge

4



  


Allen v World - Stay Lifted - Expect A Rough Ride ~mw | 88 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Amazon is selling the Nokia 900 for $0.01 a savings of $499.98
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 06:12 AM EDT
This is what happens to Microsoft Partners. Clicky I want one . I hope it is able to run Android.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Not a troll?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 06:39 AM EDT
On the contrary, it's easy to paint them as a troll, seeing as they are a Non
Practicing Entity. really, does there need to be any more significant definition
than that?

bkd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Paul Allen vs World: Prior Art Thread
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 06:48 AM EDT
I would do this logged in, but I can't.

If anyone can take a look at the respective patents and come up with some prior
art (or even just post a link to their text), it would almost certainly be
appreciated.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 07:35 AM EDT
Please summarize in the Title box error->correction or s/error/correction/ to
make it easy to scan to see what corrections have been submitted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

- Stay Lifted - Expect A Rough Ride ~mw
Authored by: webster on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 07:43 AM EDT
.

Patent valuations have been getting a rough ride lately, too.
Ask Oracle and Judge Posner. Let's hope the claims are
realistically devalued.

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks Thread
Authored by: bugstomper on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 07:57 AM EDT
Please type the title of the News Picks article in the Title box and include a
link to the article in your comment.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hey, anyone notice the Apple ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 07:58 AM EDT
... news about their widespread misuse of patents? They just
won an injunction (on a superseded product, fortunately)
using their patent on "rectangles with rounded corners."

Just saying.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 09:31 AM EDT
:-)

---
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 | # ]

Comes Stuff Here
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 09:32 AM EDT
:-|

---
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 | # ]

It is terribly sad
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 09:56 AM EDT
It is terribly sad to see that the Patent Office and the courts are so
incompetent that they will allow such absurd and clearly invalid patents to be
used to harass businesses. Let me be clear. NO reasonable and knowledgeable
person could possibly think that these patents are valid. I am sure that a
great many copyright maximalists will say they are valid on the grounds that
they love patents on principle and that they define "valid" as meaning
that anything the patent office rules must be right. Mindless ideology aside,
these patents are junk, it was illegal to issue them, and the patent office and
the judge in this case should be ashamed to see legitimate companies harassed
over them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Another angle
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 10:06 AM EDT
If so much of the industry has come up with the same idea(s) independently, I
think that would make the case for obviousness. :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The NPE distinction is a red herring
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 02:00 PM EDT
I think the distinction between practicing and non-practicing entities is a red herring. It is irrelevant. Apple comes up with a silly patent, and enforcement is OK because they're practicing? I figure out some technique to improve, say, cellular radio performance, but I shouldn't be able to enforce it because I can't build entire cellular radios?

As Apple has been clearly demonstrating recently, practicing entities can assert silly patents. I do think that restricting injunctions by NPEs makes sense in most cases - it's not like they can be harmed by sales of a competing product.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is dire news, but the days of the NPE may hopefully be limited...
Authored by: Zarkov on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 08:16 PM EDT
Some recent US research suggests that NPE trolls have cost the US economy tens of billions of dollars in 2011 alone: P atent trolling cost the US $29 Billion Dollars

Hopefully one of your bright stars in the US Senate or Congress might wake up from their slumber and relaise that your Patent rules are not only killing your own competitiveness, but also making it harder for those of us in the rest of the world to be innovative as well.

Hopefully they might decide that the cost of allowing patents on software outweighs any benefits... thats the only chance I see for the world to be rid of the problem which the US has created..

[ Reply to This | # ]

Allen v World - Stay Lifted - Expect A Rough Ride ~mw
Authored by: kawabago on Wednesday, June 27 2012 @ 08:54 PM EDT
That so many entities must have independently invented the
same thing at about the same time says far more about the
quality of the patents than anything else.

[ 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 )