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.


To read comments to this article, go here
Lodsys - An Update
Wednesday, November 30 2011 @ 01:15 PM EST

Things continue to progress slowly on the Lodsys front. At this time all of the declaratory judgment actions brought in the Northern District of Illnois against Lodsys have been closed, with several of them having transferred to the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In addition, DriveTime has dismissed its declaratory judgment action against Lodsys in Arizona. With those changes all of the pending cases are now in either the Eastern District of Texas (the infringement actions brought by Lodsys) or the Eastern District of Wisconsin (the declaratory judgment actions brought against Lodsys) with the one outlier being the declaratory judgment action brought by ESET against Lodsys in the Southern District of California.

There has not been a great deal of action in any of the active cases, but there are a few items of interest. Specifically, the court has dismissed the claims asserted by Lodsys against the New York Times (Lodsys v. DriveTime - 49 [PDF; text]) without prejudice and OpinionLabs (Lodsys v. DriveTime - 50 [PDF; text]) with prejudice in the Lodsys v. DriveTime action in Texas.


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

Documents

Lodsys v. DriveTime - 49

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

LODSYS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DRIVETIME AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.;
ESET, LLC;
FORESEE RESULTS, LLC;
LIVEPERSON, INC.;
OPINIONLAB, INC.;
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-309

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE

In consideration of Plaintiff Lodsys, LLC’s Notice of Dismissal of all claims between Plaintiff Lodsys, LLC and Defendant The New York Times Company, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all claims asserted in this suit between Plaintiff Lodsys, LLC and Defendant The New York Times Company are hereby dismissed without prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs are to be borne by the party that incurred them.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 15th day of November, 2011.

/s/ David Folsom
DAVID FOLSOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE


Lodsys v. DriveTime - 50

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

LODSYS, LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
DRIVETIME AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.;
ESET, LLC;
FORESEE RESULTS, LLC;
LIVEPERSON, INC.;
OPINIONLAB, INC.;
THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-309

ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

In consideration of Plaintiff Lodsys, LLC’s Notice of Dismissal of all claims between Plaintiff Lodsys, LLC and Defendant OpinionLab, Inc., it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that all claims asserted in this suit between Plaintiff Lodsys, LLC and Defendant OpinionLab, Inc. are hereby dismissed with prejudice.

It is further ORDERED that all attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs are to be borne by the party that incurred them.

SO ORDERED.

SIGNED this 15th day of November, 2011.

/s/ David Folsom
DAVID FOLSOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE



  View Printable Version


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 )