Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Illinois Computer Research, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 07 C 5081 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).

The parties in this case filed a Stipulation of Dismissal this week -- click here to read it.  Of course, details of the settlement were not disclosed.  But this appears to close what had been a very contentious dispute -- click here to read the Blog's coverage of the case. 

One other note about the case, I had been meaning to cover plaintiff's motion to strike some of defendant's pleadings for using variations of the term "shell corporation," arguing that the term is derogatory in a manner similar to the "patent troll" moniker.  Judge Pallmeyer ruled on the motion in a Minute Order stating that the Court would no longer use the terms, but denying the motion to strike.  Because the Minute Order does not provide much analysis and because the issue was already covered very well by Joe Mullin at The Prior Art blog -- click here to read Mullin's post -- I will not do a separate post on the motion.  But if you are interested in the historical, legal use of the term, the pleadings on the motion are an excellent information source.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (1)

Dennis Crouch at Patently-O is reporting that Cisco has amended its employee blogging policy to require that any Cisco employee blogging about issues involving or related to Cisco identify themselves as a Cisco employee and provide a disclaimer that the opinions are those of the employee alone and not necessarily Cisco.  This is a reasonable policy.  It provides Cisco's employees the freedom to blog while protecting both Cisco and its employees.  And it prevents future occurences of the mistake Troll Tracker made (anonymously commenting on cases his employer was involved in), as I discussed in my post on anonymous blogging last week, click here for the post.

Cisco also told Crouch that Troll Tracker would be free to continue blogging, presumably as long as he follows the policy.  Hopefully, that means that Troll Tracker will return to the patent litigation conversation soon, although it is easy to believe that this experience may have soured him on blogging or changed his voice substantially.  Here is Cisco's explanation of Troll Tracker's status from Cisco's official blog, The Platform:

As an employee, Rick is free to continue his personal blog, Patent Troll Tracker, in compliance with the revised policy. Rick has many fans who appreciate the information he collects and disseminates on patent litigation trends and recognize his blog as an important voice in the on-going national dialogue on patent issues.

IP Law360 (subscription required) has a detailed article this morning outlining Troll Tracker's history, including several quotes from Ray Niro of Niro Scavone who received substantial media attention after offering a reward for Troll Tracker's identity.  Niro reportedly likened Cisco's policy to "repairing a sidewalk after someone was hurt" and said that some of Troll Tracker's statements were "hurtful, harmful and, in many cases, 100% inaccurate."  According to the article, Niro plans to depose Troll Tracker in Illinois Computer Research, LLC v. Fish & Richardson, No. 07 C 5081 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.) -- click here to read more about the case in the Blog's archives.

Another note on anonymous blogging and commenting, Rob LaGatta at LexBlog addressed the Troll Tracker situation and my anonymous blogging post last week with an important point, click here for Rob's post.  Anonymous blogging and commenting is a relatively small part of legal blogging and most anonymous material is not problematic.  It is easy to get side-tracked by the occasional offensive anonymous content.  But the vast majority of legal blogs operate without problems with either unprofessional or anonymous content.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (1)

Illinois Computer Research, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 07 C 5081 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer is presiding over this case, which began as a standard case of a patent holding company, Illinois Computer Research (“ICR”) suing a large defendant, in this case Google, for patent infringement. The complaint was a standard three page notice pleading complaint alleging that Google infringed ICR’s patents based upon its Book Search functionality – click here for the original complaint. But the case quickly morphed into a dispute between a law firm, Fish & Richardson (“Fish”), and its former partner, the inventor and former owner of the patents in suit Scott Harris. ICR amended its complaint adding Fish and turning it in to a speaking complaint alleging that Fish forced Harris to resign because of the suit against Google and seeking a declaratory judgment that Harris, not Fish, owned the patent in suit – click here for the amended complaint. 

Fish answered the amended complaint – click here for the answer – and filed speaking counterclaims alleging that Harris breached his partnership contract and fiduciary duties, and seeking a declaratory judgment that Fish owned the patents – click here for the counterclaims. Harris responded with his own speaking counterclaims alleging tortious interference and defamation – click here for Harris’s counterclaims and click here for Fish’s answer. Shortly after Fish’s second answer, Google was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, but the case regarding Harris and Fish continued.

Fish filed a motion for expedited discovery, which the Court granted in court, without an opinion detailing the discovery allowed. Fish also filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ tortious interference and defamation claims. That motion has been briefed, but not decided yet. And last week, Fish filed a motion to amend its counterclaims and third-party complaint naming six additional entities – click here for the motion.  The motion does not identify the new parties specifically except to say that some are unnamed Doe defendants and that they are all related or believed to be related to Harris’s and ICR’s law firm Niro Scavone. Fish appears to be making a Propat-style argument that some or all of the additional defendants have or had an interest in the patent in suit and, therefore, are necessary parties. I will cover these opinions as they come out, but in light of all of the coverage this case has been getting – for example, see this recent Troll Tracker post and this case timeline at Joe Mullin’s The Prior Art Blog which Mullin promises to update periodically – I thought readers would be interested in some detailed background of the case. More to come as the Court issues opinions.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks