Articles Posted in November, 2012

by

Defense attorneys for Facebook and founder Mark Zuckerberg won’t oppose attorney Dean Boland’s motion to withdraw from representing plaintiff Paul Ceglia, as long as he can’t have his cake and eat it too, according to a new federal court filing (read it below).

First, they insist that a withdrawal “not be construed as authorizing any further delay” in the case, including a pending decision on a defense motion to dismiss Ceglia’s “fraudulent lawsuit” seeking a fifty-percent ownership stake in Facebook.

Second, Facebook’s attorneys want Boland’s in camera communication to the judge in support of his withdrawal made public, arguing that there is nothing confidential about Boland’s “personal reasons” for withdrawing because, they say, at the same time he filed a “‘self-serving’ memorandum that he admits was for ‘the media.'”


by

I’m sure most of our readers are familiar with Justia’s Civil Dockets, a section on our site which allows users to search through civil dockets filed in the US Federal District and Appellate Courts since 2004. What I’m not sure about is whether folks realize that on a weekly basis our team of editors here at Justia picks out cases from the dockets filings we feel are worthy of being a featured case. Featured cases in this regard include matters grabbing headlines that week in both the national and legal press, patent suits from the tech world, and other noteworthy cases.  When we feature a case, our editors essentially set in motion a process in which the initial complaint or filing is downloaded and we grab the rest of the docket sheet so that our users can (for free) see what has been filed up to that point in the proceedings. Depending on how important we feel a a lawsuit is, we’ll download all the actual filings in a docket and/or set up tracking so that when new filings are added, our users will be able to see or download those as well. Featured cases in Dockets are denoted by a yellow star next to the case name.

We thought it might be a great idea to start up a weekly blog post which lists various cases we’ve recently featured. To the extent we can, we’ll give a brief synopsis of the suit and also link over to any news articles and analysis which more fully discuss the matter.

Enjoy!


Posted in: Legal Research
by

Yesterday, on November 13, 2012, Nevada company 1st Technology LLC filed a lawsuit against Facebook in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging that the social networking company infringed on several patents.

According to the complaint, the managing member of 1st Technology is Dr. Scott Lewis, who invented one of the patents at issue (U.S. Patent No. 5,564,001), which the USPTO issued issued in 1996. The complaint alleges infringement of three patents in total, all owned by 1st Technology:


by

After President Barack Obama was reelected last week, several petitions to secede appeared on the White House website. The petition feature of the site promises that “if a petition meets the signature threshold [of 25,000 signatures within 30 days], it will be reviewed by the Administration and we will issue a response.” The Houston Chronicle reports that by 3:40 PM EST, the petition to allow Texas to secede had already accumulated over 25,000 signatures. At the time of this writing, it has over 77,000 signatures.

Petitions on behalf of other states have received less attention and fewer signatures, but several have met or are approaching the 25,000 threshold, as well. Louisiana (29,000), Florida (23,000), Georgia (22,000), Alabama (21,300), Tennessee (20,700), and North Carolina (20,200) have all accrued a substantial number of supporters.

On more than one occasion, Texans (both officials and non-officials) have suggested that their state “has the right” to secede. Texas Governor Rick Perry has disavowed the online movement to secede, despite having previously acknowledged that secession might be an option. In 2009, the state legislature passed a resolution asserting state sovereignty—a resolution Governor Perry supported—although it has no binding effect on the federal government.


Posted in: Laws, Legal News
by

Yesterday, on November 12, 2012, Texas company NovelPoint Tracking LLC filed a lawsuit against Apple Inc. for patent infringement. Brought in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the suit alleges that certain Apple products, and specifically the iPhone 4S, infringe on a patent owned by the plaintiff.

That patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,442,485, is entitled “Method and Apparatus for an Automatic Vehicle Location, Collision Notification, and Synthetic Voice,” and was registered with the USPTO on August 27, 2002. NovelPoint Tracking asserts that it is the exclusive owner of all rights, title, and interest in the patent, which was originally invented by Wayne W. Evans. The patent essentially describes using a method of using a GPS module to determine a vehicle or product’s location.

Relatedly, NovelPoint Tracking recently brought a lawsuit against Ford, alleging that its SYNC project infringes on two of its patents—6,442,485 (the patent at issue in the case against Apple) and 6,266,617.


Tagged: Apple, gps, patent
by

Dawson Farms v. Risk Management Agency, US 8th Cir. (11/7/12)
Agriculture Law, Government & Administrative Law

Dawson Farms challenged the RMA’s denial of its crop-insurance claim alleging loss due to “tuber rot” in stored potatoes. A final agency review affirmed the RMA’s denial of Dawson Farms’ claim, finding that the insurance adjuster’s sampling of the stored potatoes followed adequate sample procedures. Dawson Farms appealed the final agency decision to the district court, which affirmed. The court believed that, in light of the nature of the hearing officer’s finding under review, the deputy director’s statements made it reasonably discernable that the deputy director applied the correct legal standard and considered the record for the proper purpose of reviewing the hearing officer’s decision for substantial evidence. The hearing officer based his conclusion largely on the testimony of an expert in potato pathology. The court also believed that, to the extent the deputy director’s determination was a rejection of the hearing officer’s finding that the adjuster had a duty to re-sample, the issue under review was a question of law. Consequently, the court found no abuse of discretion or arbitrary and capricious action by the deputy director. Further, the agency determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Vance v. Rumsfeld, US 7th Cir. (11/7/12)
Constitutional Law, Government & Administrative Law, Injury Law, International Trade, Military Law

American citizen-civilians, employees of a private Iraqi security services company, alleged that they were detained and tortured by U.S. military personnel while in Iraq in 2006, then released without being charged with a crime.  Plaintiffs sought damages and to recover seized personal property. The district court denied motions to dismiss. In 2011, the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, holding that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged Secretary Rumsfeld’s personal responsibility and that he is not entitled to qualified immunity. On rehearing en banc, the Seventh Circuit reversed, stating that a common-law claim for damages should not be created. The Supreme Court has never created or even favorably mentioned a nonstatutory right of action for damages on account of conduct that occurred outside of the U.S. The Military Claims Act and the Foreign Claims Act indicate that Congress has decided that compensation should come from the Treasury rather than from federal employees and that plaintiffs do not need a common-law damages remedy in order to achieve some recompense.  Even such a remedy existed, Rumsfeld could not be held liable. He did not arrest plaintiffs, hold them incommunicado, refuse to speak with the FBI, subject them to loud noises, or threaten them while they wore hoods.

Read More:
Alleged torture victims can’t sue Rumsfeld, The Boston Globe (11/8/12)


by

Apple must pay more than $368 million in damages to VirnetX Inc. according to a jury verdict returned in federal court yesterday (see it below). The same day the verdict was reached, VirnetX and Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) filed a new patent lawsuit against Apple.

In 2010, VirnetX said that its patent portfolio was “derived from a Central Intelligence Agency security project”

The four (4) patents in this litigation reportedly stem from technology for secure communications developed for the CIA by SAIC.


by

Facebook has launched a special tool for Election Day that tracks (in real time) who is reporting their votes on the social network. Interestingly, throughout the day thus far, women have reported voting at nearly twice the rate of men (see screenshot below taken just after 1:00 PM PDT). This difference could mean any number of things, but the two most salient conclusions are either that women are voting in greater numbers than are men, or that women are reporting having voted on Facebook more than men are. Facebook is unlikely to provide (because it doesn’t have) the information necessary to support one of these conclusions over the other, but the degree of difference is remarkable.

Relatedly, a Pew Study found that earlier today 22% of voters have revealed their choices online.


Posted in: Legal News
by

A federal court dismissed Apple’s fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) patent licensing claims against Motorola Mobility, Inc. this morning.

The case was dismissed ‘with prejudice,’ legalese that means Apple’s claims that the court threw out cannot be raised a second time in a different lawsuit.

A once sentence transcript of minutes from this morning’s 2 hour and 37 minute court hearing is succinct and to the point (read it below):


The exact reasons behind the court’s decision to dismiss this case will hopefully become clear after the court adds a detailed written opinion to the case docket detailing its legal reasoning behind.

Last week this blogger noted that FRAND disputes were being pursued in parallel litigation tracks in the U.S. and abroad.

On October 31, 2012, Apple declared told the court and Motorola Mobility that its competitor’s essential wireless patents in dispute are worth, at most, just one dollar per iPhone.

There were at least six lawyers at this morning’s hearing before U.S. District Judge Barbara B. Crabb in the Western District of Wisconsin — three for Apple and three for Motorola Mobility.


by

This past weekend, I attended the Black Tie Dinner in Dallas, Texas. The annual dinner is the nation’s single largest fundraiser for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community. As a former summer intern for Lambda Legal—the nation’s oldest and largest national legal organization working to safeguard and advance the civil rights of LGBT individuals and those living with HIV—I wanted to be a part of this exciting event and contribute to the ongoing fight for equality for all Americans. The proceeds from this event were going to benefit Lambda Legal, the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, and nearly twenty other organizations committed to securing and protecting equal rights for LGBT Americans.

Although the nation’s eyes are focused on the presidential election tomorrow, some other key issues are also at stake. Voters in four states—Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington—will also be deciding whether to recognize equal rights of lesbian and gay couples in those states. The Supreme Court will likely be announcing soon which case challenging the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act they will review, and the outcomes in these elections may very well influence the Court’s decision on that front.

As the election draws ever closer, we can make guesses and predictions, quote polls and cite studies, but in the end, all we can do is wait and see. Although there have been, and will be, setbacks along the way, I think the America I live in today is a better place than it was yesterday, thanks in no small part to organizations like Lambda Legal, HRC, the ACLU, and others who fight every day for “liberty and justice for all.”


Posted in: Legal News