Maryland IP Litigation Cases for the Week of Nov. 5, 2007
Below is a summary of the three IP-related cases filed in the the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland last week (source: Justia). They involve a copyright case concerning maps used on a real estate website, a massive patent suit (in terms of the number of defendants), and another RIAA copyright case, this time against 11 unidentified music file downloaders. The patent case, presented first, appears to involve a non-practicing entity (NPE) who has filed suit against 131 telecoms and technology companies, including Microsoft and Yahoo!
- Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al, No. 8:2007cv03012, filed Nov. 8, 2007
Plaintiff is Technology Patents LLC, a Maryland entity having its principal place of business in Potomac, MD (address P.O. Box 61220, Potomac, MD 20859). TPLLC's website content is duplicated to a large extent under a second domain--http://www.arismardirossian.com/. Aris Maridirossian, is identified from Internet sources as TPLLC's President, and is reportedly a Potomac resident.
Mr. Maridirossian is the inventor named on U.S. Reissued Patent No. RE39,870 and U.S. Patent No. 6,646,542 (the '870, which issued October 9, 2007, is a continuation of the '542). Both patents are directed toward a "Global paging system using packet-switched digital data network and remote country designation," and allegedly cover the distribution of international text or SMS messages.
Personal jurisdiction is predicated on allegations that all of the defendants, which include T-Mobile, Vodafone, China Resources Peoples Telephone Company Ltd, AT&T, Samsung, Palm, Microsoft, and Yahoo! (among the 131 defendants), have caused international text or SMS messages to be sent to and from Maryland, thereby resulting in infringement of the asserted patents in Maryland. A complete list of the defendants in this case is available here (downloadable Word file).
TPLLC is seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants, enjoining international messaging operations and capabilities in the U.S., and is seeking to have U.S. carriers disable international text and SMS messaging.
Joseph Rhoa of Nixon & Venderhye, P.C., filed the complaint on behalf of TPLLC.
- Homefinders.Com v. Gordon, No. 8:2007cv03029, filed No. 8, 2007
Plaintiff Homefinders.com is real estate brokerage website owned and operated by Maryland real estate professional Ms. Lenn Harley. Homefinders.com has its principal place of business in Rockville, MD. Ms. Harley alleges in court papers that she is the copyright owner of 22 maps, including, it is believed, the one shown here from her website. The maps are apparently used to depict geographic locations in Maryland and elsewhere for prospective homebuyers.
Defendant Richard Gordon is, according to court papers, a real estate professional in Maryland apparently affiliated with the Long & Foster Real Estate company. He is being accused by Plaintiff of reproducing at least one of the aforementioned maps on a promotional website.
Plaintiff claims $20,000 in statutory damages under the Copyright Act. She is also alleging unfair competition and misappropriation of products.
Paul Thaler and Lars Liebeler of Thaler Liebeler filed the complaint on behalf of the Plaintiff.
-
Maverick Recording Company et al v. DOES 1-11, No. 1:2007cv03020, filed Nov. 8, 2007
According to court papers, this is a civil action by Plaintiff music industry entities seeking damages and injunctive relief for alleged copyright infringement. Plaintiffs are Maverick Recording Company, Arista Records LLC, Atlantic Recording Corporation, BMG Music, Capitol Records, Inc., Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., Interscope Records, Motown Record Company, L.P., Sony BMG Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings, Inc., Virgin Records America, Inc., Warner Bros. Records Inc. and Zomba Recordings LLC.
Defendants are 11 unknown entities ("Does 1-11"). In its complaint, Plaintiffs assert the following, which is typical of RIAA lawsuits:
"Although the true identity of each Defendant is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, on information and belief, each Defendant may be found in this District and/or a substantial part of the acts of infringement complained of herein occurred in this District. On information and belief, personal jurisdiction in this District is proper because each Defendant, without consent or permission of the copyright owner, disseminated over the Internet copyrighted works owned and/or controlled by Plaintiffs. On information and belief, such illegal dissemination occurred in every jurisdiction in the United States, including this one. In addition, each Defendant contracted with an Internet Service Provider (“ISP”) found in this District to provide each Defendant with the access to the Internet which facilitated Defendants’ infringing activities."
By now, those who follow these RIAA lawsuits, which often target students, will recognize that this lawsuit does not in fact identify specific defendants, because the Plaintiffs do not know exactly who is behind the alleged illegal music downloads:
"Each Defendant is known to Plaintiffs only by the Internet Protocol (“IP”) address assigned to that Defendant by his or her ISP on the date and time of that Defendant’s infringing activity."
Why are they still going after the music downloaders? Haven't they lost that battle yet?