Data available from Justia.com shows that the number of copyright lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt and Baltimore divisions combined) in 2008 (40; see table below comparing Districts) was higher than the number initiated in 2007 (30). The number of defendants named in those lawsuits was also higher year over year (about 120 defendants in 2008 compared to about 60 in 2007).
The table below shows how Maryland ranked among other U.S. District Courts in terms of the number of lawsuits that were filed raising patent issues in 2008 (source Justia.com). Table values are based on the number of complaints filed in 2008. As shown, 31 patent lawsuits were initiated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt and Baltimore divisions combined) in 2008, which is nearly a 30% increase over the number of patent lawsuits initiated in Maryland in 2007. In terms of the number of parties involved in those lawsuits, there were more parties named in patent lawsuits in 2007 compared to 2008, due to one patent infringement lawsuit initiated in 2007 that involved over a hundred defendants.
Below is a Wordle based on the last several months worth of posts on this website. A Wordle is a “word cloud” generated from text in which greater prominence is given to words that appear more frequently in the source text. In the Wordle below, one can see that the words "patent," "Maryland," "district," "court," and "judge" have found their way into the posts on this website more frequently than other words.
Jonathan Feinberg of IBM Research is credited for providing the on-line Wordle tool.
Twenty-six plaintiffs filed 24 patent infringement lawsuits in the District Court for the District of Maryland in 2007 (see a list of the lawsuits and the parties involved after the jump). The 24 lawsuits involved 181 defendants (individuals and entities) from all over the world. If you don't count the Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG case, which involved 131 defendants, the total number of defendants sued in Maryland in 2007 was 50.
One notable change in 2007 compared to 2006 is the apparent increase in the number of patent infringement lawsuits involving life-sciences technologies (e.g., pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices).
In 2006, 21 plaintiffs filed 23 patent infringement lawsuits in Maryland involving 25 defendants. Thus, while the total number of patent infringement lawsuits in 2007 increased only slightly over 2006 figures, the total number of defendants sued in 2007 compared to 2006 increased significantly. Several factors could push the number of lawsuits even higher in 2008, including a rise in biotechnology litigation, which could involve the 300+ biotechnology companies that call Maryland home, and changes in laws brought about by patent reform legislation, which if enacted could close off certain jurisdictions outside Maryland to plaintiffs that might then consider Maryland as an alternative venue.
Topping the list of companies filing the most patent infringement lawsuits in Maryland in 2007 were Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., the Edgewood, MD, company that specializes in nutritional supplements, and Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (with its Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., subsidiary), both of which filed two patent infringement lawsuits in Maryland last year.
The 24 lawsuits filed last year were assigned fairly evenly among Maryland's District Court Judges: Bennett (2), Blake (3), Chasanow (4), Davis (1), Garbis (3), Legg (1), Motz (2), Nickerson (3), Quarles (1), Titus (1), and Williams (3).
Summary: Maryland residents are latest targets of record industry lawsuits aimed at stopping digital music file sharing
Last week, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sent 403 pre-litigation settlement letters to 22 universities, including the University of Maryland - College Park, alleging illegal copying and distribution of RIAA-member copyrighted sound (music) recordings. In addition to the letters, the RIAA filed 24 copyright infringement lawsuits against previous recipients of pre-litigation letters who allegedly ignored "settlement opportunities." According to an RIAA statement, the lawsuits were filed in federal courts against students, including students reportedly attending the University of Maryland. As shown below, two of the lawsuits were filed in the District Court for the District of Maryland by Matthew J. Oppenheim, Esq., RIAA's lawyer (and a Maryland resident himself, according to public property records).
One of Mr. Oppenheim's lawsuits, BMG Music et al v. Norwood, 07cv02480 (D. Md. 2007), was served on Sarah Norwood, a St. Leonard, MD (Calvert County), resident (according to RIAA's complaint). The suit is predicated solely on a claim that on April 28, 2007, Ms. Norwood distributed 377 audio files over the Gnutella peer-to-peer network from a computer having the IP address 69.251.74.83 (which is a Comcast.net IP address: click here to see for yourself).
The Record Industry vs The People blog describes what happens during RIAA-initiated litigation, which could best be described as somewhat heavy handed. Here's how the authors of the blog describe the "settlement opportunities":
"After getting the name and address of the person who paid for the internet access account, they then send him or her a letter demanding a "settlement".
Their settlement is usually for $3750, non-negotiable, and contains numerous one-sided and unusual provisions, such as a representation that peer to peer file sharing of copyrighted music is a copyright infringement (a representation that is far too broad, undoubtedly there are 'sharing' behaviors with digital files, as there are with cd's, that are not copyright infringements). Even certain innocuous provisions, worded in a way to make them obligations of the defendant but not the RIAA, are deemed 'non-negotiable'. At bottom, the settlement is cold comfort to the defendant, because it does not speak for the other potential plaintiffs -- the owners of the copyrighted work, or the other record companies not represented by the RIAA litigation fund. That this omission is significant is illustrated by the new wave of copyright enforcement actions by music publishers against guitar tablature sites. There is nothing to prevent them from suing the individuals who have settled with the RIAA over the sound recording rights.
The newest wrinkle in the RIAA's pre-litigation settlement strategy is to encourage "early settlements" prior to commencement of a litigation. The RIAA has even set up a web site where people can go to make these settlements. The RIAA has stated that the settlements will be for a $1000 or more less than otherwise. However the first such settlement we have heard of is for $3500, which is only $250 less. We have heard of $3000 settlements being "offered" to college students. The RIAA has opened this initiative on two fronts, (1) the ISP's, and (2) colleges and universities. Some colleges have cooperated, forwarding the RIAA letters to the students, some have not. It remains to be seen how the ISP's will react.
The other Maryland lawsuit initiated by the RIAA and Mr. Oppenheim is captioned Warner Bros. Records et al v. Nwosu, 07cv02479 (D. Md. 2007), which pits RIAA members against Ms. Nnenna Nwosu, who, according to RIAA's complaint, is a College Park resident.
What continues to intrique many who follow the RIAA's legal blitz, which has reportedly targeted close to 23,000 individuals over the last four years, is how unresponsive downloaders are to the industry's threats on the one hand, and how slow (reluctant?) the recording industry is to create a new paradigm for generating revenues from its copyrighted sound recordings in the face of continued file sharing on the other. Kevin Robillard's recent article entitled "University Network Still the Wild, Wild West," published in the University of Maryland's The Diamondback, is reflective of the attitudes among college students: they remain devotees of illegal file sharing, many of whom say it's unlikely they will ever purchase legal copies of music. What does that say about the relationship the RIAA's litigation arm has created with one of the music industry's largest consumer groups?
Comments:
Petersburg, Virginia-based Star Scientific, whose published corporate mission is to “reduce toxins in tobacco so that adult consumers can have access to products that expose them to sharply reduced toxin levels,” sued R.J. Reynolds for patent infringement in the District Court for the District of Maryland in 2001. A bench trial on the issue of the enforceability of the asserted patents was held in 2005. Apparently put off by what it viewed as an excess delay in receiving the District Court’s decision, Star petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) seeking a writ of mandamus from the court that would order the Maryland District Court to issue its decision regarding unenforceability within 30 days. Star's petition was filed before June 7, 2007, which is the date the Maryland District Court issued an order stating that its decision would be posted on June 29, 2007. Defendants/respondents R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (a North Carolina corporation) and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (a New Jersey corporation) opposed Star’s petition.
In an Order signed June 25, 2007, Federal Circuit Court Judge Pauline Newman denied Star’s petition, stating that the company had not “met its burden in this case,” which, for a writ of mandamus, required Star to establish that there had been a “clear abuse of discretion or that the District Court has ‘obstinately refuse[d]’ to adjudicate the matter” (citing Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655, 666-67 (1978)).
Ironically, the same day the Federal Circuit issued its Order denying Star’s petition, the Maryland District Court issued its decision on enforceability, effectively mooting Star’s petition to the CAFC. The District Court found Star’s patents to be unenforceable on the basis of inequitable conduct by Star’s attorneys during prosecution of Star’s patents before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Star responded forcefully to the decision. In a June 27, 2007, press statement, it stated:
“The company is disappointed and frankly outraged by the U.S. District Court's ruling yesterday…. The Court's conclusion that highly respected and experienced senior attorneys at four national law firms were involved in an alleged plot to deceive the Patent Office is stunning and totally without support in the record. The opinion ignores significant portions of the record, distorts others, and spins a tale that is unrecognizable to those who attended the trial. … We welcome the opportunity to present the record in this case to objective decision-makers on the Federal Circuit.”
Comments and Notes:
Enter keywords:
