District Court IP Litigation Trends 1Q 2008

Posted on April 10, 2008 by Brian Wm. Higgins

    The table below identifies the top 10 states having the most copyright, trademark, and patent lawsuits filed in their respective U.S. district courts during the first quarter of 2008 (source Justia.com). The numbers show that California had the most filings, followed by, in order, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, New Jersey, Ohio, and Michigan.  The table shows Maryland's ranking: 24th overall, but 15th for trademark and copyright filings. 



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Patent Litigation in Maryland: 2007 Trends

Posted on January 3, 2008 by Brian Wm. Higgins

    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). 

  • Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Platinum Performance, Inc.
  • Lonza Group AG v. Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc.
  • F.O.B. Instruments, LTD. v. Maxi-Aids, Inc. et al
  • Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG et al
  • Soundview Publications, Inc. et al v. Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.
  • Raymond Geddes & Company, Inc. v. J. Rousek Toy Co. Inc.
  • American Silver LLC et al v. General Resonance LLC et al
  • Simon Systems, Inc. v. Corel Corporation
  • Raymond Geddes & Company, Inc. v. Nakajima USA, Inc.
  • Nacre AS v. Silynx Communications, Inc. et al
  • Stertil B.V. et al v. Automotive Lifts & Machinery Corp.
  • Plastic Safety Systems, Inc. v. Road Safety, LLC et al
  • STX, L.L.C. v. J. deBeer & Son, Inc.
  • Introsan Dental Products, Inc. v. Dentsply Tulsa Dental et al
  • Pulse Medical Instruments, Inc. v. Drug Impairment Detection Services, LLC
  • Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Cornerstone Biopharma, Inc. et al
  • 180S, Inc. et al v. E&B Giftware, LLC
  • Wright Manufacturing, Inc. v. Cub Cadet LLC et al
  • Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. v. Healthy Directions, LLC et al
  • Shire LLC v. Colony Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al
  • Wyeth v. Lupin Ltd. et al
  • Contech Stormwater Solutions Inc. v. Baysaver Technologies, Inc. et al
  • Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. et al v. Lupin Limited et al
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. et al v Hetero Drugs Ltd.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Recording Industry Follows Through on Threats to Sue

Posted on September 27, 2007 by Brian Wm. Higgins

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:

  • See Prof. Mike O'Donnell's (University of Chicago) comment here on the assumptions made by the RIAA about IP addresses being associated with a particular defendant.  Another related post can be found at p2pnet.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rankings Show Maryland Running Near Middle of Pack

Posted on September 7, 2007 by Brian Wm. Higgins

     The table below shows how Maryland ranks among other states in terms of the number of lawsuits filed in federal district courts that raise patent, trademark, and/or copyright issues.  The table values are for the last twenty months.


Notes:

  • Rankings are based on number of complaints filed between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007, and include cases filed in the District of Columbia.  States with multiple jurisdictions/divisions are combined.  Complete table available (please email me a request).

  • Source: Justia.com.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,