Home » 2013 » May

Monthly Archives: May 2013

Elf-Man Sues a Single Doe in the Northern District

In a strongly worded complaint, Elf-Man, LLC has sued the former Doe No. 43 in a separate lawsuit seeking substantial damages.

The Case No. is 13-CV-3884.

Strategically, Doe No. 43 made a major mistake, as he filed a motion to sever (and quash the subpoena to his ISP) in the earlier case 13-CV-2362.  Elf-Man’s response was, of course, to dismiss him/her without prejudice and file a separate suit.  Regretfully, Doe No. 43’s cost of settlement has likely gone up by 100% or more.

If you are identified by your ISP as the Doe in a file sharing lawsuit, you may want to review this article, which contains some helpful tips on how to deal with these kinds of suits:

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-5-Steps-You-Need-to-Take-When-You-Receive-an-ISP-Subpoena-Letter&id=7696216

Atty Ad:  The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC has successfully defended numerous file sharing cases alleging the use of Bit Torrent to copy movies, music, software and other content other the Internet.  Call (630) 318-2606 today for a free consultation if you have received a subpoena letter from your ISP.

TCYK Sues More than 1000 Does in the Northern District

Chicago area file sharers beware – a new wave of ISP subpoenas will be on their way soon.   On May 23, TCYK, LLC filed 16 suits against more than 1000 Does seeking to enforce its copyright in the movie “The Company You Keep”.  The individual cases are:

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-28 (Case No. 2013-CV-3823)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-71 (Case No. 2013-CV-3824)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-44 (Case No. 2013-CV-3825)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-30 (Case No. 2013-CV-3826)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-27 (Case No. 2013-CV-3827)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-88 (Case No. 2013-CV-3828)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-109 (Case No. 2013-CV-3829)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-112 (Case No. 2013-CV-3833)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-147 (Case No. 2013-CV-3834)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-114 (Case No. 2013-CV-3837)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-28 (Case No. 2013-CV-3839)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-113 (Case No. 2013-CV-3840)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-36 (Case No. 2013-CV-3841)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-62 (Case No. 2013-CV-3842)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-69 (Case No. 2013-CV-3844)

TCYK, LLC v. DOES 1-87 (Case No. 2013-CV-3845)

If you are identified by your ISP as the Doe in a file sharing lawsuit, you may want to review this article, which contains some helpful tips on how to deal with these kinds of suits:

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-5-Steps-You-Need-to-Take-When-You-Receive-an-ISP-Subpoena-Letter&id=7696216

Atty Ad:  The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC has successfully defended numerous file sharing cases alleging the use of Bit Torrent to copy movies, music, software and other content other the Internet.  Call (630) 318-2606 today for a free consultation if you have received a subpoena letter from your ISP.

Jury Verdict for Patent Infringement Reversed – All Asserted Claims Invalid

Metso Minerals v. Powerscreen International Distribution, Case No. 2011-1572, Slip Op. (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2013)

Metso Minerals (“Metso”) competes with Powerscreen International Distribution (“Powerscreen”) in the market for screeners – machines that sort rocks into sand, gravel, etc.  Metso sued Powerscreen for infringement of U.S. Pat. No. 5,577,618.  A jury in the Eastern District of New York found that Powerscreen’s screeners infringed multiple claims of the ‘618 patent.

During the trial Powerscreen asserted that the asserted claims of the ‘618 patent were invalid over two prior art screeners designed by Malachy Rafferty – the primary inventor of the ‘618 patent.  However, the Court instructed the jury that any prior art reference considered for purposes of obviousness was fully operational and functional prior to the priority date of the ‘618 patent.  Perhaps based on this instruction, the jury determined that the asserted claims of the ‘618 patent not invalid, and found that Powerscreen infringed.  Powerscreen appealed and the Federal Circuit reversed.

The Court began by noting that a prior art reference need not be functional to be considered for purposes of obviousness.  The Court also determined that the District Court’s instruction was not harmless, as it may have prevented the jury from considering certain prior art references.  However, the Court did not stop there.

The Court then went on to hold that JMOL on the issue of obviousness should have been granted by the trial Court.  In particular, the Federal Circuit noted that the prior art references established a prima facie case of obviousness, and then went on to explain that the claimed secondary factors of commercial success, unexpected results, and copying all failed to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness.

500 Views in May

Illinois IP Litigation has passed 500 views for the month of May!  Thanks to all of our readers.

Malibu Media files 19 Suits Against Individual Does in the Northern District

Last week, Malibu Media filed 19 separate suits, each against a single Doe Defendant.  If Malibu follows their recent pattern, each will be accompanied by a document summarizing their “expanded surveillance” and a request for “exculpatory evidence.”

The cases are:

2013-CV-3726  (filed May 18, 2013)

2013-CV-3693 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3694 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3696 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3697 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3699 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3700 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3703 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3704 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3705 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3706 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3707 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3710 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3711 (filed May 17, 2013)

2013-CV-3644 (filed May 16, 2013)

2013-CV-3645 (filed May 16, 2013)

2013-CV-3647 (filed May 16, 2013)

2013-CV-3648 (filed May 16, 2013)

2013-CV-3649 (filed May 16, 2013)

If you are identified by your ISP as the Doe in a file sharing lawsuit, you may want to review this article, which contains some helpful tips on how to deal with these kinds of suits:

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-5-Steps-You-Need-to-Take-When-You-Receive-an-ISP-Subpoena-Letter&id=7696216

Atty Ad:  The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC has successfully defended numerous file sharing cases alleging the use of Bit Torrent to copy movies, music, software and other content other the Internet.  Call (630) 318-2606 today for a free consultation if you have received a subpoena letter from your ISP.

reFX sues another 180 Does in the Northern District

reFX Audio Software v. Does 1-180, Case No. 2013-CV-3524

On May 10, 2013, reFX Audio Software sued another 180 Doe Defendants in the Northern District of Illinois for downloading its Nexus 2.2 software.  Another wave of subpoenas likely to hit in 1-3 months.

If you are identified by your ISP as the Doe in a file sharing lawsuit, you may want to review this article, which contains some helpful tips on how to deal with these kinds of suits:

http://ezinearticles.com/?The-5-Steps-You-Need-to-Take-When-You-Receive-an-ISP-Subpoena-Letter&id=7696216

Atty Ad:  The Law Offices of Konrad Sherinian, LLC has successfully defended numerous file sharing cases alleging the use of Bit Torrent to copy movies, music, software and other content other the Internet.  Call (630) 318-2606 today for a free consultation if you have received a subpoena letter from your ISP.

Prenda Law’s Shocking Sanctions

Ingenuity 13 v. John Doe, Case No. 2:12-CV-8333, Slip Op. (C.D. Cal. May 6, 2013)

The principals of Prenda Law, a Chicago law firm, were sanctioned by Judge Otis Wright of the Central District of California.  The opinion literally overflows with fury.  The particulars of the sanctions have been covered in depth in numerous sources – see Wired, PopeHat, Die Troll Die, and Fight Copyright Trolls – and I do not cover those sanctions here.  Rather, this article attempts to cover what Judge Wright’s opinion might mean for future mass copyright cases.

In particular, Judge Wright attacked the entire model used by mass copyright plaintiffs.  First, the Court noted that Prenda did not conduct a sufficient investigation before filing its suit.  Specifically, the Court noted that Prenda’s investigators only noted the presence of a particular IP address in a torrent swarm, and did not produce evidence that the IP address actually downloaded any of the particular file (and therefore, could not observe that enough of the file to view any part of the video).  In addition, the Court seemed to appreciate the argument that identifying the IP address did not identify the specific person.   Finally, the Court observed that it cannot be profitable to prosecute the illegal download of a single video.

This seems to suggest that a copyright plaintiff should not file an infringement suit unless and until the copyright plaintiff can identify, by name, the actual infringer.  This is extraordinarily difficult, and, in most cases, impossible for a typical torrent case.  Most courts have taken the opposite position.  See, for example, First Time Videos v. Does 1-76, Case No. 11-CV-3831, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug 16, 2011).  Nonetheless, there can be no doubt that this case will be raised in many motions to dismiss filed in the future.  And, if Judge Wright’s views are adopted, it will have a profound impact on how mass copyright cases are litigated.