Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Newegg Scores in Federal e-Commerce Patent Case
After six years of litigation, the online retailer Newegg Inc. has delivered a major blow to Soverain Software LLC, which has raked in tens of millions of dollars asserting patents related to e-commerce. Siding with Newegg in a 25-page decision issued on January 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit invalidated three of Soverain's patents on obviousness grounds. Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., No. 2011-1009 (Fed. Cir., Jan. 22, 2013) (http://1.usa.gov/ZufJJK).
The patents cover concepts like using an Internet receipt, putting items in an online shopping cart, and using identifiers to keep track of online shoppers. The ruling vacates a $2.5 million jury verdict that Soverain won against Newegg in 2010, and it also casts doubt on an $18 million verdict Soverain won in 2011 against Avon Products Inc. and Victoria's Secret Stores LLC, which Soverain accused of infringing the same three patents.
Soverain asserted five e-commerce patents against Amazon.com in 2004 and secured a $40 million mediated settlement in 2005. Emboldened, it went on to assert three patents against Newegg and six other online retailers, including Zappos.com and CDW Corp., in U.S. District Court in Tyler, TX, in 2007. All of the defendants settled except for Newegg, which was represented at the district court by Dallas-based Sayles & Werbner and the Webb Law Firm in Pittsburgh.
At a 2010 trial, the defense lawyers argued that Soverain's patents were invalid on obviousness grounds and that, in any event, Newegg didn't infringe. To Newegg's dismay, Judge Leonard Davis refused to instruct the jury on obviousness, ruling that Newegg failed to present a prima facie case. The jury awarded Soverain $2.5 million in damages.
IPWise called that verdict a “pyrrhic victory,” since Soverain's trial counsel at Jones Day pegged damages at $34 million. See, “When a Win Is Not a Win ' A Pyrrhic Victory for Soverain Software,” http://bit.ly/11Xwajz.
After the verdict came down, Newegg urged Davis to vacate it on obviousness grounds. As one of Soverain's lawyers, Michael Smith, put it in a blog post, Newegg was “in the unusual procedural posture of arguing that it had proved the essential elements of the claim to a certainty, when Judge Davis had previously concluded that it had not even made out a prima facie case of obviousness so as to get the jury.” See, “JMOL rulings in Soverain v. Newegg,” EDTexweblog, http://bit.ly/Yp98cY. As you might expect, Davis refused to set aside the verdict.
Soverain's litigation campaign has been chugging along ever since. In November 2011, a set of Soverain lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan won the company's $18 million verdict against Avon and Victoria's Secret. And in 2012, Soverain filed a raft of new infringement complaints in Eastern Texas against PayPal Inc. and eBay Inc.
Soverain's winning streak may now peter out, however. In the Newegg decision, the Federal Circuit ruled that three of Soverain's core patents are invalid on obviousness grounds. “The district court's conclusion that a prima facie case of obviousness was not met is not explained by the court by Soverain, and does not accord with the record,” the appellate panel ruled. “[T]he trial record contains extensive testimony of the experts for both sides, discussing every claimed element of the patented subject matter and the prior art system.”
Edward Reines of Weil, Gotshal & Manges argued for Newegg at the Federal Circuit. Robert Wilson of Quinn Emanuel made the case for Soverain.
In an e-mail, Reines credited his client for showing “fortitude in the face of meritless claims.” He added that “the Federal Circuit's clear refusal to honor obvious patent claims will help keep the patent system in balance.”
Jan Wolfe is a senior reporter with The Litigation Daily, an ALM affiliate of e-Commerce Law & Strategy.
After six years of litigation, the online retailer
The patents cover concepts like using an Internet receipt, putting items in an online shopping cart, and using identifiers to keep track of online shoppers. The ruling vacates a $2.5 million jury verdict that Soverain won against
Soverain asserted five e-commerce patents against
At a 2010 trial, the defense lawyers argued that Soverain's patents were invalid on obviousness grounds and that, in any event,
IPWise called that verdict a “pyrrhic victory,” since Soverain's trial counsel at
After the verdict came down,
Soverain's litigation campaign has been chugging along ever since. In November 2011, a set of Soverain lawyers at
Soverain's winning streak may now peter out, however. In the
Edward Reines of
In an e-mail, Reines credited his client for showing “fortitude in the face of meritless claims.” He added that “the Federal Circuit's clear refusal to honor obvious patent claims will help keep the patent system in balance.”
Jan Wolfe is a senior reporter with The Litigation Daily, an ALM affiliate of e-Commerce Law & Strategy.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.