Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Groklaw

Intellectual Property Law

: Groklaw

Google et al Argue with Paul Allen's Interval Licensing: One Big Case or 11? Or None?

By Pamela Jones et al.

Do you remember when Google, Apple, Facebook, OfficeMax, Yahoo! and Netflix/OfficeDepot/Staples/eBay all filed motions to dismiss or sever Paul Allen's Interval Licensing's patent infringement complaint? They filed to dismiss for misjoinder and Google filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Google and the others want the cases separated into eleven instead of one humungous case, if the court doesn't toss the complaint out.

Allen has answered with his opposition to both ideas. And the accused Gang of Eleven read the filings and their response could be described simply like this: What do we all have in common? How can it possibly work for any of us to have to go forward as a group? And Google writes, "Interval has not identified any products of any of the defendants that are allegedly infringing." All it has said "without explanation" is that all the defendants infringe one of its patents with "similar" functionality, but there are no facts to support the claim. What functionality? What is the claim?

All of them say the same thing: that Interval Licensing's complaint is too vague, and thus they can't prepare. Google tells the court:

Interval's Complaint provides no notice as to what Google (or any of the other named disparate Defendants) does that purportedly infringes the patents-in-suit.

That, Google argues, is enough to kick the complaint out of the courtroom. You are supposed to tell the defendant what he did. Not a single product or service is identified. Facebook, for example, says that all Interval has told them is infringing is "websites". Well, what does that mean?

Full post as published by Groklaw on November 19, 2010 (boomark / email).