Interval's Patent Suit Against the World Dismissed

randall77 writes with an update to a story we discussed in August about a patent infringement suit filed by Interval Licensing, a firm run by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, against many major tech companies over vague and broadly defined business methods. That patent suit has now been dismissed. Quoting Groklaw: "The court agreed with Google et al that it 'lacks adequate factual detail to satisfy the dictates of Twombly and Iqbal and also 'fails to provide sufficient factual detail as suggested by Form 18.' The court doesn't agree with Allen's Interval Licensing that the two cases do not apply to patent complaints, but it doesn't even need to go there: 'The Court does not find it necessary to determine whether Form 18 is no longer adequate under Twombly and Iqbal because Plaintiff's complaint fails to satisfy either the Supreme Court's interpretation of Rule 8 or Form 18.' Go Google. That was their argument in their motion to dismiss, along with AOL's. Google said the complaint was too vague to meet the standard under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Then, after Interval Licensing brought up the lower patent form standard it thought should apply instead, AOL jumped in saying the complaint was too vague under even that standard, and the court agreed.

Comments

It's not over yet.

[tomhudson]

The court also gave them the right to amend their complaint, as well as a "shopping list" of what they need to do to "fix" it.

You can bet that they'll amend - after all, even if it's ultimately fruitless, lawyers would never advise a client against their (the lawyer's) financial interests.

Re:It's not over yet.

[Rogerborg]

It's not a gaffe, it's a shrewd move. It was a long shot that they'd be allowed to proceed with such prejudicial case, but they gambled (correctly) that they'd be allowed a do-over. So now they file the case they should have filed in the first place. They've lost nothing except lawyer time, but since all of these patent cases are really about the enrichment of lawyers anyway, that's hardly going to keep them awake at night. What keeps them awake at night is the need to feed.

"Dictates of Twombly and Iqbal"

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

That would make a kick-ass title for something, I don't know what.

Re:"Dictates of Twombly and Iqbal"

[EnsilZah]

Sounds like a new Terry Pratchett/J K Rowling collaboration.

Re:"Dictates of Twombly and Iqbal"

[Bieeanda]

"The Dictates of Twombly and Iqbal: A Curiously Victorian Guide to Jihad" (Oxford University Press)

Re:"Dictates of Twombly and Iqbal"

[CajunArson]

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Basically, the plaintiff (Interval) didn't submit a proper complaint that states both 1. the claim and 2. relief that the court could grant under the law.
Twombly & Iqbal are two cases that courts have used in determining whether a complaint avoids a 12(b)(6) dismissal.

This is not the end of the case, the plaintiff can go back and amend the complaint to meet the standard. It is sort of embarrassing that these high-priced and supposedly very highly skilled attorneys couldn't even draft a complaint that states the claim & prayer for relief though.

Re:"Dictates of Twombly and Iqbal"

[game kid]

I think so, Brain, but how will we mix a burqa with a maid catgirl outfit and still have space for the bombs?

Re:"Dictates of Twombly and Iqbal"

[M. Baranczak]

"When Twombly Met Iqbal".

A Simple Solution

[Bottles]

I still maintain that in addition to the dismissal of such a frivolous case should be the removal of one finger of all those who brought it. That would send the right kind of message.

microsoft peculiarity?

[skywatcher2501]

what is it with all those ex microsoft employees running patent firms?
btw imagining ballmer leaving microsoft and opening his own patent trolling outfit, wouldn't that be like a christmas gift to the microsoft bashing community? hmm christmas, geeks, creativity... i see a market for ballmer action figures throwing chairs!
ok daily bashing quota reached.

Re:microsoft peculiarity?

[gnasher719]

btw imagining ballmer leaving microsoft and opening his own patent trolling outfit, wouldn't that be like a christmas gift to the microsoft bashing community? hmm christmas, geeks, creativity... i see a market for ballmer action figures throwing chairs!

Not really a Christmas gift. Why would anybody be happy if an experienced CEO with a few billion dollars cash on his private hands went into the patent trolling business?

Re:microsoft peculiarity?

[M. Baranczak]

What's Twombly without Iqbal?

Re:microsoft peculiarity?

[fishexe]

What's Twombly without Iqbal?

The way the law should be, that's what.

I know you were making a joke, but I have to answer seriously because the question is a surprisingly apt one. In Twombly the SCOTUS ruled that you can't just allege facts showing lawful activity and say they constitute a pattern of unlawful activity, you have to allege at least one specific fact that permits the inference of unlawful activity. Under the standard prior to Twombly, your case would only get dismissed if it was clear you could prove "no set of facts" that could support it; naturally, the letter of the law before Twombly said cases could almost never get dismissed for failure to state a claim, but many absurd suits met the "no set of facts" test and judges dismissed them anyway, because they were absurd. So Twombly basically brought the letter of the law (case law, that is) in line with how it had always been applied in practice.

In Iqbal, the court took this a few steps further and ruled that you can't base your cause of action on any "conclusory" statements, that is basically that you have to plead specific facts for every element of your cause of action. They claim to be applying prior law even-handedly, but the dissent (in this 5-4 decision) does a really good job of pointing out how impossible a burden the court is putting on plaintiffs in certain types of actions to know all the details up front. The whole point of discovery is that there are details you can't know when you first file the suit but that will be relevant to the case; under Iqbal you have to know enough details with enough specificity to basically prove your whole case before you get to discovery, for certain types of cases (discrimination is a good example).

Re:microsoft peculiarity?

[The Great Pretender]

Perhaps he was only a CTO, but hasn't this already happened? http://www.intellectualventures.com/WhoWeAre/Bio/Nathan_Myhrvold.aspx

Re:Merry Christmas

[Theaetetus]

The court did grant leave to amend the complaint, but the deadline for doing so is December 28th. This year. I can't think of a nicer Christmas present for the lawyers.

That's the deadline for amending this complaint. If they miss the deadline, this complaint goes abandoned. However, they're not anywhere close to hitting the deadline of the statute of limitations, so there's nothing to stop them from simply refiling with a better-written complaint next month. This dismissal is not on the merits and creates no judicial estoppel.

Not a gaffe

[Weaselmancer]

It's good two ways.

1) It lets Allen know what he has to fix to get things moving. And it's a sort of promise from the court. "You said I needed to do X,Y, and Z. I've done X, Y, and Z. So let's get this party started."

2) Lawyers charge by the hour. A sloppy first filing? Damn! Going to have to put in some overtime on this one, boys. I'd say they were laughing all the way to the bank, but they probably aren't. They're probably in hysterics rolling around on the floor with glee and unable to walk until they catch their breath.