IBM Springs Patent Surprise on Zillow—and Judge Zilly
After 10 months of complex patent litigation against Zillow, IBM filed a second suit this week alleging five new patents. U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly said he was "quite surprised, even a little shocked," that IBM would do that while the parties are still trying to get a grip on the first case, and suggested that discovery in the first case might have to be put on hold.
July 24, 2020 at 05:15 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
The original version of this report was published in the weekly IP briefing Skilled in the Art.
International Business Machines Corp. hasn't gotten very far yet in its patent litigation against Zillow Inc. Ten months after Big Blue asserted seven patents covering a variety of technologies, the primary development is that U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton of Southern California transferred the case to the Western District of Washington. Though not before U.S. Magistrate Judge John Early scolded IBM for its "'Ready—Fire—Aim' approach to discovery."
In Seattle, Zillow has complained to U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly that IBM has submitted 25 infringement contention charts, several of them exceeding 200 pages. IBM says that's on Zillow—without more meaningful discovery, it can't be more specific. Zilly has raised the possibility of bifurcating discovery, claim construction, motion practice, or trial between Zillow's consumer and business products, or between liability and damages, all with the goal of simplifying the case. Zillow thinks that's a great idea, and has proposed having a "Section 101 day" to get things started.
But IBM, which it should be noted won an $83 million verdict against Groupon Inc. based in part on two of the same patents, has decided it's time for more patent assertion, not less.
On Wednesday it filed a brand-new infringement suit against Zillow, asserting five more patents. They cover "a novel iconic GUI," methods for using contextual information to rank search results, and methods for the stacking of portlets in portal pages.
"This lawsuit is the result of Zillow's decision to escalate its behavior by willfully infringing five additional patents," IBM, represented by Desmarais and Harrigan Leyh Farmer & Thomsen, alleges in the suit.
The company says it provided detailed evidence of the infringement to Zillow in writing last fall, but Zillow dismissed it out of hand as a "distraction" from the first lawsuit.
During a virtual status conference Thursday, Zilly said he was "quite surprised, even a little shocked," that IBM would file the new suit, without advance notice, while the lawyers were in the midst of trying to make the first case more manageable.
Desmarais partner Karim Oussayef said the new suit is "really meant as a placeholder" to ensure that the additional patents don't expire, and that IBM wouldn't object to staying it while the first case gets hashed out.
"I'm all for staying the new case at some point," Zilly said, "but it seems to me you need to put your cards on the table first" with regard to infringement contentions.
Oussayef said IBM laid out its infringement theories in detail in its 35-page complaint. He stressed that IBM needs Zillow source code or technical documents to narrow its contentions, but that Zillow has unreasonably insisted that IBM first do the narrowing.
Susman Godfrey partner Ian Crosby and associate Katherine Peaslee argued for Zillow that it would have to provide its "entire code base" to meet IBM's production demands. They said Zillow should not have to provide any source code in the first suit until IBM files infringement contentions in the second, a position Zilly said "seems to have some merit."
Zilly said he understands the "chicken and egg" nature of the discovery standoff, but added that the problem seems partly "IBM's doing, because you waited until yesterday to file the new case with five new patents. And presumably IBM has a boatload of patents. We could play this out again in six months or a year with you filing another case against Zillow."
Oussayef assured Zilly that if the parties can deal with the first case expeditiously, "that will drive potential resolution, one way or another."
Zilly ordered each side to file 10-page briefs on discovery and whether IBM should be required to file additional infringement contentions.
Sign up for Law.com's Legal Radar to keep up with the latest news and lawsuits in a free, personalized news feed. Track patent litigation and who's getting the work by industry, practice area, law firm, company and region.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
Judge Splits Couple's Potential Recoupment of Punitive Damages Against eBay's Harassment Campaign
4 minute readEBay Hires Chief Legal Officer With Proven Business Chops
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250