IBM, Groupon Settle E-Commerce Patent Dispute for $57M
Groupon has agreed to pay IBM $57 million to resolve their intellectual property dispute—one which resulted in an $82.5 million infringement jury verdict against Groupon for infringing four e-commerce patents dating back to the early days of the internet.
October 02, 2018 at 02:38 PM
4 minute read
Groupon has agreed to pay IBM $57 million to resolve their intellectual property dispute—one which resulted in an $82.5 million infringement jury verdict against Groupon for infringing four e-commerce patents dating back to the early days of the internet.
The companies announced the accord Monday.
Under the terms of the agreement, Chicago-based Groupon will pay IBM $57 million to settle and end the lawsuit in Delaware federal court. The settlement also included a long-term patent cross-license agreement between the companies, IBM and Groupon said.
The agreement also prevents IBM from asserting the rest of its patent portfolio against Groupon in future suits.
“This agreement further demonstrates the value of our intellectual property that results from this innovation,” William Lafontaine, IBM's general manager of intellectual property, said in a joint statement. “We're pleased this matter has been resolved.”
The settlement came as IBM was arguing that the jury's finding of willful infringement warranted a doubling of damages to $165 million, as well as an ongoing royalty in the tens of millions of dollars to compensate IBM for its continued use of two IBM patents, which are set to expire in 2023 and 2028.
Groupon, meanwhile, had attacked IBM's damages theory as fundamentally flawed, saying the technology giant “did not come close” to proving willful infringement at trial.
“IBM improperly painted Groupon as a holdout for exercising its right to a jury trial, and took advantage of an evidentiary ruling to deceive the jury about the parties' pre-suit conduct,” Groupon said in a post-trial brief last month. “The ensuing finding of willful infringement has to be set aside.”
U.S. District Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware had expressed skepticism about both parties' post-trial motions in August, though he cautioned that his thinking could change.
IBM said during a two-week trial in July that Groupon had built its business model using IBM's patents, which describe online technology for password management and advertising, despite prior warnings. The company sued in 2016, after efforts to negotiate cross-license agreements on its patent portfolios had broken down, according to court documents.
Groupon argued IBM's case was nothing more than an attempted shake down of a newer tech firm, and that IBM was improperly using outdated patents in an attempt to patent the internet.
The Wilmington jury returned its verdict in favor of IBM after about a day of deliberations.
IBM and Groupon on Sept. 28 entered a stipulation of dismissal, which Stark approved on Monday, according to an online docket-tracking service. In the press release, the companies said IBM would consider making available certain Groupon products and exclusives to its employee base as part of its corporate benefits offer.
“The license we have acquired to IBM's patent portfolio will enable Groupon to continue to build amazing products for consumers and small businesses around the world. We look forward to sharing these products directly with IBM employees,” said Bill Roberts, Groupon's vice president of global communications.
IBM was represented by John M. Desmarais, Brian D. Matty, Karim Z. Oussayef, Laurie N. Stempler and Robert C. Harrits of the New York-based Desmarais firm and David E. Moore, Bindu Ann Palapura and Stephanie E. O'Byrne of Potter Anderson & Corroon.
Groupon was represented by Edward R. Reines of Weil, Gotshal & Manges; Mark A. Perry of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and John G. Day and Andrew C. Mayo of Ashby & Geddes.
The case is captioned International Business Machines v. Groupon.
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
© 2025 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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Some Thoughts on What It Takes to Connect With Millennial Jurors
- 2Artificial Wisdom or Automated Folly? Practical Considerations for Arbitration Practitioners to Address the AI Conundrum
- 3The New Global M&A Kings All Have Something in Common
- 4Big Law Aims to Make DEI Less Divisive in Trump's Second Term
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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