Patent trolls drop lawsuits against Overstock.com
Two patent trolls drop lawsuits against Overstock.com, after the discount online retailer fights back against bogus litigation claims
March 24, 2014 at 05:34 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
In patent wars, it's seldom you see the bigger companies filing litigation claims at the aggressors. However, recent movement on this front has caused two patent trolls to have a change of heart, as both dropped patent infringement lawsuits against Overstock.com, a popular discount online shopper retailer.
So what did Overstock.com do to get the trolls to back down that other victims of litigation claims aren't doing? Apparently, the only difference is that the company fought back. While Overstock.com has more means and legal budget to fight the likes of patent trolls, the company is crediting its wins on spending its legal budget in defense in abusive lawsuits and not on unjust settlements.
“Patent trolls find us unappetizing,” Mark Griffin, Overstock.com's senior vice president and general counsel said. “While we have the highest respect for intellectual property rights, we don't settle abusive patent suits — we fight.”
According to a recent Legal News line report, Griffin noted that the most recent plaintiff to dismiss first proposed a “no-money” settlement, but insisted on confidentiality to keep the walk-away quiet, which Overstock.com refused.
The first company, Execware LLC, is a holding company with a portfolio of seven software patents, all related to contextual data modeling. After Overstock.com redoubled its defense in the case, Execware contacted Overstock's lawyers and confirmed they had decided to dismiss the case. A stipulation of dismissal was filed in the Execware case March 7 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
The other patent troll, Eclipse IP LLC, came to a similar conclusion and dismissed its case against Overstock.com just last month. Eclipse, a national intellectual property and business law-focused firm, filed an order of dismissal in the Eclipse case Feb. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Griffin said the company classifies Execware and Eclipse as patent trolls because of the “extortionate nature” of the suits they filed.
Related news:
In patent wars, it's seldom you see the bigger companies filing litigation claims at the aggressors. However, recent movement on this front has caused two patent trolls to have a change of heart, as both dropped patent infringement lawsuits against Overstock.com, a popular discount online shopper retailer.
So what did Overstock.com do to get the trolls to back down that other victims of litigation claims aren't doing? Apparently, the only difference is that the company fought back. While Overstock.com has more means and legal budget to fight the likes of patent trolls, the company is crediting its wins on spending its legal budget in defense in abusive lawsuits and not on unjust settlements.
“Patent trolls find us unappetizing,” Mark Griffin, Overstock.com's senior vice president and general counsel said. “While we have the highest respect for intellectual property rights, we don't settle abusive patent suits — we fight.”
According to a recent Legal News line report, Griffin noted that the most recent plaintiff to dismiss first proposed a “no-money” settlement, but insisted on confidentiality to keep the walk-away quiet, which Overstock.com refused.
The first company, Execware LLC, is a holding company with a portfolio of seven software patents, all related to contextual data modeling. After Overstock.com redoubled its defense in the case, Execware contacted Overstock's lawyers and confirmed they had decided to dismiss the case. A stipulation of dismissal was filed in the Execware case March 7 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
The other patent troll, Eclipse IP LLC, came to a similar conclusion and dismissed its case against Overstock.com just last month. Eclipse, a national intellectual property and business law-focused firm, filed an order of dismissal in the Eclipse case Feb. 24 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Griffin said the company classifies Execware and Eclipse as patent trolls because of the “extortionate nature” of the suits they filed.
Related news:
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 All
'True Leadership Is About Putting Others First': 2024 In-House Award Winners Inspired, Took Road Less Traveled
Ex-Six Flags CLO Lands New C-Suite Post—This Time as HR Chief
'Erroneous Assumption'?: Apple Challenges DOJ Antitrust Remedy in Google Search Monopoly Case
3 minute read
Riding High, Texas Roadhouse Gives Legal Chief 3-year Contract Extension,15% Salary Boost
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Class Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
- 2Buchanan Ingersoll Launches in Chicago With 17-Lawyer Team From Locke Lord
- 3$2M Settlement for Woman Struck by New Jersey Transit Bus
- 4BREAKING: Donald Trump to Face Sentencing on January 10, Judge Rules
- 5Samuel M. Lehrer, Retired Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge, Dies
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
