Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al

Filing 70

MOTION to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim Upon Which Relief May Be Granted by Cisco Systems, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D-1, # 5 Exhibit D-2, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Proposed Order)(Babcock, Charles)

Download PDF
Ward v. Cisco Systems, Inc. et al Doc. 70 Att. 3 Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 70-4 Filed 06/12/09 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT D Dockets.Justia.com Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 70-4 Patent Troll Tracker Filed 06/12/09 Page 2 of 3 Page I of 10 r- ISEARCH BLOG1 I ftAG 5L░C' t Next Biog., Create Blog i Sign In Patent Trolt Tracker THURSDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2007 Send email email TrolLTracker About Me Troll Tracker Just a lawyer, interested in patent cases, but not interested in publicity Yikw rmt comp l ete.profile ESN Convinces EDTX Court Clerk To Alter Documents To Try To Manufacture Subject Matter Jurisdiction Where None Existed I got a couple of anonymous emaits this morning, pointing out that the docket in ESN v. Cisco (the Texas docket, not the Connecticut docket), had been altered. One emait suggested that ESN's local counsel called the EDTX court clerk, and convinced him/her to change the docket to reflect an October 16 filing date, rather than the October 15 filing date. I checked, and sure enough, that's exactly what happened - the docket was altered to reflect an October 16 filing date and the complaint was altered to change the filing date stamp from October 15 to October 16. Only the EDTX Court Clerk could have made such changes. Of course, there are a couple of flaws in this conspiracy. First, ESN counsel Eric Aibritton signed the Civil Cover Sheet stating that the complaint had been filed on October 15. Second, there's tons of proof that ESN flied on October 15. Heck, Dennis Crouch may be subpoenaed as a witness! You can't change history. and it's outrageous that the Eastern District of Texas is apparently, wittingly or unwittingly, conspiring with a rionĚ practicing entity to try to manufacture subject matter jurisdiction. This Is yet another example of the abusive nature of litigating patent cases In the Banana Republic of East Texas. (n. b. : don't be surprised if the docket changes back once the higherups in the Court get wind of this, making this post completely irrelevant). Posted by Trott Tracker a t Q.c9rrirnent Blogs TrollTracker Reads qem.113...CrOVOI'S.Pa.tes.ttly:aVQ2 . Rel.er,7wAl,27.1.PAtent.0193 Patent_Prospectot MiChael. Smith'sSOTX Blog DelawareJ.P..kraiwitog Chicago . te Litigation Rog phgtip, BfookS' Patent Infringement Updates WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2007 Ajit a Patent Examiner C.C2.1-1,l5131Qg PAtcrilly.511tY Subscribe Now: Feed Icon Pbsci Google MI Add to Troll Jumps the Gun, Sues Cisco Too Early Weli , I knew the day would come, i'm getting my troll news from PQM*. _Crouch now. According to Dennis, a company called ESN sued Cisco for patent infringement on October 15th, while the patent did not issue until October 16th. I looked, and ESN appears to be a sheti entity managed by the President and CEO of DirectAdvice, an online financial website. And, yes, he's a lawyer. He clerked for a federal judge in Connecticut, and was an attorney at Day, Berry Et Howard. Now he's suing Cisco on behalf of a non-practicing entity. reader Co. 4,1e. http://tro I Itrackenb logspot.com/ CISC0.000001.1 Ark 000002 Case 4:08-cv-04022-JLH Document 70-4 Patent Troll Tracker Filed 06/12/09 Page 3 of 3 Page 2 of 10 Blog Archive I asked myself, can ESN do this? i would think that the court woutd tack subject matter jurisdiction, since ESN owned no property right at the time of the lawsuit, and the passage of time should not cure that. And, in fact, (was right: A declaratory judgment of "invalidity" or "noninfringement" with respect to Elk's pending patent application would have had no legal meaning or effect. The fact that the patent was about to issue and would have been granted before the court reached the merits of the case is of no moment. Justiciability must be judged as of the time of filing, not as of some indeterminate future date when the court might reach the merits and the patent has issued. We therefore hold that a threat is not sufficient to create a case or controversy unless it is made with respect to a patent that has issued before a complaint is filed. Thus, the district court correctly held that there was no justiciable case or controversy in this case at the time the complaint was filed. GAF contencis. however, that the issuance of the '144 patent cured any jurisdictional defect. We disagree, Later events may not create jurisdiction where none existed at the time of filing. 2007 (83) October (17) ES.NCpnvinces t C..17).( Court Clesti, To Al ter_ Docernen. ts Tro.(1.) p m p s the Cixo . r.gQ EArty TrpliSurfinv , Ments Et Warg, Ward . fz plivQ, and Thei.... Texas, 4VdSe. Bans Using. Term "Patent Troll" In MA. ,, A ..1-PoK.E..0).e..F..paupe. 10.0. arld_ Pat Adendum to Part 1, Forttine 1.00 A .Leek at the Fortune 100 and Pgent Lest,WeekWasn't Even.the Elm Scame.,,,., Acacia Target Lino in New. LaW5.pit Aping lied Patent Trott Spes Fish & lit4het.054e Bil(Gates, stove Jobs, Hugh GAF Building Materials Corp. v. Elk Corp. of Texas. 90 F.3d 479, 483 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). One other interesting tidbit: Cisco appeared to pick up on this, very quickly. Cisco filed a declaratory judgment action (in Connecticut) yesterday, the day after ESN filed its null complaint. Since Cisco's lawsuit was filed after the patent issued, it should stick in Connecticut. Perhaps realizing their fatal flaw (as a couple of other bloggers/news items have pointed out), ESN (represented by Chicago firm McAndrews Held Et Malloy and local counsel Eric Albritton and T. Johnny Ward) filed an amended complaint in Texarkana today - amending to change absolutely nothing at all, by the way, except the filing date of the complaint. Survey says? XXXXXX (insert "Family Feud" sound here). Sorry, ESN. You're on your way to New Haven. Wonder how Johnny Ward will play there? Posted by Troll tracker at malm conment4. Heter.AnctL4ny..FIY.n.,,.., TYPOSAL a n fPr 5.e.PSerTiter Qdetopatent Troils Unmelling.TYPOTracker$..TrP.O. 5tYgritY,A.se.5.5.rnen/...,, Paten.L.RefPcntirpnt..and_ Centerje..the.Nglo 404,, September (27) August (20) July (11) June (3) May (5) Troll Surfing: Monts ft Ware, Ward Et Olivo, and Their Ctients Similar to surfing the web, I started by checking out a hunch I had about Monts & Ware being behind all sorts of troll cases. Then I trolisurfed through a bunch of cases, and I ended up not only with Monts & Ware (Dallas litigation firm), but also Ward & Olivo (patent lawyers from New York/New Jersey), as a thread behind a bunch of Sitemeter http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/ CISC0.000001.2 Ark.000003

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?