It's time to heap praise upon the legal team that quashed Intel Corp.'s initial efforts in the Northern California Federal Court District to sue our tiny company on groundless, trumped up charges.
It is highly likely that Intel Corp. representatives at Harvey Siskind amend the legal complaint and throw it at us again. They have payments to make on their luxury cars, after all. Billable hours are billable hours. And at their prices, so much the more.
But in the meantime, a huge hurrah for the stellar, noble, pro bono work by our team. Both of the brilliant lawyers described in the bios below already enjoy enough national fame for their work in their fields. They hardly need to worry about defending a small company against the massive legal resources of the Intel Corporation legal department. Why do they? Simply put, they are two fine men with deep convictions and just sensibilities.
A grand, heartfelt thank you to both. It is a pleasure to work with them for their senses of humor, stunning insights, and amazing grasp of strategy.
Lead Counsel
Ron Coleman
Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP, New York & New Jersey
Author of one of the top American legal blogs, http://www.likelihoodofconfusion.com
Ron Coleman is a commercial litigator and business attorney whose work focuses on copyright and trademark infringement claims involving the Internet--including advising clients how to avoid them. He is an expert on First Amendment and intellectual property rights, especially pertaining to the Internet. Coleman, general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association, has published numerous articles about intellectual property rights and the Internet; in fact, the first piece published on this topic by the American Bar Association Journal was written by Coleman in 1995.
His scholarship may be viewed here: http://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/ronald-d-coleman-1482337#publications
Local Counsel
Colby Springer
Carr & Ferrell, Palo Alto
Colby Springer has represented more companies than we can mention here, but a brief sample includes Sony Computer Entertainment; network security provider SonicWALL, Inc.; Ruckus Wireless, a leading supplier of wireless solutions; ZONARE Medical Systems, Inc. (makers of the world's first convertible ultrasound system); and engineering and research development firm Pax Scientific.
He is barred, of course, to practice in California State(a requirement for local counsel in the Northern California District), but he has also been admitted to numerous other federal district courts, the US Court of International Trade, the Federal Appeals Circuit, and the US Supreme Court.
Mr. Spring is a partner in the Intellectual Property and Litigation Practice Groups of Carr & Ferrell. Mr. Springer has experience in all fields of intellectual property law, advising clientele at every level of business development—from start ups to public companies. Mr. Springer counsels clients on acquisition and protection of intellectual property portfolios, specifically with regard to patents and copyrights. Mr. Springer has also represented a number of companies in patent, trade secret, copyright and antitrust suits. Additionally, Mr. Springer has provided counsel to various clients on interference and re-examination proceedings pending before the United States Patent Office.
Mr. Springer has published numerous articles on intellectual property law including the Section 271 Safeharbor and the Experimental Use Exception; trademark dilution; the intersection of copyright and trademark law as it pertains to false designations of origin; the interplay of the antitrust and intellectual property laws; collective publishing rights; the public domain; domain name litigation and UDRP cybersquatting proceedings. Mr. Springer is also a contributing author to the “Matthew Bender Practice Guide” for California Unfair Competition and Business Torts. In addition, Mr. Springer has given presentations on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Friday, April 2, 2010
Judge Tosses Out Frivolous Intel Corp. Suit!!!
On April 2, our counsel argued our Motion To Dismiss Against Intel Corporation's now infamous frivolous lawsuit against Americas News Intel Publishing Corp.
This from our attorney's mobile device as he left the courthouse:
"Causes of action 1-7 dismissed with leave to amend. Claim 8 was denied but only because we didn't address it. 30 days to file an amended pleading. They also are going to request a different mediator because the current one has no real trademark law experience. I told them that was fine. Boom goes the dynamite."
In short, WE WIN!
At least this round. Intel Corporation's attorneys at Harvey Siskind had asked the Honorable Judge Charles Breyer to grant a leave to amend if our motion to dismiss was successful. Since Breyer did toss out essentially the entire case (Action 8 is an almost laughable complaint that we were "cybersquatting" an Intel domain property), plaintiff will have the option of amending and refiling.
Intel Corp. and its lawyers probably will. It's Intel Corp. They've got the deepest pockets imaginable for frivolous litigation. They can drag this out, so they probably will.
BUT THIS VICTORY IS HUGE!
It essentially nullifies the entire grounds for Intel Corp.'s whining legal complaints. We told Intel Corp. they were baseless. Now a federal district judge has, too.
So stay tuned. One way or the other, we'll know what happens next within 30 days.
This from our attorney's mobile device as he left the courthouse:
"Causes of action 1-7 dismissed with leave to amend. Claim 8 was denied but only because we didn't address it. 30 days to file an amended pleading. They also are going to request a different mediator because the current one has no real trademark law experience. I told them that was fine. Boom goes the dynamite."
In short, WE WIN!
At least this round. Intel Corporation's attorneys at Harvey Siskind had asked the Honorable Judge Charles Breyer to grant a leave to amend if our motion to dismiss was successful. Since Breyer did toss out essentially the entire case (Action 8 is an almost laughable complaint that we were "cybersquatting" an Intel domain property), plaintiff will have the option of amending and refiling.
Intel Corp. and its lawyers probably will. It's Intel Corp. They've got the deepest pockets imaginable for frivolous litigation. They can drag this out, so they probably will.
BUT THIS VICTORY IS HUGE!
It essentially nullifies the entire grounds for Intel Corp.'s whining legal complaints. We told Intel Corp. they were baseless. Now a federal district judge has, too.
So stay tuned. One way or the other, we'll know what happens next within 30 days.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)