7 thoughts on “

  1. Not all patent trolls are bad:


    My education cost me plenty,
    My school loans won’t be paid off till some time next century,
    I wrote an application based on what I learned,
    Prosecuted the application myself based on what little I earned,
    Two years later it issued as a patent,
    It was published in the Gazette as quick as a rabbit,
    A company now makes the product,
    I wrote to them and asked them to stop it,
    They wrote back and said that they were not infringing,
    And if I sued them I would be accused of trolling,
    A contingent patent litigation lawyer was found,
    A suit was filed based on what we thought was proper grounds,
    The case was quickly dismissed before the answer was due,
    The judge said we didn’t establish venue,
    The choice now is to file in the defendant’s home district,
    Or just forget it.

  2. According to the summons documents, the Bodog entities were served to a person noted as “in charge” on an affidavit of the process service in San Jose, Costa Rica on November 23, 2006. If service was improper, they could alwys move to set aside the default judgment because of improper service per Rules 55 and 60 of the FRCP. I doubt they have the courage given their rants about “legal technicalities” and distain towards patent trolls.

    The judgment allows them to collect from any bank account which Bodog may have in the United States through the full faith and credit clause. One such action is a garnishment action. I doubt, however, that Calvin is that foolish to have his money in an account of any U.S. bank nor foolish enough to keep the business entities established.

  3. Pleeeeeeeease! Is this the last defense of the infringer? Whining? Patent infringement is a strict liability tort. You infringe, you lose, even if you didn’t know about the big, bad inventor with the paper tiger in his cage. I am surprised, professor, how much time and space you give over to this bunk. How about a few articles extolling innovation and a patent system which was, at any rate, a model for the free world. I understand that’s not as popular among academics, what with Larry Lessig and others creating such a hostile environment for those who don’t want to just give away the only real competitive advantage we in this country enjoy in the new gloabl economy: our IP.

  4. My understanding of this case is that a Federal District Court in Nevada awarded the default judgment to 1st Technology. The Washington State proceeding was simply an enforcement proceeding under the ‘full faith and credit’ clause of the Constitution.

  5. What is really interesting is that the default judgment was in a state court. See link to metrokc.gov.

    Of course, state courts lack jurisdiction over patent infringement cases (unless brought as a counter/cross-claim). See 28 USC 1338a(a). The lack of jurisdiction in the court rendering judgment is one of the few ways to get out from a default judgment. Of course, that would require at least a special appearance.

  6. Since Bodog’s business is illegal in the United States it is difficult to see how a court can assess damages against Bodog for infringement. If the patentee had licenced its technology to the “criminals” at Bodog they would have been accessories to Bodog’s crime. It’s as though the court was stepping in to enforce a business model patent that involved robbing banks.

Comments are closed.