« November 2007 | Main | January 2008 »

December 2007

December 27, 2007

eBay v. lawyers with patents

Wiwcountiesgreen_2 Google will be headed back to the Western District of Wisconsin to fight off a patent lawsuit it thought it had beat, thanks to yesterday’s appeals court decision in HyperPhrase Technologies v. Google. (Bloomberg News story here; court order is here)

That case is connected, by both venue and attorney, to the Netcraft Corp. v. eBay lawsuit that a Wisconsin federal judge tossed out last week on summary judgment. I wrote about that case in Monday’s Daily Journal, and it’s worth following up on here.

Like the MercExchange case that has dogged eBay for more than six years, the Netcraft litigation involves a patent-wielding lawyer-inventor.

Netcraft Corp. v. eBay Inc., 07-00254 (W.D. Wisconsin)

Internet_billing_methodsmall_2Andrew Egendorf is a Massachusetts lawyer-inventor who began laying a broad claim to the world of electronic commerce in the mid-90’s. (find a short bio with photo here). In May, he sued eBay for infringing on his patents on “Internet billing methods.”

Netcraft is the patent-holding company set up to assert Egendorf’s patents; in addition to the eBay litigation, he filed a Delaware lawsuit against five cell phone companies in October. Netcraft Corp. v. AT&T, 07-cv-00651 (Delaware). Netcraft’s parent company is called Tradecraft; another entity called Datacraft has popped up in some patent searches).

Netcraft's lawyer is Fish & Richardson partner Frank Scherkenbach—who also represents Google against HyperPhrase, a locally grown Wisconsin patent-holding company. eBay hired an Irell & Manella team led by Morgan Chu, who tells me that Irell started working with eBay in 2006.

Even though he lost this one, Egendorf can’t be too disappointed. After all, it looks like he cashed in a few weeks before he even filed the suit against eBay. He’s one of five named inventors on a “friend finding” social networking patent, number 6,618,593, which was sold for $2.86 million at the April 2007 OceanTomo auction.

Egendorf is a lawyer with deep connections to rise of the Internet. He helped found Symbolics in 1980 with some heavy-hitters out of MIT’s Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and became the company’s general counsel in 1983.

Symbolicsfamily1986 Symbolics was the first dot-com ever, and the company soon had a famously uncomprising opponent: free software advocate Richard Stallman. Stallman has nothing but disdain for software patents like those Egendorf builds and litigates; he also took a mighty dim view of the folks who founded at Symbolics.

“They would get outside investment, not have scruples, and do everything possible to win,” Stallman said in a lecture transcribed here. Stallman had a bitter falling out with Symbolics, describing its founding as a “stabbing in the back,” but also said the company inspired him to created GNU, his free operating system.

In 1968, Egendorf and a friend wrote to Ralph Nader, describing themselves as "disgusted Harvard graduate students who must endure endless years of drivel in order to mechanically defend the guilty and profitably screw the consumer,” according to this article in the San Diego Union-Tribune. He urged Nader to enlist him in a “judicial jihad” and became one of the original “Nader’s Raiders.” Egendorf is interviewed in the Nader documentary "An Unreasonable Man," which I have not seen.

And file this under interesting timing: the "Andrew Egendorf" entry in Wikipedia was flagged for deletion on May 3, 2007—the same day Egendorf filed his lawsuit against eBay. If I were of a more conspiratorial mindset, I might think that suspicious. But it looks like the Wikipedians who voted to kill the page were mainly annoyed that it was written by his old buddy and former Symbolics president Russell Noftsker. The articlde-deletion debate is nothing special, and can be read here.

Short histories of Noftsker, Egendorf and venture capitalist Jean de Valpine, are on Noftsker's Wikipedia user page. The note on Egendorf mentions that his wife Linda is a well-known sculptor.

She's a would-be inventor, too. Linda Egendorf has her own patent application in the works--it's for a "method of creating a soft sculpture."

December 17, 2007

An eBay Holiday: Four Lawsuits a-Leaping

Coinbay_biz_logo_2Lots of folks are busily buying Christmas presents on eBay these days, but what ends up in company stocking, legally speaking, remains to be seen. The 2007 holiday season is shaping up to be a great one for eBay the plaintiff, and a not-so-great one for eBay the defendant.

One month after eBay’s trademark victory at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals against Orange County-based rival Perfume Bay, the online marketplace filed another trademark lawsuit on Dec. 5, this time against CoinBay.biz, an auction and sales site run by a Florida coin collector Bob Martino.

eBay Inc. v. Martino, 07-cv-06172-CRB, N. D. California.

I wanted to ask eBay if there was any relationship between the 9th Circuit win and this new lawsuit. My call to their spokesman went unreturned last week; which is understandable, since the company has some much bigger fish to fry (more below).

The Perfume Bay case that went to the 9th circuit is Perfumebay.com Inc v. Ebay Inc., 04-01358-WDK, C. D. California.

Martino didn’t want to get into specifics about the lawsuit or his negotiations with eBay, which are ongoing. He did say that the coin Web site doesn’t generate much income for him, and that coin collecting is his hobby, not his career.

"The coin dealers aren’t really able to make money with eBay," said Martino. "I wanted a site that offered no listing fees. I don’t care if I don’t make a dime. My grandfather got me into coin collecting 30
years ago."

It may not be a living, but Martino did want eBay to buy the CoinBay.biz site from him, according to the company's complaint. (available here, courtesy Eric Goldman)

He suggested that he could be bought out at a price far lower than eBay's legal team, led by Cooley Godward Kronish partner John Crittenden. eBay thought that was so funny they suggested he could pay their attorney's fees after flying out to meet them in a San Francisco courtroom.

Martino says he's complying with all the company's demands now.

Coinbay_biz_logo2 He was busy re-vamping his Web site when we talked last Thursday. CoinBay has become CoinDay, and the CoinBay.biz domain now re-directs to CoinDay.com. (I doubt eBay will be permanently satisfied with that re-direct)

Martino also removed his  "Buy Now" buttons, which eBay said infringed its "Buy it Now" trademark.

Compare:  Buynow2 vs. Buyitnow

eBay has waged a long campaign to keep the Internet clear of commerce sites that end in “Bay,” and such sites often get emailed warnings shortly after they go online. But Martino’s site has been operating under CoinBay.biz since June 2006, and he says he was only contacted by eBay a couple months ago.

In the CoinBay complaint, Crittenden has the usual list of amusing "Generic + Bay" sites, including AlternaBay, EggBay, MexBay, and NaziBay. He has represented eBay in several other domain-name trademark cases, including the Perfumebay.com case.

My piece in the Daily Journal about the 9th circuit decision in that case, "Another 'Bay' Goes Down to eBay's Trademark Punch," is reprinted here.

Perfumebay.com Inc v. Ebay Inc.
, 04-01358-WDK, C. D. California.

Perfume Bay was ordered to stop using the Perfumebay.com domain name; the company has since asked the 9th circuit for a re-hearing, and has appealed to let it keep the domain name while it appeals. Perfume Bay president Jacquelyn Tran maintains a blog about the lawsuit at www.MakesNoScents.com.

So that’s eBay’s good news; the bad and possibly-really-bad news comes from the East Coast.

Ebay_4 The battle royale is a big trademark battle in a Manhattan federal court that should see a decision any day now. Luxury goods maker Tiffany & Co. sued eBay in 2004, saying the online retailer hadn’t done enough to root out counterfeit goods on its site. EBay says it does plenty and that Tiffany should take a bit of responsibility. WSJ Law Blog coverage of that is here.

Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 04-cv-04607-RJS, S. D. New York.

The Tiffany trial is over, but the rhetoric seems to be hitting a post-trial peak. Tiffany filed a brief last week saying eBay was a “rat’s nest” of fakes; eBay says a bad decision could “wreak havoc” on its business and hurt Internet commerce generally. That decision could come any day now.

In Virginia, eBay was ordered to finally pay up the $25 million plus interest it was ordered to pay in 20003 to MercExchange, a tiny company that claims it has patents covering eBay's "Buy It Now" online sales. That case ultimately went to the Supreme Court, and set a new, tougher test for when patent plaintiffs can get an injunction to kick a losing defendant out of a market.

Mercexchange, L.L.C. v. eBay, Inc., et al. 01-cv-00736, E. D. Virginia.

eBay really doesn’t want to pay this one. The patent tide has turned, and it looks like they want complete victory here. The company wants MercExchange’s patents to be re-examined under the harsh new light of a 2007 Supreme Court decision, KSR v. Teleflex, which said court have to apply a stricter test for what patents should be tossed out for being too obvious.

I’ll have more to say about MercExchange v. eBay in the coming weeks.

In the meantime, if the Tiffany case doesn’t go its way, Bob Martino’s new logo for CoinDay.com might be the best thing that happens to eBay this holiday season. Happy Hanukah.