All month there has been a flurry of activity on the part of the defendants in Paul Allen's
patent infringement litigation,
Interval Licensing v. AOL, et al, against Google, Apple, Yahoo! and pretty much everyone else you can think of -- mostly all the companies have been busy getting lawyered up. I see Yahoo! has added Morrison & Foerster's Michael A. Jacobs to its legal team, so I am getting quite excited about what we may get to watch.
But maybe not. Google/YouTube have filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and a motion to dismiss or sever. And others are joining Google in complaining to the court that Interval's complaint fails to state a claim. These patents are so broadly drawn, so generic, Google tells the court, they could be read to cover Google's entire business. I'd say they cover everybody on the Internet, actually, personally. Does Paul Allen think he invented the Internet now?
At the same time, the patents are so vague, Google says, it's impossible to know what product or service is allegedly infringing. And that doesn't meet the legal requirements for a viable complaint.
Worse, Interval has lumped 11 defendants together. What does Google have in common with Office Depot? Clearly there is no commonality of action, no plot, no plan, no nothing. How can they all have infringed the same vague patents, when their businesses are so different, and they do nothing together? What precisely do these patents do, and what precisely do the defendants do that infringes these patents?
More...
