Litigation Training in the District of Rhode Island

The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island today announced a training program on opening statements and closing arguments.  The session will run from May 20th through the 24th at the federal courthouse in Providence, and will provide CLE credits for those of you in states requiring them.  These sessions tend to fill up quickly, so anyone interested should sign up here.

Courts to Remain Open Through January 18

The Federal judiciary has announced that they will remain fully open through at least January 18th, pushing the date at which they will run out of money due to the shutdown back a week from their earlier estimates.  Once their existing funds dry up, the courts should remain open using limited funds provide by the Antideficiency Act, with each court making its own determination on how to handle the reduced funding status.  As yet, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts has not announced their plan, should the shutdown continue through next Friday.

Federal Courts remain open for now.

U.S. Federal Courts remain open, despite the government now being in the second week of the shutdown.  Courts are expected to remain unaffected through about January 11th, using court fees and other funding not requiring passage of an appropriations bill.  Should the shutdown linger, the Courts would continue to operate in some fashion under the Anti-Deficiency Act, with each Court determining its staffing needs.

Realtime Data LLC d/b/a/ IXO v. Scality, Inc. (18-cv-12188).

Realtime, a data compression developer, accuses Scality of directly infringing four patents relating to data compression, as well as alleging contributory and induced infringement. Realtime seeks monetary and injunctive relief, although an injunction likely depends on a finding of infringement of one of the asserted patents, U.S. 9,667,751, as the other three have priority dates of 1998 and 1999 and will likely expire prior to resolution of litigation. Realtime identifies itself as an inventor-owned R&D company that broadly licenses its technology; it (and its subsidiary Realtime Adaptive Streaming) has repeatedly asserted its patents in litigation, and it is unclear whether it licenses outside of the litigation context.

Stross v. IvyMedia Corporation et al. (18-cv-10240).

After photographer Alexander Stross sued Ivymedia for copyright infringement relating to IvyMedia’s alleged use of a Stross photograph in its on-line advertising, Judge Sorokin denied IvyMedia’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. IvyMedia subsequently answered and counterclaimed for extortion and fraud. Stross moved to dismiss the counterclaims as being legally and factually baseless and designed to drive up the costs of litigation. Stross further sought an award of attorneys’ fees as a sanction for IvyMedia’s continued baseless motion practice. Judge Sorokin granted Stross’ motions and awarded Stross $9671.09 in fees and costs in connection with the motion to dismiss.

Acushnet Company v. Golf Gods Pty ltd. (18-cv-12093).

Acushnet filed an amended complaint, adding a claim that Golf Gods infringes Acushnet’s D763,682 design patent covering the ornamental design of its golf ball packaging. This adds to the trademark and trade dress infringement claims previously filed by Acushnet, which makes Titleist and Footjoy golf products.