Silkeen LLC sued Zoll Medical Corp. (17-cv-11622).

Silkeen LLC filed suit  in the District of Massachusetts yesterday, alleging that Zoll infringes U.S. Patent No. 7,944,469, titled “System and Method for Using Self-Learning Rules to Enable Adaptive Security Monitoring.  Silkeen identifies itself as a Texas limited liability company with a principal place of business in Plano, Texas, a common location for non-practicing entities, leading me to believe that in years past, this suit would have been filed in the Eastern District of Texas.  Silkeen alleges that Zoll infringes the ‘469 patent through its making and selling of monitor defibrillators, specifically Zoll’s “R Series Monitor Defibrillators.”  Many of the allegations relating to specific limitations being found in the Zoll product are “on information and belief,” suggesting that Silkeen has not thoroughly analyzed the accused product.

Silkeen appears to be a non-practicing entity whose business consists solely of bringing infringement lawsuits.  An internet search turns up no information on the company other than a series of infringement suits involving the same patent against twenty-six other entities.  All twenty-two of Silkeen’s filings prior to 2017 (and thus prior to TC Heartland’s limiting of venue in patent lawsuits) were filed in the Eastern District of Texas.  I further note that Silkeen is represented by Ferraiuoli LLC, the same Puerto Rican law firm that sued FitnessKeeper on behalf of Venus Locations LLC, another Plano Texas non-practicing entity, on August 17th.

Stellar Records, LLC v. David Pantano (17-cv-11614).

Stellar Records, LLC sued David Pantano for copyright infringement related to the manufacture and sale of music and karaoke recordings. According to the complaint, Stellar Records obtains the rights to a large number of songs, which it then re-records without lead vocals and connects to video files containing the lyrics.  Stellar then compiles these karaoke versions of songs into packages, which it sells to karaoke disc jockeys.  Stellar alleges that Pantano copied several of these packages and sold them via Craigslist.   Both direct and contributory copyright infringement are alleged.

Dot Ave Cab, Inc. et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (17-cv-10180).

A large number of Boston cab companies filed a second amended complaint against Uber, adding ten new companies as plaintiffs to bring the total number of plaintiffs to one hundred and ninety-six.  The cab companies allege that Uber controls 80% of the ride-hail market, which is defined as the “low-cost, on-demand, Ride Hail ground transportation services that originate in Boston and that seat 3-4 passengers.”  The complaint is specifically addressed to “UberX,” one of Uber’s lower cost options.  There are counts for unfair competition under MGL c. 93A, Section 11 and common law unfair competition for operating a transportation service without complying with the laws of Boston and Massachusetts, thus obtaining customers who would otherwise use cab services and devaluing taxi medallions; attempted monopolization, under the Sherman Antitrust Act and under M.G.L. 93A, Section 5, of the Boston “ride-hail” market (somewhat ironically alleging that the purpose of the Act is to “preserve and advance our system of free and open competition and to secure to everyone an equal opportunity to engage in business, trade and commerce for the purpose of ensuring that the consuming public may receive  better goods and services at lower cost”).  The original complaint followed three other complaints brought by multiple cab companies from Malden, Braintree and Cambridge, each with similar allegations.

The lawsuit follows legislative action, under which the state will impose a 5-cent fee on every trip taken with Uber and Lyft, and funnel that money as “financial assistance” to their taxi competitors.  Prior to the introduction of companies like Uber and Lyft, taxi medallions in Boston were capped at 1,825, and sold for as much as $700,000 as late as 2014.  In 2014, taxi medallion sold for as much as $700,000.  Since the introduction of ride-hail companies, however, taxi ridership dropped about 25%, and the average price for a Boston taxi medallion dropped about 40 percent.

 

Venus Locations LLC v. FitnessKeeper, Inc. (17-cv-11529).

Venus Locations LLC sued FitnessKeeper, Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,442,485, titled “Method and apparatus for an automatic vehicle location, collision notification, and synthetic voice.” The plaintiff appears to be a non-practicing entity residing in Plano, Texas, and has sued at least two other companies (Inrix Inc. and Nextraq, Inc.) on the same patent in the Eastern District of Texas.  The plaintiff is represented by Ferraiuoli LLC, a Puerto Rican law firm with attorneys admitted in Massachusetts.

Koninkiljke Philips Electronics N.V. v. Zoll Medical Corp. (10-cv-11041).

Judge Gorton granted the plaintiffs’ motion in limine to exclude Zoll’s expert from testifying about the invalidity of claims of two patents in defense of charges of willful infringement of a third patent. His reasoning was two-fold; first, the invalidity of claims from a different patent is not probative of whether infringement of a third patent was willful, and second, invalidity was first found on appeal, well after the infringement occurred, and thus the invalidity of the claims of the other patents could not serve as evidence of the state of mind of the infringer under the Supreme Court’s Halo decision of 2016.