Interval's Patent Suit Against the World Dismissed

randall77 writes with an update to a story we discussed in August about a patent infringement suit filed by Interval Licensing, a firm run by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, against many major tech companies over vague and broadly defined business methods. That patent suit has now been dismissed. Quoting Groklaw: "The court agreed with Google et al that it 'lacks adequate factual detail to satisfy the dictates of Twombly and Iqbal and also 'fails to provide sufficient factual detail as suggested by Form 18.' The court doesn't agree with Allen's Interval Licensing that the two cases do not apply to patent complaints, but it doesn't even need to go there: 'The Court does not find it necessary to determine whether Form 18 is no longer adequate under Twombly and Iqbal because Plaintiff's complaint fails to satisfy either the Supreme Court's interpretation of Rule 8 or Form 18.' Go Google. That was their argument in their motion to dismiss, along with AOL's. Google said the complaint was too vague to meet the standard under Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) and Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Then, after Interval Licensing brought up the lower patent form standard it thought should apply instead, AOL jumped in saying the complaint was too vague under even that standard, and the court agreed.

It's not over yet.

[tomhudson]

The court also gave them the right to amend their complaint, as well as a "shopping list" of what they need to do to "fix" it.

You can bet that they'll amend - after all, even if it's ultimately fruitless, lawyers would never advise a client against their (the lawyer's) financial interests.

Re:"Dictates of Twombly and Iqbal"

[CajunArson]

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6): Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Basically, the plaintiff (Interval) didn't submit a proper complaint that states both 1. the claim and 2. relief that the court could grant under the law.
Twombly & Iqbal are two cases that courts have used in determining whether a complaint avoids a 12(b)(6) dismissal.

This is not the end of the case, the plaintiff can go back and amend the complaint to meet the standard. It is sort of embarrassing that these high-priced and supposedly very highly skilled attorneys couldn't even draft a complaint that states the claim & prayer for relief though.

Re:microsoft peculiarity?

[rtyhurst]

Microsoft?

Making billions from other people's work and then claiming it as their own?

Nah... it'd never happen...

Wonder where Allen got the idea...