Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Patents America Online Businesses Google Microsoft The Courts News Your Rights Online

Interval's Patent Suit Against the World Dismissed 54

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interval's Patent Suit Against the World Dismissed

Comments Filter:
  • No actual "woohoo" (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Theaetetus ( 590071 ) <theaetetus,slashdot&gmail,com> on Saturday December 11, 2010 @04:56PM (#34525360) Homepage Journal
    This is purely a procedural requirement of the complaint, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice. That means that Interval can amend their complaint or rewrite it, and refile.

    What's next, editors? Should we get excited about a motion to dismiss for failure to join a required party? How about a motion to dismiss because the complaint wasn't filed in triplicate, but only duplicate?

  • by gnasher719 ( 869701 ) on Saturday December 11, 2010 @05:16PM (#34525458)

    btw imagining ballmer leaving microsoft and opening his own patent trolling outfit, wouldn't that be like a christmas gift to the microsoft bashing community? hmm christmas, geeks, creativity... i see a market for ballmer action figures throwing chairs!

    Not really a Christmas gift. Why would anybody be happy if an experienced CEO with a few billion dollars cash on his private hands went into the patent trolling business?

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Working...