The US District Court for the District of Maryland upholds an antitrust action against a patent troll (Intellectual Ventures / Capital One)

This article has been nominated for the 2016 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards.

On March 2, 2015, Judge Paul W. Grimm of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland offered a wide-ranging analysis of antitrust claims against the conduct of famous “patent troll” Intellectual Ventures (IV) [1]. IV sued Capital One for patent infringement, Capital One sought to amend its Answer and Counterclaims to add antitrust counterclaims, and, in this opinion, Judge Grimm allowed this amendment. Res judicata The first issue the court addressed was whether Capital One’s claims were barred by res judicata. The two parties had already litigated similar issues in the Eastern District of Virginia court, with IV filing suit in June 2013 and Capital One filing antitrust counterclaims in October 2013. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., No. PWG-14-111,

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Author

Quotation

Michael A. Carrier, The US District Court for the District of Maryland upholds an antitrust action against a patent troll (Intellectual Ventures / Capital One), 2 March 2015, e-Competitions March 2015, Art. N° 73428

Visites 299

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues