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,

L'accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés

Déjà abonné ? Identifiez-vous

L’accès à cet article est réservé aux abonnés.

Lire gratuitement un article

Vous pouvez lire cet article gratuitement en vous inscrivant.

 

Version PDF

Auteur

Citation

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 mars 2015, e-Competitions March 2015, Art. N° 73428

Visites 290

Tous les numéros

  • Latest News issue 
  • Tous les News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • Tous les Special issues