728_header.jpg (23748 bytes)
 Home   EB Blog   AB Blog   Letters   Podcasts   ABTV   Forums   EPIS   PR Service   Classifieds   Ecommerce EKG   Service Ratings   
  Subscribe    RSS Feeds    Twitter        Contact Us  Web Site  
Service Ratings 
   Auction Sites
   FP Marketplaces
   Inventory Management
   Payment Services
   Storefronts & Carts
   Sniping Services
   Wholesale/Dropshipping
   Email List Hosting
   Consignment Services
   Ecommerce EKG 
   Auction Calendar
   Collectors' Links
   eBay Promo History
   Bookshelf
   Fraud Resources
   Drop-Off Store Laws
   ABTV
   Ecommerce Resources
   Photo Tips
   Marketing Inserts
   Yellow Pages
   Advertising

EcommerceBytes-NewsFlash, Number 1414 - November 20, 2006 - ISSN 1539-5065     Previous | | Next
eBay Patent War: Patents, Lies and Videotape
By Julia Wilkinson
EcommerceBytes.com
November 20, 2006




The ongoing saga of the litigation between eBay and MercExchange over patents saw yet another day in court Friday, November 17, 2006, with several comments made by parties present about the concern for a case that could drag on ad nauseum. MercExchange's attorneys argued that "time is of the essence" and that MercExchange "may not be able to survive much longer without an injunction." eBay's attorneys argued that if MercExchange is allowed to submit new, and what it considers improperly submitted and irrelevant evidence, eBay should be entitled to "a full range of discovery." The attorneys also had animated exchanges over an issue of "prior art" from the original trial involving a videotape of another inventor's multimedia system.

District Court Judge Jerome Friedman, who also presided over the original jury trial of eBay vs. MercExchange in 2003, was only considering certain motions Friday, and not the matters of eBay's motion to stay proceedings in light of the ongoing U.S. Patent Office reexamination of the patents, nor MercExchange's motion for a permanent injunction.

Since the 2003 trial, eBay and Merc Exchange lawyers have met in Appeals court and in the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated a U.S. Appeals Court decision that favored MercExchange's request for an injunction against eBay's Buy It Now feature. At Friday's hearing, Judge Friedman noted that the Supreme Court has made a significant change in patent law. His opening question to the attorneys was, "What's changed?"

Among the things MercExchange argued are different since the original trial is that the company has not been able to grant an exclusive license to uBid.com, because as long as eBay is infringing, it's difficult to value the license on the patent.

Jeffrey Randall, of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, arguing on behalf of eBay, had said that MercExchange wouldn't have been able to grant an exclusive license to uBid anyway, because it had already granted GoTo.com a non-exclusive license under the 265 ("Consignment Nodes" - i.e. the Fixed-Price or "Buy It Now"-related) patent. However, MercExchange pointed out that the GoTo.com license does not apply to the "Buy It Now" feature. It also argued that injunctive relief is "forward-looking," and it's important for the court to have a current factual record.

eBay cited MercExchange's other three licenses, with ReturnBuy, GoTo.com, and AutoTrader.com, and added "to argue it didn't include the Buy It Now feature - I don't know what that means." Randall also indicated the notion that "Boy, if you don't grant this injunction, MercExchange won't survive" was not valid, both because eBay believes MercExchange already would not have been able to grant that exclusive license, and because MercExchange had "cut a deal" with investment firm Altitude Capital Partners that he said was presumably worth millions of dollars.

While MercExchange objected to the reference to Altitude Capital, Randall argued that eBay would want to take a deposition from them. "If you're going to allow the uBid evidence on basis that may provide irreparable harm, I'd like to do discovery on uBid, Altitude Capital, and Mr. Woolston," he said.

On the issue of the "prior art," the judge asked eBay if MercExchange's submitted declaration by Kenneth Nahan, inventor of the system depicted in it, highlights "the fact that eBay allegedly perpetrated a fraud on the court?"

eBay responded that the videotape was authentic, dated, and "presented as this is what the Nahan system was."

"I take great offense to what he wrote was said in that meeting," said Randall, referring to a MercExchange attorney's characterization of a meeting between eBay and Nahan. But Mr. Randall pointed out that MercExchange ultimately prevailed on the prior art issue in the original trial, and also that MercExchange had not produced any confidentiality agreements relating to the videotape. "This could be a trial in and of itself," he said. "It's a sideshow."

Scott Robertson of Hunton & Williams, arguing for MercExchange, said that the notion that eBay didn't present the video tape as "prior art" was "just plain wrong." He said eBay called it an infomercial - "this conjures up Ginsu Knives and Thighmasters." The reason this issue is important, he said, is that MercExchange is showing that when you seek equity, as eBay is, "you must do equity" - you must come to court with "clean hands."

Lastly, the judge heard arguments about eBay's motion for leave to file motion to enforce the court's protective order, which relates to what documents MercExchange is allowed to provide to the U.S. Patent Office, currently reexamining the patents. MercExchange argued that they "didn't interpret it to mean that if eBay was to put these patents into reexam, our experts would be precluded from giving information on the validity of prior art."

The issue seemed to be resolved with both sides agreeing that transcripts except for the 15 depositions by eBay engineers would be submitted to the USPTO.

The morning's proceedings closed on the issue of time, with MercExchange alluding to eBay's talk of additional discovery and saying, "There are a lot of clichés, but here is one: justice delayed is justice denied. eBay comes to you as someone who has stolen someone else's property…and they want discovery on things not even in this record."

eBay said that, per a case it cited earlier, if you open the record, "you get the full rights of discovery," and again mentioned Altitude Capital and "the millions of dollars" MercExchange was collecting from them.

Judge Friedman noted that criminal cases have to take precedence over civil ones, and said, "I'll try to do the best we can possibly do."

So ended another stage in a case that has now been ongoing for years and has legal experts, patent holders, and major corporations on the edge of their seats. Stay tuned for the next development.

See AuctionBytes "eBay Patent War Timeline":
http://www.auctionbytes.com/cab/pages/patent

---
Julia Wilkinson is the author of "The eBay Price Guide," (No Starch Press, 2006 powered by Hammertap) and "eBay Top 100 Simplified Tips & Tricks" (Wiley, 2004-6); as well as "What $ells on eBay for What" (http://www.aolmemorabilia.com/whatsells.html). Her newsletter, Yard Salers and eBayers is at http://www.yardsalersebayers.com, and her blog "bidbits" is at http://blogs.gowholesale.com/julia_wilkinson.

You may quote up to 50 words of any article on the condition that you attribute the article to EcommerceBytes.com and either link to the original article or to www.EcommerceBytes.com.
All other use is prohibited.

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for our Email Newsletters

Email this story to a friend.

Previous | | Next

 EcommerceBytes Blog 
 AuctionBytes Blog 
 Letters to the Editor 
Related Stories 
Related Stories
  • eBay Rival MercExchange Says Tools Support Google Base - January 18, 2006, Issue #1197
  • Supreme Court to Hear eBay Argument on March 29, 2006 - January 30, 2006, Issue #1205
  • eBay Patent Wars: Former AG Ashcroft to Lobby for eBay - March 20, 2006, Issue #1240
  • A Guide to eBay's Road to the Supreme Court - March 27, 2006, Issue #1245
  • eBay Patent War: High Tech, Double Standard? - March 28, 2006, Issue #1246
  • eBay and MercExchange Wage Patent Battle with Media Statements - March 31, 2006, Issue #1248
  • Editorial: eBay Argues before the Supreme Court - April 02, 2006, Issue #164
  • Supreme Court: No Injunction in eBay Case, Back to District Court - May 15, 2006, Issue #1279
  • eBay, MercExchange Claim Victory over Supreme Court Ruling - May 16, 2006, Issue #1280
  • eBay Patent Case Remanded to District Court - July 10, 2006, Issue #1319
  • eBay Patent Wars: Hearing Set for Friday - November 14, 2006, Issue #6
  • eBay Patent War: Patents, Lies and Videotape - November 20, 2006, Issue #1414
  • eBay Patent Hearing Set for June: Buy It Now at Issue - April 18, 2007, Issue #1519


  • Discussion Forums 
    Have a question about buying or selling online? Want to get marketing or technical advice? AuctionBytes Discussion Forums are the place to come to get answers to your questions and get advice! Great tips - a refreshing change!

    Current Discussions:
     

    About Us      Privacy Policy      Link to Us      Partners      Our Writers      Write for Us      Press        Site Index

    Copyright 1999-. Steiner Associates LLC. All rights reserved.