Back in April, we reported on the Vermont Attorney General’s suit against non-practicing-entity MPHJ being remanded to state court. Dissatisfied with the district court’s decision, MPHJ appealed the remand and filed a petition for a writ of mandamus with the Federal Circuit, arguing that the decision was an abuse of the district court’s discretion.
Back to state court: Vermont’s unfair competition suit premised solely on state law
After being removed to federal district court last May, the Vermont Attorney General’s suit against non-practicing entity MPHJ is being sent back to state court. The decision holds that the AG’s unfair competition claims arising from MPHJ’s patent enforcement efforts belong in state court and raises the question of whether other patent demand letter jurisprudence
FTC moves to dismiss patent assertion entity MPHJ’s complaint in W.D. Tex.
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) moved to dismiss patent monetization entity MPHJ’s W.D. Tex. complaint on Monday, alleging that the court lacks jurisdiction over the matter. Back in January 2014, MPHJ filed a complaint against the FTC in W.D. Tex., preemptively seeking to prevent an enforcement action threatened by the FTC. The FTC’s enforcement
Judge Enjoins Nebraska AG from Enforcing Cease and Desist Order Against Alleged Patent Assertion Entity
Last week, District of Nebraska judge Joseph F. Bataillon entered an order preliminarily enjoining the Nebraska Attorney General (AG) from enforcing a cease and desist order that would prevent or impede the law firm of Farney Daniels from representing patent assertion entity MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC (MPHJ) to license or litigate MPHJ’s U.S. patents with
MPHJ Technology Investments seeks removal of Vermont consumer protection action to federal court
We’re going to take a brief time-out from SEP issues here for a short update on a case that’s being watched with interest by many in the patent world — the Vermont Attorney General’s consumer protection action brought last month against MPHJ Technology Investments, the so-called “scanner patent troll.” (For details on the complaint filed by the Vermont AG, see our previous post.)
It’s a somewhat mundane, and not surprising (but still noteworthy) development — This past Friday, MPHJ filed a notice of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, seeking to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont, as opposed to the State of Vermont Superior Court (where it was filed by the attorney general). Apparently, MPHJ likes its chances much better in federal court than in state court.Continue Reading MPHJ Technology Investments seeks removal of Vermont consumer protection action to federal court