NORFOLK, Va. --
A federal judge Wednesday ordered online auction house eBay Inc. to pay $29.5 million to a Virginia inventor who accused the company of stealing his ideas.
But U.S. District Judge Jerome B. Friedman said he would not require the Internet giant to stop using the disputed features in the case, saying lawyers for plaintiff Thomas Woolston failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the court did not issue an injunction.
In May, a federal jury in Norfolk decided that eBay willfully infringed on Woolston's patents, which presented a way for people to purchase items over the Internet for a fixed price. The jury said eBay's "Buy It Now" option, which allows auction surfers to do the same thing, infringed on Woolston's patent.
Friedman's ruling is less than the $35 million jurors recommended at the end of a five-week trial. Because the jury found the violation was willful, the judge could have tripled the jury's award.
The jury award does not affect eBay's primary auction bidding system. Woolston also had claimed a patent infringement there, but the judge dismissed that claim.
Woolston's company, MercExchange, is based in Great Falls, Va.
-----------------------
$29 Million aint bad to end the lawsuit. Will either side appeal?
-------------- sig file ----------- He who angers you controls you
[ edited by AuctionAce on Aug 6, 2003 05:11 PM ]
posted on August 6, 2003 05:14:13 PM new
$29 million to be rid of a dark cloud that once had a $105 million triple damages possibility is cheap. The blood thirsty lawyers will cost more and more on every appeal. If I was ebay I'd jump on this and settle right away.
-------------- sig file ----------- He who angers you controls you
posted on August 6, 2003 09:14:21 PM new
29 Million. Ebay would be nuts to appeal. They get to use the buy it now and fixed price free and clear from this point on. It would cost them at least that in lawyers fees to appeal plus the possibility of losing the buy it now and fixed price features. IMHO, they should take this judgement, pay the penalty and move on. They will make that back in a matter of days.
posted on August 7, 2003 12:50:06 AM new
Looks like both sides are going to appeal.
Here is the latest:
EBay to Pay $29.5 Million in Patent Case
NORFOLK, Va. (AP) - A federal judge Wednesday ordered online auction house eBay Inc. to pay $29.5 million to a Virginia inventor who accused the company of stealing his ideas.
But U.S. District Judge Jerome B. Friedman said he would not require the Internet giant to abandon the disputed technology in the case, saying lawyers for plaintiff Thomas G. Woolston failed to show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the court did not issue an injunction.
Friedman warned eBay that if infringing on Woolston's patents continued, he would be ``more inclined to award enhanced damages for any post-verdict infringement.''
A Norfolk federal jury decided in May that eBay willfully infringed on Woolston's patents, which presented a way for people to purchase items over the Internet for a fixed price. Specifically, the jury said that eBay's ``Buy It Now'' option, which allows auction surfers to do the same thing, infringed on Woolston's ideas.
Both sides said Wednesday they would appeal the judge's ruling.
``We're going to appeal the refusal to grant an injunction, but that said, eBay has definitely been put on notice about what could happen if it continues to infringe,'' said Greg Stillman, an attorney for MercExchange, Woolston's Great Falls, Va.-based company.
He said he was pleased with the financial award.
Jay Monahan, eBay's vice president for litigation, said the company still believes Woolston's patents are invalid, but is planning to implement design changes that will avoid infringing on them.
He said the changes should be easily accomplished and invisible to users, but declined to disclose any details.
``We're going to whatever we believe is necessary to avoid infringement,'' Monahan said.
Friedman's award is less than the $35 million that the jury recommended at the end of the five-week trial earlier this year. Because the jury found that the violation was willful, the judge could have tripled the jury's award.
In Wednesday's ruling, he wrote that he rejected the option because there was an ``insufficient basis'' for doing it, in part because the outcome of the case was close.
Friedman also refused to order an injunction, saying MercExchange never sought a preliminary injunction. The company also ``exists merely to license its patented technology to others,'' the judge wrote. ``Indeed, the plaintiff has made numerous comments to the media before, during, and after this trial indicating that it did not seek to enjoin eBay but rather sought appropriate damages for the infringement.''
The jury award does not affect eBay's primary auction bidding system. In his original suit, Woolston claimed that the entire auction house infringed on his patents, but Friedman dismissed those claims.
Instead, the case hinged on how eBay sells fixed-price merchandise, which accounts for roughly 26 percent of the auction house's total sales.
San Jose, Calif.-based eBay is one of the few winners from the dot-com bubble and one of the Internet's great business successes. The company expects 2003 revenue of $2.75 billion and had 75.3 million users at the end of July, a 51 percent jump from the previous year.
posted on August 7, 2003 02:58:20 PM newJay Monahan, eBay's vice president for litigation, said the company still believes Woolston's patents are invalid, but is planning to implement design changes that will avoid infringing on them.
Looks like someone finally put a dent in eBays armor.
