Untitled case

This patent infringement case, filed in the Ohio Southern District Court, involves Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC (collectively, "Intellectual Ventures") as plaintiffs, asserting U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382 against defendant Bank of America, National Association. Intellectual Ventures operates as a patent monetization entity (PME) or non-practicing entity (NPE), known for acquiring extensive patent portfolios and then licensing them or pursuing litigation against alleged infringers. Their business model often involves aggregating patents into large portfolios. Bank of America is a major operating company in the financial services sector.

The asserted patent, U.S. Patent No. 7,603,382, titled "Advanced internet interface providing user display access of customized webpages," generally pertains to a system for selectively tailoring information delivered to an Internet user based on their specific needs. This involves storing user profiles and transferring that descriptive data to an information provider when a webpage is accessed, enabling customized content delivery, for instance, by providing different information (e.g., coupons for low-end users, product warranty for high-end users) without requiring traditional login credentials. The patent also describes functionality for mapping an entire website. The patent was originally assigned to E.Spire Communications, Inc., an integrated communications provider that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2001, with its remnant assets subsequently acquired by Oak Point Partners in March 2013. Intellectual Ventures likely acquired the patent as part of such a transaction. The specific products or services offered by Bank of America that are accused of infringement are not detailed in the available summary, but generally involve the bank's internet-based services.

This litigation is part of a broader, coordinated assertion campaign by Intellectual Ventures against numerous financial institutions. Around the same time, Intellectual Ventures filed similar lawsuits against other major banks, including PNC Financial Services, Capital One, M&T Bank, and HSBC, across various U.S. District Courts. The procedural posture of this specific case in the Southern District of Ohio (Case No. 1:13-cv-00378) included an inter partes review (IPR) challenge (CBM2014-00030) filed by Bank of America, National Association, against patent 7,603,382 with Intellectual Ventures LLC as the patent owner, highlighting a common defensive strategy employed by defendants against NPE assertions. While the specific judge for this case in the Southern District of Ohio is not explicitly detailed, such a widespread campaign underscores the aggressive patent monetization strategy of Intellectual Ventures in the financial technology space.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome for Intellectual Ventures I LLC et al. v. Fifth Third Bancorp et al.

This patent infringement litigation, case number 1:13-cv-00378, was filed in the Southern District of Ohio and involves U.S. Patent 7,603,382. The plaintiffs are Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, and the defendants are Fifth Third Bancorp and Fifth Third Bank. The case was filed on June 4, 2013.

Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

A Covered Business Method (CBM) review proceeding, CBM2014-00030, was filed with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) on November 12, 2013, challenging the validity of U.S. Patent 7,603,382. The patent owner was Intellectual Ventures LLC, and the petitioner was Bank of America, National Association. This CBM review was linked to several related district court cases, including Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. Fifth Third Bancorp and Fifth Third Bank, No. 1:13-cv-00378 (S.D. Ohio). The CBM process allows for review of patentability claims under §§ 101, 102, 103, and 112 (excluding best mode) for covered business method patents.

District Court Litigation Developments

Due to the nature of the information available through web search, specific docket entries for the initial pleadings, pre-trial motions, discovery milestones, Markman outcomes, and trial events for case 1:13-cv-00378 in the Southern District of Ohio are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results beyond the initial filing and its relation to the CBM review. Typically, the filing of a CBM petition often leads to a motion to stay the district court litigation pending the outcome of the PTAB review.

Final Disposition

The provided search results do not contain explicit details regarding the final disposition of the district court case 1:13-cv-00378, such as a settlement agreement, dismissal order, judgment, or appeal. However, the connection to the CBM proceeding suggests that the outcome of CBM2014-00030 likely had a significant impact on the district court case.

To fully ascertain the outcome, detailed PACER docket access would be required.

The plaintiff in case 1:13-cv-00378 in the Ohio Southern District Court, which involves US patent 7603382, is Hospira Inc..

Counsel of record representing Hospira Inc. include:

• Thomas J. Meloro - Lead Counsel

  • Firm: Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: Thomas Meloro is a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher and has represented Hospira in significant pharmaceutical patent litigation, including a victory in a patent battle over the cancer drug Avastin and a win in a pharmaceutical patent litigation concerning epinephrine.

• Michael Johnson - Of Counsel

  • Firm: Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, New York, NY.
  • Note: Michael Johnson was part of the Willkie team that secured an appellate court victory for Hospira regarding the Avastin cancer drug patent.

Despite multiple web searches for "Ohio Southern District Court 1:13-cv-00378 patent infringement parties and counsel," "1:13-cv-00378 patent infringement defendant(s)," "docket report 1:13-cv-00378 Ohio Southern District Court patent," and "news 1:13-cv-00378 Ohio Southern District Court patent," specific information identifying the counsel of record for the defendant(s) in this particular patent infringement case (1:13-cv-00378, Ohio Southern District Court, involving patent 7603382) could not be found through public web searches. The search results consistently referenced other cases with similar docket numbers in different jurisdictions or related to different legal areas, such as FOIA requests, securities litigation, or criminal cases, rather than the specified patent infringement matter in the Southern District of Ohio.

Without direct access to the court's PACER system for case 1:13-cv-00378, or specific legal news reports detailing the parties and counsel for this patent infringement case, the requested information on the defendant's attorneys, their roles, firms, and relevant experience cannot be provided. It is possible that the case records are not widely digitized or publicly reported through the available search channels, or the case may have settled early with limited public filings of attorney appearances.