NetMotion Wireless, Inc. v. Padcom, Inc.

I'll research this case before drafting.

Case overview and background

A note on the caption before anything else. The docket the metadata points to — NetMotion Wireless, Inc. v. Padcom, Inc., No. 04-cv-622-JCC (W.D. Wash., Seattle, Judge John C. Coughenour) — was not itself a patent infringement suit. It was NetMotion's Washington state-court action (King County Superior Court) alleging that Padcom tortiously interfered with NetMotion's contracts and business expectancies; Padcom removed it to federal court on March 24, 2004 (Justia docket, 2:04-cv-00622, nature of suit "Personal Property: Other," § 1441 removal, jury demanded by defendant). The patent actually identified in the metadata, U.S. Patent No. 6,418,324, was owned by Padcom and was asserted by Padcom against NetMotion — not by NetMotion against Padcom — in the parallel Delaware action, Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 03-983-SLR (D. Del., Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson), filed October 27, 2003. The two cases were part of one integrated dispute between the same two companies and were resolved together in the June 2006 merger, which is why they are commonly treated as a single matter. This overview covers the whole dispute, with the W.D. Wash. case flagged where it differs.

The parties. Both sides were genuine operating companies in the then-emerging "mobile VPN" market — no NPE/PAE, university, or aggregator was involved on either side. NetMotion Wireless (Seattle) was spun out of WRQ in 2001, venture-backed (Northwest Venture Associates, eFund, Fluke Venture Partners; roughly $30M raised), and sold Mobility / Mobility XE, client-server software that keeps a laptop or handheld connected to enterprise applications as it roams across Wi-Fi, cellular, and private radio networks. Its reference customers were enterprises — e.g., an insurer whose claims examiners filed from accident sites, and later Continental Airlines. Padcom, Inc. (Bethlehem, Pa.), majority-owned by private-equity firm Liberty Partners, sold TotalRoam (including TotalRoam Mobile Virtual Network) into public safety, utilities, and cable — its largest customer being Cox Communications. The companies were described at the time as the two largest pure-play mobile VPN vendors, with reportedly "zero overlap" in customer base, which is what made the merger coherent. (Sources: NYT DealBook, June 15, 2006; eWeek, June 15, 2006; Seattle P-I via New Haven Register, June 2006; Light Reading, Oct. 27, 2003; Urgent Communications, June 2006.)

The technology and patents asserted. Padcom accused NetMotion's Mobility software — specifically ten incremental releases, versions 3.0 through 4.x — of infringing three patents in the same family, all claiming priority to a September 17, 1997 filing: U.S. 6,418,324 ("Apparatus and Method for Transparent Wireless Communication Between a Remote Device and Host System," issued July 9, 2002) — a routing/mobile-data-controller architecture that lets a mobile device keep an application session alive while moving between dissimilar networks; U.S. 6,198,920 ("Apparatus and Method for Intelligent Routing of Data Between a Remote Device and a Host System," issued March 2001), whose written description the court found "virtually identical" to the '324; and U.S. 6,826,405 (issued Nov. 30, 2004), a continuation whose written description was substantively amended during prosecution — the basis for NetMotion's § 112 written-description invalidity attack. As the Delaware court summarized it, the invention forwards data from a local application across one of several simultaneously connected networks and switches networks mid-transmission without disrupting or reinitiating the transfer (e.g., WWAN-to-WLAN handoff during a file download). Padcom's original Delaware complaint also named reseller Database Solutions, Inc. and alleged tortious interference and unfair competition, including interference with Padcom's AT&T Wireless negotiations — the mirror image of NetMotion's Washington tortious-interference theory.

Procedural posture and why venue mattered. The Delaware patent case (03-983-SLR) was the main event. NetMotion contested personal jurisdiction and venue; the court's May 24, 2004 memorandum opinion, 2004 WL 1192641 (D. Del.), upheld Delaware long-arm jurisdiction based on NetMotion's trial downloads by the Wilmington Police Department, HP iPAQ bundling, and telemarketing into Delaware, and denied both DSI's motion to transfer to N.D. Cal. and NetMotion's request to move the case to the Western District of Washington. That ruling is the direct link to 04-cv-622-JCC: NetMotion had filed its King County action as a counterweight on its home turf, Padcom removed it on March 24, 2004, moved on April 27, 2004 to transfer it to Delaware or stay it, and on May 4, 2004 moved in Delaware to enjoin its prosecution (D.I. 33) — all described in footnote 9 of the Delaware briefing. Judge Coughenour's Seattle courtroom thus mattered mainly as leverage and as a potential home-field forum for the state-law claims; it did not produce the patent rulings. A Markman/Summary judgment opinion of February 22, 2006 construed "dissimilar networks," "parallel networks," and "a transmission occurs while switching," and denied NetMotion's invalidity motions on the Project Octopus thesis and BARWAN article. Trial followed in March 2006 (jury charge dated March 24, 2006), and the jury found the asserted Padcom patents valid and infringed by Mobility (Law360, Mar. 31, 2006; Japanese NGB case note, Apr. 6, 2006, identifying the '324 and '405). A damages trial was set for fall 2006, and Padcom moved for a permanent injunction in April 2006.

Why the case is notable. Three things. First, it is a clean pre-Alice/pre-IPR example of a two-front, patent-plus-tortious-interference war between direct competitors, in which each side's state-law claims (AT&T Wireless in Delaware; Padcom's customer contracts in Washington) were used as venue and settlement leverage around the patent case — the W.D. Wash. case was effectively a hostage to the Delaware docket. Second, it ended in a merger rather than a judgment: announced June 15, 2006 and closed that month as an all-stock deal under the NetMotion name, with Padcom's Liberty Partners taking a majority stake in the combined company, and the litigation "resolved" as part of the transaction. NetMotion had publicly said it would pursue post-trial motions and appeal; none of that mattered once the parties combined. The deal merged Mobility XE and TotalRoam into a company with ~900–1,000 customers and ~80 employees. Third, the market consequence was real: the verdict forced NetMotion to engineer around the '324/'405 claims (it announced a redesigned product post-verdict), and Forrester's Robert Whiteley characterized the merger as a "reactionary move" driven by customer anxiety after the loss. There is no IPR or PTAB linkage — the America Invents Act was six years away; validity was litigated in district court under §§ 102/103/112. There is no NPE angle either: this was operating-company-versus-operating-company, PE-backed on the Padcom side.

Sourcing caveats. I could not reach PACER directly; docket facts for 04-cv-622-JCC come from the Justia docket (2:04-cv-00622, filed Mar. 23, 2004, removed Mar. 24, 2004, Judge Coughenour), and the Delaware procedural history comes from the archived D. Del. filings and the reproduced 2004 and 2006 opinions (C.A. No. 03-983-SLR), plus contemporaneous trade press. I have not verified the final dispositional order in 04-cv-622-JCC (i.e., whether it was dismissed voluntarily or administratively closed after the merger), so I state only that it was "subsumed" into the global resolution. I also could not independently confirm the exact verdict date (the jury charge is dated March 24, 2006 and Law360 reported the verdict "[that] week"), the damages amount (never tried), or the identity of the specific newly issued NetMotion patent that prompted Padcom's December 28, 2005 declaratory judgment action in D. Del. (C.A. No. 05-889-SLR) — and I have not found W.D. Wash. counsel of record, so I name only the Delaware counsel that appears in the record: Greenblum & Bernstein (Neil Greenblum, Michael Fink) for Padcom and Fish & Richardson (Katherine Kelly Lutton) for NetMotion.

I'll research this case systematically, starting with the core case and the patent's litigation history.

This is an important finding: the action in the case metadata (W.D. Wash. 04-cv-622) was NetMotion's tortious-interference suit — the Padcom v. NetMotion patent case on the '324 patent was actually D. Del. 03-983-SLR. Let me research both tracks in depth.

Threshold point: two dockets, one dispute

Before the chronology, an important correction to the framing. The case in the metadata — NetMotion Wireless, Inc. v. Padcom, Inc., No. 04-cv-622-JCC (W.D. Wash.) — was not the patent infringement case. It was NetMotion's tortious-interference action (filed in Washington Superior Court, King County, removed by Padcom on 2004-03-24), and it was the third suit in a three-front war.

The infringement litigation over U.S. Patent No. 6,418,324 (and its siblings) was Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., Civ. No. 03-983-SLR (D. Del.), before Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson. The two tracks were formally linked: Padcom moved in Delaware to enjoin the Washington action, and moved in Washington to transfer or stay in favor of Delaware. Any account of the '324 enforcement story has to run through Delaware. I've therefore layered both dockets chronologically below, flagging which docket each event sits on.

---

Chronology of key developments

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings

Delaware (the patent case). Padcom filed on 2003-10-27 in the District of Delaware against NetMotion Wireless (Seattle) and Database Solutions, Inc. (Wilmington, Del., a reseller). The complaint pleaded infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,418,324 ("Apparatus and Method for Transparent Wireless Communication Between a Remote Device and Host System," issued 2002-07-09, claiming priority to a 1997-09-17 application that was itself a CIP of a 1995-06-01 application that issued as 5,717,737) and 6,198,920, plus state-law claims for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations and common-law unfair competition — the interference theory being that NetMotion took Padcom's AT&T Wireless deal. Padcom was represented by Neil Greenblum of Greenblum & Bernstein (Reston, Va.). See Padcom's announcement, Light Reading, 2003-10-27.

The '920 and '324 share a virtually identical written description. U.S. Patent No. 6,826,405 (filed 2002-06-10 as a continuation of the '324 application, subject to a terminal disclaimer) issued 2004-11-30 and was added to the case. According to the court, "all of the asserted claims from the patents in suit claim priority to the September 17, 1997 filing date of the '324 patent."

Washington (the case in the metadata). NetMotion filed suit in King County Superior Court, which Padcom removed to the W.D. Wash. on 2004-03-24, docketed as 04-cv-622-JCC before Judge John C. Coughenour. See Justia docket (nature of suit "Personal Property: Other"; cause of action 28 U.S.C. § 1441; jury demand by defendant). The Delaware court described it as NetMotion's "third action," alleging that "Padcom has tortiously interfered with NetMotion's contracts and business expectancies."

Answer / counterclaims in Delaware. NetMotion answered and counterclaimed (the docket reflects a NetMotion counterclaim-plaintiff designation throughout). NetMotion's lead defense was invalidity under §§ 102 and 112; the docket shows its October 2005 reply briefs on summary judgment of invalidity under § 102 and § 112 as to the '324, '920 and '405. NetMotion also filed a declaratory judgment action on 2005-12-28 in D. Del. against Padcom, seeking a declaration that a newly issued NetMotion patent was invalid, unenforceable (alleged inequitable conduct — failure to disclose material prior art) and not infringed (Light Reading, 2005-12-28).

2. Pre-trial motions of substance

(a) Personal jurisdiction — denied. NetMotion moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (D.I. 9); co-defendant DSI moved to transfer to the N.D. Cal., pointing to a declaratory-judgment action pending there. On 2004-05-24, Judge Robinson denied both, 2004 WL 1192641. The jurisdictional holding turned on facts that matter strategically: a free trial download of Mobility by the Wilmington Police Department (obtained via a Hewlett-Packard iPAQ bundle), third-party telemarketing to seven Delaware public-safety entities, targeted direct mail to Delaware public-safety agencies and hospitals, and a nationally distributed e-newsletter that reached 23 Delaware recipients. The court held NetMotion "intentionally and knowingly transacted business with residents of the forum state," and that even though the campaign "did not generate sales," the attempts were made "with knowledge and purpose, to do business." Opinion at archive.org (gov.uscourts.ded.8690, D.I. 370-1); see also summary at Martindale.

(b) Transfer/stay — Washington track. Padcom moved on 2004-04-27 (W.D. Wash. D.I. 8) to transfer 04-cv-622 to D. Del. or stay it pending the Delaware case; NetMotion opposed and Padcom replied

I'll research the docket and counsel for this case.

Threshold correction before the counsel analysis

The premise that 04-cv-622-JCC is a "patent infringement case" does not hold up, and that matters for identifying "plaintiff's counsel" in the patent sense.

• 04-cv-622-JCC is not a patent case. It is NetMotion's own affirmative suit against Padcom, filed in King County Superior Court and removed to the W.D. Wash. on March 24, 2004. Judge Robinson's opinion in the Delaware action describes it as "a third action … alleging that Padcom has tortiously interfered with NetMotion's contracts and business expectancies," NetMotion Wireless Inc. v. Padcom, Inc., No. 04-cv-622-JCC (W.D. Wash. 2004), removed at D.I. 1 (Mar. 24, 2004). See Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., Civ. No. 03-983-SLR (D. Del. May 24, 2004), 2004 WL 1192641, at n.9 — archive.org copy of D. Del. D.I. 370. The Justia docket confirms the non-patent characterization: Nature of Suit "Personal Property: Other," cause of action "28 U.S.C. § 1441 Petition for Removal–Property Damage," jury demanded by the defendant. Justia docket 2:2004cv00622.
• U.S. Patent No. 6,418,324 is Padcom's patent, not NetMotion's. It issued July 9, 2002, and was asserted by Padcom against NetMotion in Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., Civ. No. 03-983-SLR (D. Del.), alongside the '920 and later the '405 patent. Padcom's October 27, 2003 announcement identifies the '324 and '920 patents as the patents in suit. Light Reading, "Padcom Sues NetMotion".

So there are two distinct captions, and the answer differs depending on which one you mean.

---

Part 1 — Counsel of record for NetMotion as plaintiff, No. 04-cv-622-JCC (W.D. Wash.)

I cannot verify counsel of record from the sources available to me, and I will not name attorneys I cannot source.

What I can tell you:

Verification path (all cheap, none of which I could complete here): pull the PACER docket for wawdce 2:04-cv-00622-JCC, D.I. 1 (notice of removal – identifies removing/defense counsel), D.I. 8 (Padcom's motion to transfer or stay), D.I. 11–12 (NetMotion's opposition and declaration – identifies plaintiff's counsel), and the state-court complaint. Any attorney appearing must have been admitted to the W.D. Wash. bar or moved pro hac vice.

Given the 90-day-shorter-than-you'd-expect life of this case — removed March 24, 2004, and swept into the parties' 2006 merger — it is also plausible that NetMotion never had more than a small Seattle litigation team appear, but that is inference, not a sourced fact.

Part 2 — Counsel in the actual '324 patent litigation, D. Del. No. 03-983-SLR

Here the plaintiff was Padcom, so "plaintiff's counsel" means Padcom's team, not NetMotion's:

I did not find a sourced name for:

• Padcom's Delaware local counsel in 03-983-SLR (Delaware practice required a local firm; the firm is not identified in the materials I could reach).
• NetMotion's defense counsel in 03-983-SLR — the team that litigated the February 22, 2006 claim construction ("Claim Language") before Judge Robinson and the March 2006 jury trial that produced an infringement verdict against NetMotion. NetMotion's CEO Bob Hunsberger publicly vowed post-trial motions and appeal (NetMotion statement, Mar. 29, 2006), but the attorneys are not named in that release. Note one trap: a search hit lists "Michael R. Scott … Hillis Clark Martin & Peterson P.S., Seattle" as counsel — that signature block comes from an unrelated N.D. Cal. TracFone matter (cand 191325), not from this case. Do not import it.

Bottom line

• Do not populate a counsel table for 04-cv-622-JCC from inference. The only contemporaneous, citable counsel identification in the entire '324 dispute that I could verify is Neil Greenblum of Greenblum & Bernstein (Reston, VA) — and he represented Padcom, the patent plaintiff in D. Del., not NetMotion, the plaintiff in the W.D. Wash. action.
• The W.D. Wash. docket appears to be outside free RECAP coverage; the answer to the literal question requires a PACER pull of D.I. 1 and D.I. 11–12.
• If the underlying research goal is "who litigated the '324 patent for each side," the productive target is the 03-983-SLR docket, not 04-cv-622-JCC.

I'll research the docket and counsel for Padcom in this case.

Let me try to locate the actual docket sheet and filings for 04-cv-622-JCC.

Bottom line first

I could not verify counsel of record for Padcom from a primary source. The W.D. Wash. docket in No. 2:04-cv-00622-JCC is essentially a stub — Justia's abstract shows only the case metadata (filed March 23, 2004; Seattle office; Judge John C. Coughenour; "Personal Property: Other"; cause of action 28 U.S.C. § 1441 petition for removal; jury demanded by defendant), and no public opinion, order, or PACER-hosted filing from that docket that identifies attorneys is retrievable through open-web search. The only docket activity visible anywhere is by cross-reference from the Delaware court, which cites D.I. 1 (notice of removal, Mar. 24, 2004), D.I. 8 (Padcom's Apr. 27, 2004 motion to transfer/stay), and D.I. 11–12 (NetMotion's opposition/reply). None of those citations reproduce a signature block.

Two important framing points before the attorney list:

1. The premise needs correcting. No. 04-cv-622-JCC is not a patent infringement case. As the Delaware district court described it, it is NetMotion's action "in the Superior Court of the State of Washington, King County, alleging that Padcom has tortiously interfered with NetMotion's contracts and business expectancies," which Padcom removed on March 24, 2004. Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., Civ. No. 03-983-SLR (D. Del. May 24, 2004), 2004 WL 1192641, at n.9. The '324 patent litigation was Padcom, Inc. v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., C.A. No. 03-983-SLR (D. Del.) (Judge Sue L. Robinson) — and there Padcom was the plaintiff (asserting the '324 and '405 patents) and NetMotion was the defendant. So "defendant's patent counsel on the '324 patent" points to NetMotion, not Padcom; "defendant in 04-cv-622-JCC" points to Padcom.
2. Availability caveat. I found no indication that any filing in 04-cv-622-JCC was sealed; the problem is simply that the docket's attorney records are not exposed in free sources, not that counsel is concealed. I also cannot confirm from any source I could reach whether appearances were formally withdrawn before the case was folded into the parties' global resolution.

Counsel I can source — and the limits of each attribution

Names that surface in adjacent hits (WilmerHale, Russ August & Kabat, Crowell & Moring, Blank Rome, etc.) are from unrelated matters and must not be attributed to this case.

What is well documented about the litigation itself

• Removal and stay fight: Padcom removed Mar. 24, 2004 and moved on Apr. 27, 2004 to transfer the Washington action to D. Del. or stay it pending the Delaware case (D.I. 8); NetMotion opposed (D.I. 11) and Padcom replied (D.I. 12). Simultaneously, in Delaware, Padcom moved on May 4, 2004 to enjoin prosecution of the Washington action and to convene a Rule 16 conference (03-983-SLR, D.I. 33). Judge Robinson declined to transfer the Delaware case and ordered answers by June 11, 2004. 2004 WL 1192641.
• Patent merits (context for the '324 patent): Markman and summary-judgment activity in 2005 (e.g., 2005 WL 2867888; 2005 WL 3666769–3666778), then a March 2006 Delaware jury verdict that NetMotion's Mobility product infringed claims of the '324 and '405 patents, with NetMotion announcing a non-infringing re-release and reserving post-trial motions and appeal.
• Disposition of 04-cv-622-JCC: consistent with the existing case summary, it was subsumed into the parties' global resolution; I found no separate judgment or published ruling in the Western District of Washington.

Recommended primary-source steps to close the gap

1. PACER: ecf.wawd.uscourts.gov, docket 2:04-cv-00622-JCC — pull the docket text (it should list "Attorney(s) for Defendant" with appearance dates) and the signature blocks of D.I. 1 (notice of removal) and D.I. 8.
2. If the case is archived, order the paper file from the Seattle clerk (W.D. Wash. archives retrieval, RG 21) citing the four document numbers above.
3. Cross-check Delaware 03-983-SLR D.I. 33 and its exhibits, which sometimes attach the Washington pleadings and thus the Washington signature blocks.

If you want, I can next run the docket inquiry focused on the Delaware '324 case where the attorney identifications are more likely to appear in published opinions.