Strategy in TECH...
The Control4 Corporation has been hit with another class action lawsuit filed on behalf of all shareholders of their stock in connection with their acquisition by Wirepath Home Systems, LLC – better known as SnapAV. Filed by the law firm of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., the lawsuit alleges certain violations of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and names both Control4 and its Board of Directors as defendants.
When we last visited this legal clash of the titans, a jury had just found that Monster must pay Beats nearly $8 million to reimburse them for the legal expenses in fighting the lawsuit that Monster had brought against them in 2015. Now, we have learned that the judge in that case has increased the judgment with an additional “directed” verdict. And in the matter of a separate case, Beats vs. Monster filed late last year, Monster has filed a countersuit and won a key ruling.
Ever since Sonos filed their patent infringement case against D&M Holdings – in reference to its then new HEOS line – things started out like the opening salvo in a boxing match. That was over three years ago in October 2014 and after an initial flurry, including the filing of a countersuit by D&M Holdings, the event went on to settle down into more of a wrestling match, as opposed to boxing. Each side jockeyed for leverage on the other, with our judgment giving a slight advantage to Sonos, whose legal team seemed just slightly better in their approach perhaps even winning over the judge in a series of mostly favorable rulings.
Now, on the eve of trial and in front of a new judge, things are really moving from its long, low simmer to a boil – in fact, boiling over in the days leading up to trial next week starting December 11.
The battle for patent supremacy between Sonos and D&M Holdings is picking up significant steam. In one 30-day period of this year alone (June), we counted no less than 110 docket items. That’s more than four filings a day if you take out weekends. The vast majority of these items were heavy legal motions and other multi-dozen page document filings.
The lawsuit, originally brought by Sonos against D&M Holdings and their HEOS line, and ultimately reciprocated with a D&M counter-suit, has been raging on since October 2014. Yet as the matter is plunging headlong towards a trial by the end of this year, D&M is handed another loss, as Judge Richard G. Andrews denies two key D&M Motions for Summary Judgment in his last ruling before turning the matter over to a new judge.
Just one month after Delaware District Court judge Richard G. Andrews ruled against D&M Holdings’ attempt to have four key Sonos patents invalidated, we learn that Sonos was successful in winning a dismissal of three of D&M Holdings’ counterclaims of patent infringement against them. However, four additional counterclaims filed by D&M survived the challenge and the counter-lawsuit will continue.
In revisting the long-running saga of Sonos, Inc. vs. D&M Holdings, Inc. et. al., we find that after a series of skirmishes over scheduling issues – such as deadlines for filings and responses, and new claims and counterclaims filed – there appears to be a concerted effort by both parties to ratchet up the pressure. So far, it appears to our non-legally educated eyes that Sonos has a slight edge in this game, winning the scheduling skirmish and winning the right to expand the number of patents at issue.
<March 14, 2012> Over the last few weeks, we have reported on a trademark and unfair business practices lawsuit filed by Signeo, the parent company of Soul by Ludacris, against Sol Republic. In its original filing, Signeo alleged that Sol Republic deliberately selected the SOL mark used on their headphone products in order to confuse the marketplace with a name that is phonetically identical to the SOUL trademark used by Signeo on its headphones. [Read more…] about Agreeing with Soul by Ludacris, Judge Orders PRO Group To Testify Now
