BODOG IGNORED PATENT LITIGATION SAYS OPPOSING LAWYER (Update)

31 August 2007

Background to litigation against Bodog continues to surface


Following our previous reports on the 1st Technology LLC vs Bodog Entertainment Group SA, further detail is beginning to emerge, along with critical comment by lawyers representing 1st Technology in its $49 million patent infringement suit against the Antiguan based online gambling group.

The confrontation apparently began last September, when 1st Technology, which has enjoyed some success in previous actions against other companies, sued Bodog before Judge Roger L. Hunt in a federal court in Nevada. Lawyers for 1st Technology claimed that Bodog was illegally using a "method and system for interactively transmitting multimedia information over a network which requires a reduced bandwidth," according to court documents.

It is alleged that Bodog failed to appear in court to defend itself and lost the case by default, and Judge Hunt issued an order that Bodog was to pay $48 937 456 to 1st Technology by March 2007 for patent infringement.

When the order had not been complied with on the due date, it appears that the case was transferred as an enforcement issue to the state of Washington sometime in June, but Bodog again failed to make an appearance, according to 1st Technology's attorney Venkat Balasubramani.

The lawyer is adamant that all appropriate notifications were correctly given for both the lawsuit in Nevada and the subsequent action in Washington state. "I can't speculate as to why they might have done that [failed to appear]. It's safe to assume they knew about it and definitely ignored it," Balasubramani added.

1st Technology was left with no alternative but to note that Bodog had failed to respond to the default judgment and ask that all Bodog domains be confiscated and transferred to them. This was so ordered by Judge John Erlick on August 21, requiring registrars to transfer Bodog related domains to the control of 1st Technology.

"The Court makes it clear that the intent of this order is to allow the Plaintiff to liquidate or otherwise monetize the Domain Names without incurring any expense," said Judge Erlick in his ruling. "Plaintiff may decide not to auction the domain names, and instead may operate the Domain Names in any manner it sees fit, including exploiting any traffic to the sites accessible via the domain names."

Balasubramani, who is expert in commercial litigation involving the Internet and technology explained that the purpose behind the order was to satisfy as far as possible the apparently ignored 1st Technology judgment.

It is becoming clear that a great deal of preparation and planning by a competent legal team has gone into the action against Bodog. Balasubramani says that 1st Technology LLC has engaged a considerable multi-legal team that is now dedicated to enforcing its judgement against Bodog, embracing commercial and intellectual property rights. It intends to demonstrate that no company that has customers in the United States is above or beyond U.S. legal jurisdiction, he said.

And apparently the message has struck home at Bodog, with a 1st Technology spokesman disclosing that lawyers from both companies are now in communication.

Online Casino News courtesy of InfoPowa