James L. Driessen

General

Total Cases6

Active Cases--

Patents--

CourtsDistrict of D.C.

TypeNPE

Elite Ratings

--

--

--

--

Ratings

Experience

Grade

Trend

DCT

--

--

--

PTAB

--

--

--

CAFC

--

--

--

Analytics

Cases

Litigated Patents

Ratings Trends

Recent Dockets

Entered	Case	Description
04/29/22	Driessen v. WalMart Inc 1:19-CV-03239 ( D. DC )	Joint STATUS REPORT by BEST BUY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, WALMART, INC.. (Attachments: # [1] Exhibit Exhibit 1)(Mehta, Sonal)
04/27/21	Driessen v. WalMart Inc 1:19-CV-03239 ( D. DC )	The following patents were Instituted by PTAB: Patent US10304052 in IPR2021-00198
01/06/21	Driessen v. WalMart Inc 1:19-CV-03239 ( D. DC )	ORDER granting [41] Joint Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui on 1/6/2021. (lclw)
12/30/20	Driessen v. WalMart Inc 1:19-CV-03239 ( D. DC )	Joint MOTION to Stay Case Pending Inter Parties Review by BEST BUY COMPANY, INCORPORATED, TARGET CORPORATION, WALMART, INC. (Attachments: # [1] Text of Proposed Order)(Mehta, Sonal) Modified on 12/30/2020 to correct docket event/text (zjf).
12/28/20	Driessen v. WalMart Inc 1:19-CV-03239 ( D. DC )	ANSWER to Counterclaim 39 with Jury Demand (w/Dkt Correction to Doc. [23] ) by JAMES L. DRIESSEN.(DRIESSEN, JAMES)
12/27/20	Driessen v. WalMart Inc 1:19-CV-03239 ( D. DC )	ANSWER to Counterclaim [28] with Jury Demand by JAMES L. DRIESSEN.(DRIESSEN, JAMES)
12/27/20	Driessen v. WalMart Inc 1:19-CV-03239 ( D. DC )	ANSWER to Counterclaim [19] with Jury Demand by JAMES L. DRIESSEN.(DRIESSEN, JAMES)
12/21/20	Driessen v. WalMart Inc 1:19-CV-03239 ( D. DC )	MINUTE ORDER directing pro se Plaintiff to submit an Answer to defendant Best Buy's Counter-Claim [26] . Defendant Walmart's Counter-Claim [19] . And defendant Target's Amended Counter-Claim [28] by December 31, 2020. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), "if the court denies [a] motion... the responsive pleading must be served within 14 days after notice of the court's action." As pro se Plaintiff has an ECF password, see Minute Order (Jan 23, 2020), he had notice of the Court's denial of his Motions to Dismiss Defendants' Counter-Claims on November 24, 2020, see Minute Order (Nov. 24, 2020). The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to answer Defendants' Counter-Claims [19] , [26] , and [28] , or file a request for an extension, by no later than December 31, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui on 12/21/2020. (lclw) MINUTE ORDER directing pro se Plaintiff to submit an Answer to defendant Best Buy's Counter-Claim [26] . Defendant Walmart's Counter-Claim [19] . And defendant Target's Amended Counter-Claim [28] by December 31, 2020. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a)(4)(A), "if the court denies [a] motion... the responsive pleading must be served within 14 days after notice of the court's action." As pro se Plaintiff has an ECF password, see Minute Order (Jan 23, 2020), he had notice of the Court's denial of his Motions to Dismiss Defendants' Counter-Claims on November 24, 2020, see Minute Order (Nov. 24, 2020). The Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to answer Defendants' Counter-Claims [19] , [26] , and [28] , or file a request for an extension, by no later than December 31, 2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui on 12/21/2020. (lclw)
11/24/20	Driessen v. WalMart Inc 1:19-CV-03239 ( D. DC )	CASE DIRECTLY REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Zia M. Faruqui for full case management. (zsb)
11/24/20	Driessen v. WalMart Inc 1:19-CV-03239 ( D. DC )	MINUTE ORDER denying [26] motion to dismiss defendant Best Buy's Counter-Claim. Denying [29] motion to dismiss defendant Target's Amended Counter-Claim. Denying [30] motion to dismiss defendant Walmart's Counter-Claim. Plaintiff moves to dismiss each counter-claim on the grounds that the counter-claims are "mirror-image" restatements of his patent infringement and invalidity claims and because they are factually deficient. ECF No. 26 at 6, ECF No. 29 at 7, ECF No. 30 at 7. Each defendant's counterclaim is for a Declaratory Judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. See generally ECF No. 19, ECF No. 23, ECF No. 28.The Court rejects plaintiff's arguments for the following reasons. First, defendants' counterclaims are not redundant. Plaintiff argues that the declaratory relief sought in the counter-claims have been pleaded in the complaint and answer and consequently would become moot upon the adjudication of the complaint. See ECF No. 26 at 8, ECF No. 29 at 9, ECF No. 230 at 9. However, defendants' counterclaims will not be rendered moot. See Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359, 363 (1943) (We have here not only bill and answer but a counterclaim. Though decision of non-infringement disposes of the bill and answer, it does not dispose of the counterclaim which raises questions of validity.) Fisher-Price Inc. v. Safety 1st Co., No. Civ.A. 01-51, 2002 WL 1307333, at 10 n. 13 (D. Del. June 14, 2002) (The Court is aware that when invalidity is presented only as an affirmative defense, the court need not address invalidity when it finds non-infringement... However, since invalidity is also asserted as a counterclaim in this case, the court feels it is appropriate to address the invalidity of the [435] patent in spite of the finding of non-infringement.). Furthermore, courts consider non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment counterclaims to clarify legal rights in future litigation. See Altvater, 319 U.S. at 360-61. Geznyme Corp. v. Dr. Reddys Labs, Ltd., No. 13-1506-(GMS) 2016 WL 2757689, at 8 (D. Del. May 11, 2016). Finally, plaintiff has not identified any prejudice to him in the counterclaims he asks the Court to strike. See Uzlyan v. Solis, 706 F. Supp. 2d 44, 51-52 (D.D.C. 2010). Second, defendants' counterclaims contain sufficient factual allegations to withstand plaintiff's motions to dismiss them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. See Aktieselkabet Af 21 Nov. 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc. , 525 F.3d 8, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-670 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). The pleading must contain factual allegations that, accepted as true and construed in the defendants' favor, "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, defendants have: (1) set forth the ways in which the patent at issue could be found to be invalid. And (2) have described the factual bases supporting their non-infringement counterclaim. See ECF No. 19 at 16-17, ECF No. 23 at 17-18, ECF No. 28 at 16-18. Accordingly, the factual allegations in the counterclaims are adequate to satisfy the pleading standard. See Dror v. Kenu Inc. , No. 19-CV-03043-LB, 2019 WL 5684520, at 10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2019) (denying motion to dismiss counterclaim for invalidity where the counterclaim identified "references to a specific piece of prior art" and thus provided plaintiff with adequate notice of the grounds for defendant's counterclaim). Nouis Techs. Inc. v. Polaris Indus. Inc, No. 14-CV-233-JDP, 2015 WL 3407862, at 3 (W.D. Wis. May 27, 2015) (denying motion to dismiss infringement counterclaim and noting that "[i]n patent litigation, a counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement is largely a placeholder in case the plaintiff were to try to dismiss the case" and that "generally, denying the allegation of infringement more or less inherently sets up a plausible counterclaim for non-infringement.").Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/24/2020. lcegs1) MINUTE ORDER denying [26] motion to dismiss defendant Best Buy's Counter-Claim. Denying [29] motion to dismiss defendant Target's Amended Counter-Claim. Denying [30] motion to dismiss defendant Walmart's Counter-Claim. Plaintiff moves to dismiss each counter-claim on the grounds that the counter-claims are "mirror-image" restatements of his patent infringement and invalidity claims and because they are factually deficient. ECF No. 26 at 6, ECF No. 29 at 7, ECF No. 30 at 7. Each defendant's counterclaim is for a Declaratory Judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. See generally ECF No. 19, ECF No. 23, ECF No. 28.The Court rejects plaintiff's arguments for the following reasons. First, defendants' counterclaims are not redundant. Plaintiff argues that the declaratory relief sought in the counter-claims have been pleaded in the complaint and answer and consequently would become moot upon the adjudication of the complaint. See ECF No. 26 at 8, ECF No. 29 at 9, ECF No. 230 at 9. However, defendants' counterclaims will not be rendered moot. See Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359, 363 (1943) (We have here not only bill and answer but a counterclaim. Though decision of non-infringement disposes of the bill and answer, it does not dispose of the counterclaim which raises questions of validity.) Fisher-Price Inc. v. Safety 1st Co., No. Civ.A. 01-51, 2002 WL 1307333, at 10 n. 13 (D. Del. June 14, 2002) (The Court is aware that when invalidity is presented only as an affirmative defense, the court need not address invalidity when it finds non-infringement... However, since invalidity is also asserted as a counterclaim in this case, the court feels it is appropriate to address the invalidity of the [435] patent in spite of the finding of non-infringement.). Furthermore, courts consider non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment counterclaims to clarify legal rights in future litigation. See Altvater, 319 U.S. at 360-61. Geznyme Corp. v. Dr. Reddys Labs, Ltd., No. 13-1506-(GMS) 2016 WL 2757689, at 8 (D. Del. May 11, 2016). Finally, plaintiff has not identified any prejudice to him in the counterclaims he asks the Court to strike. See Uzlyan v. Solis, 706 F. Supp. 2d 44, 51-52 (D.D.C. 2010). Second, defendants' counterclaims contain sufficient factual allegations to withstand plaintiff's motions to dismiss them. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) requires a pleading to contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. See Aktieselkabet Af 21 Nov. 2001 v. Fame Jeans Inc. , 525 F.3d 8, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-670 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). The pleading must contain factual allegations that, accepted as true and construed in the defendants' favor, "state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, defendants have: (1) set forth the ways in which the patent at issue could be found to be invalid. And (2) have described the factual bases supporting their non-infringement counterclaim. See ECF No. 19 at 16-17, ECF No. 23 at 17-18, ECF No. 28 at 16-18. Accordingly, the factual allegations in the counterclaims are adequate to satisfy the pleading standard. See Dror v. Kenu Inc. , No. 19-CV-03043-LB, 2019 WL 5684520, at 10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 1, 2019) (denying motion to dismiss counterclaim for invalidity where the counterclaim identified "references to a specific piece of prior art" and thus provided plaintiff with adequate notice of the grounds for defendant's counterclaim). Nouis Techs. Inc. v. Polaris Indus. Inc, No. 14-CV-233-JDP, 2015 WL 3407862, at 3 (W.D. Wis. May 27, 2015) (denying motion to dismiss infringement counterclaim and noting that "[i]n patent litigation, a counterclaim for a declaration of non-infringement is largely a placeholder in case the plaintiff were to try to dismiss the case" and that "generally, denying the allegation of infringement more or less inherently sets up a plausible counterclaim for non-infringement.").Signed by Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on 11/24/2020. lcegs1)