Taurus Ip, LLC v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.
| Decision Date | 03 June 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 07-cv-158-bbc.,07-cv-158-bbc. |
| Citation | 559 F.Supp.2d 947 |
| Parties | TAURUS IP, LLC,<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> Plaintiff, v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION, DaimlerChrysler Company, LLC, Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., Chrysler, LLC, Chrysler Holding, LLC and Chrysler Financial, LLC, Defendants. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc and DaimlerChrysler Company, LLC, Third Party Plaintiffs, v. Taurus IP, LLC, Orion IP, LLC, Plutus IP Wisconsin, LLC, and Erich Spangenberg, Third Party Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Wisconsin |
Allen Arntsen, Foley & Lardner LLP, Madison, WI, for Toyota Motor North America, Inc.
Daniel Bach, Madison, WI, David G. Hanson, Reinhart Boerner Van Deuren S.C., Milwaukee, WI, for Orion, LLC, NY.
John J. Edmonds, The Edmonds Law Firm, P.C., Houston, TX, Robert J. Garrey, Marshall, TX, Michael John Newton, The Law Offices of Michael J. Newton, Flower Mound, TX, David Michael Pridham, Barrington, RI, Joseph A. Ranney, DeWitt, Ross & Stevens S.C., Madison, WI, Kajeer Yar, Tulsa, OK, for Taurus IP, LLC, NY.
Bonnie M. Grant, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, Ronald Lee Raider, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Chrysler, LLC.
Robert Stanton Jones, Milwaukee, WI, for Erich Spangenberg, NY.
Wab P. Kadaba, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, Joseph A. Ranney, DeWitt Ross & Stevens S.C., Madison, WI, Vanessa M. Spencer, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, Mitchell L. Stockwell, Kilpatrick Stockton LLP, Atlanta, GA, Joseph P. Wright, Stafford Rosenbaum LLP, Madison, WI, for Mereedes-Benz USA, Inc., NY.
This civil action for patent infringement was filed on March 20, 2007. On February 25, 2008, I granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs infringement claims filed by the Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz defendants after I found that defendants' products did not infringe plaintiff's United States Patent No. 6,141,658 (the '658 patent) and that certain claims of the motion for summary judgment on defendants' breach of warranty claim. Defendants proceeded to trial on their claim that, in transferring the '658 patent before third party defendants Orion IP, LLC entered into a settlement of patent litigation in Texas, Orion IP, LLC and Erich Spangenberg breached the representation and warranty clause contained in the settlement agreement with defendants. The jury returned a verdict against Orion IP, LLC, finding that it had breached the settlement's representation and warranty clause. The amount of damages and defendants' contention that Orion's corporate veil should be pierced to reach Erich Spangenberg were left for post-trial briefing.
While those issues were being briefed, the parties raised several other matters. Defendants moved for a permanent injunction; an award of attorney fees against Orion IP, LLC both as damages and as fees allowable to "prevailing parties" in Texas breach of contract suits; an award of attorney fees against Taurus IP, LLC under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and additional sanctions against Taurus, IP, LLC, Orion IP, LLC and Spangenberg. Taurus moved for relief from the summary judgment ruling of invalidity, arguing that it had discovered "new evidence." Spangenberg and Orion IP, LLC moved for reconsideration of the ruling that Spangenberg had engaged in sanctionable behavior, moved for leave to conduct additional discovery and moved to compel disclosure of privileged information offered as in camera evidence during the hearing on sanctions.
The post-trial disputes will be resolved as follows. (1) Defendants' motion for permanent injunction will be denied because the injunction they request is overly broad and unnecessary; (2) the corporate veil will not be pierced to make Spangenberg personally liable for a judgment to be entered against Orion IP, LLC because there is insufficient evidence that Orion IP, LLC is likely to evade a judgment entered against it; however, Spangenberg and Orion IP, LLC will be enjoined from dissipating the assets of Orion IP, LLC; (3) defendants' motion for attorney fees from Taurus IP, LLC under 35 U.S.C. § 285 will be granted and Taurus IP, LLC will be jointly and severally liable with Orion IP, LLC for $1,644,906.12; (4) defendants' motion for an award of additional attorney fees against Orion IP, LLC for its breach of warranty will be granted in the amount of $2,194,510.25;(5) defendants' motion for additional sanctions against Taurus IP, LLC, Orion IP, LLC and Spangenberg for their behavior at trial will be denied because the behavior to which defendants object does not warrant additional sanctions; (6) Taurus's motion for relief from the summary judgment ruling of invalidity will be denied because Taurus could have discovered the allegedly new evidence sooner had it been more diligent; (7) Orion IP, LLC's and Spangenberg's motion for reconsideration of the ruling that Spangenberg engaged in sanctionable behavior will be denied because I find clear and convincing evidence that Spangenberg was responsible for Anderson's attempt to improperly influence a witness and this behavior warrants the sanctions imposed against the company for which he was acting; (8) Orion IP, LLC's and Spangenberg's motion for leave to conduct additional discovery will be denied because Orion IP, LLC and Spangenberg have failed to demonstrate "good cause" for their failure to resolve their discovery disputes within the scheduling deadlines; (9) Orion IP, LLC's and Spangenberg's motion to compel disclosure of unredacted versions of the privileged letter sent by Anderson and the in camera testimony of Anderson will be denied because defendants have offered to release a redacted version of the transcript (dkt.# 543) that contains all the information I relied upon to determine that Spangenberg's behavior was sanctionable.
The parties have proposed findings of facts related to the issues of defendants' motion for permanent injunction and Spangenberg's alter ego liability. Because the parties' findings of facts for these separate issues overlap, I make the following findings of fact in connection with both issues.
Before I turn to the facts, I note that defendants objected to several facts proposed by plaintiff and third party defendants, asserting that it is too late for plaintiff and third party defendants to produce evidence at a level of detail they refused to produce during discovery. It is too late for defendants to raise discovery disputes. These objections will be disregarded. I find the following facts to be material and undisputed.
Spangenberg owns IP Navigation, LLC, a company that provides receptionist and management support to several limited liability companies. Spangenberg is employed by IP Navigation to act as manager of limited liability companies that are, generally speaking, in the business of licensing and enforcing patents (but generally not in the business of practicing any of the patented inventions). These companies include Orion IP, LLC, Taurus IP, LLC, Plutus IP, LLC, Plutus IP Wisconsin, LLC, Constellation IP, LLC and Caelum IP, LLC. IP Navigation has received more than $5 million for services provided to these companies. Spangenberg's salary from IP Navigation for 2007 was $133,458.28.
The companies managed by Spangenberg are organized in a hierarchical structure and ultimately owned by a company called Acclaim Financial Group, LLC, which in turn is 99% owned by Spangenberg's wife, Audrey Spangenberg, and 1% owned by Spangenberg's minor child, Christian Spangenberg. At times, Spangenberg consults with the owners of Acclaim and with legal, financial and tax advisers before making managerial decisions for the various companies.
Plutus is owned by Acclaim Financial Group, which provided Plutus's initial capitalization of $1,000. Plutus owns a number of companies that license patents. Either directly or indirectly, Plutus currently owns or is the sole member of Orion IP, LLC, Constellation and Plutus IP Wisconsin. (For the purpose of the post-trial motions, I refer to Plutus, Orion IP, LLC, Constellation, Plutus IP Wisconsin and Taurus collectively as the "Orion Related Companies.").
Plutus provides cash management services and investment capital to the other Orion Related Companies. Orion Related Companies make requests for money either up the chain of companies or directly to Plutus, which provides the money either down the chain or directly to a requesting company. "Early on," Orion Related Companies's requests for money were made directly to Acclaim Financial Group.
As the manager of the various entities, Spangenberg requests funds from Plutus and authorizes funds to be disbursed from Plutus. For example, as manager of Taurus, Spangenberg might ask Spangenberg, as manager of Plutus, for an advance, at which point Spangenberg will decide whether to grant Spangenberg's request. The transactions between the entities are made in writing and reflected in the separate books and records of those entities. Plutus acquired a $10 million line of credit to fund its operations and the subsidiary entitities.
Plutus prepares a consolidated audited financial statement that combines the financial information of all the Orion Related Companies without distinguishing among the revenue, expenses, property, assets, and liabilities of each company.
On January 6, 2004, Spangenberg executed the formation documents of Orion IP, LLC, organized under the laws of the state of Delaware. Orion IP, LLC was capitalized with $1,000. Spangenberg was the manager of Orion IP, LLC.
Orion IP, LLC maintained its own bank...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Taurus Ip, LLC v. Daimlerchrysler Corp.
...the district court found the DaimlerChrysler Patent Suit to be exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285. See Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 559 F.Supp.2d 947, 966–69 (W.D.Wis.2008) (the “Post–Trial Decision ”). As a result, the district court awarded damages in the amount of $1,644,906.1......
-
Biax Corp. v. Nvidia Corp.
...entire litigation determined 'based on the record ultimately made in the infringement proceedings.'"); Taurus IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 559 F. Supp. 2d 947, 968 (W.D. Wis. 2008) ("Taurus's decision to proceed in the face of this court's [claim] constructions prolonged the litigation......
-
BIAX Corp. v. NVIDIA Corp.
...of non-infringement, thereby prolonging the litigation in bad faith. Docket No. 1037 at 12-13(citing Taurus IP [, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 559 F. Supp. 2d 947, 968 (W.D. Wis. 2008)). The Court denied defendants' request for fees pursuant to § 1927. Docket No. 1037 at 16 ("As the Court ......
-
Parallel Iron LLC v. NetApp, Inc.
...his “use of his corporate entities is certainly cause for concern.” (D.I. 104 at p. 10 (quoting Taurus IP, LLCv. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 559 F.Supp.2d 947, 961 (W.D.Wis.2008), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 726 F.3d 1306 (Fed.Cir.2013) ).Plaintiff argues that there is no reas......