Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Glassey v. Microsemi Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. California

October 30, 2014

TODD S. GLASSEY and MICHAEL E. McNEIL, Plaintiffs,
v.
MICROSEMI INC., THE IETF AND ISOC, AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY PARTNERS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO APPLE, CISCO, EBAY/PAYPAL, GOOGLE, JUNIPER NETWORKS, MICROSOFT, NETFLIX, AND ORACLE), USPTO ALJ PETER CHEN ESQ., AND TWO INDIVIDUALS (MARK HASTINGS AND ERIK VAN DER KAAY) AS

ORDER STRIKING COMPLAINT AND VACATING HEARINGS

WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.

INTRODUCTION

Two pro se plaintiffs allege that "the entire world has become an infringer" based on a technology that allegedly controls "most all online commerce globally." They have sued a litany of individuals and entities, including numerous technology companies, federal agencies, the Governor of California, and the President of the United States. Six defendants have filed motions to dismiss. No defendants have filed an answer. For the reasons stated herein, the first amended complaint is hereby STRICKEN.

STATEMENT

Pro se plaintiffs are Todd S. Glassey and Michael E. McNeil.[*] The first amended complaint alleges as follows.

In October 1998, plaintiffs say they entered into an agreement in which Digital Delivery, Inc. ("DDI") allegedly agreed to submit a "Controlling Access" patent application. DDI then became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Datum, Inc., which then commenced a lawsuit against plaintiffs (and Glassey-McNeil Technologies), which settled. In pertinent part, as part of that settlement in 1999, plaintiffs say they agreed to assign all rights to the "Controlling Access" patent and "Phase II Technology" to Datum. U.S. Patent Nos. 6, 370, 629 and 6, 393, 126 issued in 2002. Datum was identified as the assignee on the face of both patents.

In October 2013, Mr. Glassey and Mr. McNeil (via counsel) commenced an action against Symmetricom, Inc., which allegedly acquired the "assets and liabilities of Datum" in 2002. Glassey, et al. v. Symmetricom, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-04662-NC (N.D. Cal.) (Judge Nat Cousins) (Dkt. Nos. 1, 40, 45). The action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, after an order to show cause regarding subject-matter jurisdiction issued.

In August 2014, Mr. Glassey and Mr. McNeil - now proceeding pro se - commenced this action. The first amended complaint is fifty pages. In essence, to the extent comprehensible, it alleges that Datum interfered with plaintiffs' efforts to license the "Phase II Technology, as embodied in the 629 Patent" (Amd. Compl. ¶ 122). The agreements from the late 1990s were allegedly "breached" by defendant Microsemi Inc. The "Phase II Technology" was and is allegedly "inside the machines" adopted by the "Internet Engineering Task Force" ("IETF"), a "global standards organization." "The functional result is that everyone using the Local Area Networking Protocols outside the Internet is also an infringer" (Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 37-39).

The "World's Internet Standards [have] created three billion daily infringers" and the "net-effect is this single Patent now controls (or there are claims for) most all online commerce globally." The antitrust laws allegedly have been violated to prevent plaintiffs from exploiting their "global monopoly." Numerous federal agencies, including the Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury, Department of Defense, and so forth, allegedly use "infringing technologies." Cisco Systems, Inc., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp., Oracle Corp., eBay, Inc., PayPal, Inc., Microsemi Inc., and others are also referenced in the pleading (Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 18, 163).

The pleading further alleges that this dispute implicates "national security." It speculates that the President of the United States issued a "National Security Letter" to cover up a "fraud" and that this letter "may have been" served on the "California Judiciary" (Amd. Compl. ¶¶ 188-91). This action was reassigned to the undersigned judge in September 2014.

Plaintiff Mr. Glassey then filed a motion for a "three-judge panel, " which was denied. He also larded the record with voluminous "exhibits" (Dkt. Nos. 17-31, 53-57).

Now, Cisco Systems, Inc., the Internet Society (and the Internet Engineering Task Force), eBay Inc., PayPal, Inc., and Google Inc. move to dismiss the first amended complaint. Mr. Glassey opposes (Dkt. Nos. 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 94, 95). Although he failed to obtain prior permission to file a sur-reply, it has been reviewed. Other defendants that have appeared have filed stipulations to extend the time to respond to the operative pleading. For example, the deadline for the United States to respond is currently December 11. No defendant has filed an answer. The parties (that have appeared) have also filed a stipulation to continue the November 20 case management conference.

ANALYSIS

The first amended complaint suffers from so many deficiencies that it would be hopeless to proceed. This order will only address a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.