Ottah v. Verizon Services Corp.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:19-cv-08552
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ottah v. Verizon, Judge Schofield converted Verizon’s dismissal motion into summary judgment proceedings on patent infringement and standing after outside evidence was submitted.
Chikezie Ottah and Verizon Services Corp. were affected by the conversion of Verizon’s motion to dismiss into summary judgment proceedings. The order also addressed evidence concerning Ottah’s patent co-owners and set submission deadlines for both sides.
What happened
In Ottah v. Verizon Services Corp., pro se plaintiff Chikezie Ottah sued Verizon Services Corp. over alleged infringement of a patent. The parties had fully briefed Verizon’s motion to dismiss.
Ottah submitted materials outside the complaint, including images of Verizon vehicles and the alleged infringing products. He also submitted letters from patent co-owners that allegedly gave up their right to sue jointly, raising a question about Ottah’s standing to sue.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield ordered that Verizon’s motion be treated as a motion for summary judgment on whether Verizon infringed the patent and whether Ottah has standing. The court set deadlines for both sides to submit evidence and supplemental briefs; it did not decide those issues in this order.
The detailed version
- Ottah v. Verizon Services Corp. · No. 1:19-cv-08552
- Lorna Schofield
- Feb. 6, 2020
Background
Chikezie Ottah, proceeding without a lawyer, sued Verizon Services Corp. for alleged infringement of a patent. Verizon filed a motion to dismiss, and the parties fully briefed it.
In opposing the motion, Ottah submitted materials not included in the complaint. These included an image of the license plate of a second Verizon vehicle that allegedly contained the infringing product, even though the complaint said Ottah saw only one such vehicle. He also submitted close-up images of the alleged infringing products inside Verizon vehicles. Separately, he filed letters from his patent co-owners that allegedly disclaimed their right to sue jointly in this case. The issue concerning those letters had not been raised in the complaint.
Conversion to Summary Judgment
The court ordered that Verizon’s motion to dismiss be converted into a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d). Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding whether the evidence shows that a dispute requiring a trial exists. The court identified two issues for summary judgment: (1) whether Verizon infringed the subject patent, and (2) whether Ottah has standing to sue because his patent co-owners were not included in the lawsuit.
Because materials outside the complaint had been presented, the court stated that the motion had to be treated as one for summary judgment if those materials were not excluded. The court also stated that the parties must have a reasonable opportunity to submit material relevant to that motion.
Deadlines and Effect of the Order
Verizon was ordered to file supporting evidence by March 6, 2020. Its evidence could include images or declarations concerning the alleged infringing products inside Verizon vehicles during the relevant period, as well as evidence addressing whether Ottah’s images were authentic. Verizon could submit supplemental briefing of no more than five double-spaced pages.
Ottah was allowed to file evidence and supplemental briefing, also limited to five double-spaced pages, within 30 days after Verizon filed its additional evidence. The court noted that although Verizon had the burden of producing evidence, Ottah could submit evidence opposing Verizon’s arguments. For example, Ottah could submit evidence supporting the authenticity of the patent co-owners’ disclaimers.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s order converted the motion and set an evidence-submission schedule. It did not rule on whether Verizon infringed the patent or whether Ottah had standing. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the order to Ottah.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.