Alto Dynamics, LLC v. Harry's, Inc.
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-09866
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Alto Dynamics v. Harry’s, Judge Ramos granted Greenhouse Software’s motion to intervene in patent litigation.
Greenhouse Software may participate as an intervenor in Alto Dynamics’ patent-infringement lawsuit against Harry’s. The ruling also affects Alto Dynamics and Harry’s because Greenhouse is now allowed to participate in the litigation concerning its software and the ’190 patent.
What happened
In Alto Dynamics, LLC v. Harry’s, Inc., Alto Dynamics accused Harry’s of infringing five patents involving Harry’s website.
Greenhouse Software, which supplied résumé-parsing software involved in one accused patent, asked to join the case because it agreed to defend and partly reimburse Harry’s for that patent. Neither Alto Dynamics nor Harry’s opposed the request.
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Greenhouse’s motion to intervene, allowing it to participate in the case. The court found that Greenhouse acted promptly, had a direct legal interest in its technology, could be affected by the case, and had greater knowledge of its software.
The detailed version
- Alto Dynamics, LLC v. Harry's, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-09866
- Edgardo Ramos
- Apr. 6, 2023
Background
Alto Dynamics sued Harry’s, Inc. on five patent-infringement claims concerning Harry’s website. One asserted patent, the ’190 patent, involved résumé-parsing software provided by Greenhouse Software, Inc. Greenhouse had agreed to defend Harry’s and partially indemnify it regarding that patent. Greenhouse therefore sought permission to intervene, meaning to join the lawsuit as a party. Alto Dynamics and Harry’s did not oppose the request.
Legal standard
Under Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may intervene as of right if its request is timely, it has an interest related to the lawsuit, the case could impair its ability to protect that interest, and the existing parties do not adequately represent that interest. The interest must be direct, substantial, and legally protectable.
Court’s reasoning
The court found that Greenhouse sought intervention at the initial stages of the litigation, making its request timely. Greenhouse had a direct, substantial, and legally protectable interest because the accused products used its technology and Greenhouse had agreed to partially indemnify Harry’s. As the provider of the accused technology, Greenhouse had a strong interest in being heard on infringement. The court also found that Greenhouse had a greater interest than Harry’s and greater knowledge of its own software.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos granted Greenhouse’s motion to intervene. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion, docket entry 30.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.