Monster Cable sues Blue Jeans Cable Options

[impala454]

Most of you have probably never heard of Blue Jeans Cable, they're a A/V cable company pretty popular amongst the A/V junkies "in the know". Monster is a four letter word to most in the industry. Anyhow Monster is suing Blue Jeans saying patent infringement on some connector Blue Jeans is using. The funny part is supposedly this is a fairly frivolous suit, and the lawyers at Monster were unaware that the owner of Blue Jeans cable just happened to be a federal litigator for large corporate lawsuits for twenty years . The response letter he sent was pretty good (long read, but pretty awesome):

RE: Your letter, received April Fools' Day

Dear Monster Lawyers,

Let me begin by stating, without equivocation, that I have no interest whatsoever in infringing upon any intellectual property belonging to Monster Cable. Indeed, the less my customers think my products resemble Monster's, in form or in function, the better.

[blah blah long winded techincal explanations of the patents in question]

I have seen Monster Cable take untenable IP positions in various different scenarios in the past, and am generally familiar with what seems to be Monster Cable's modus operandi in these matters. I therefore think that it is important that, before closing, I make you aware of a few points.

After graduating from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 1985, I spent nineteen years in litigation practice, with a focus upon federal litigation involving large damages and complex issues. My first seven years were spent primarily on the defense side, where I developed an intense frustration with insurance carriers who would settle meritless claims for nuisance value when the better long-term view would have been to fight against vexatious litigation as a matter of principle. In plaintiffs' practice, likewise, I was always a strong advocate of standing upon principle and taking cases all the way to judgment, even when substantial offers of settlement were on the table. I am "uncompromising" in the most literal sense of the word. If Monster Cable proceeds with litigation against me I will pursue the same merits-driven approach; I do not compromise with bullies and I would rather spend fifty thousand dollars on defense than give you a dollar of unmerited settlement funds. As for signing a licensing agreement for intellectual property which I have not infringed: that will not happen, under any circumstances, whether it makes economic sense or not.

I say this because my observation has been that Monster Cable typically operates in a hit-and-run fashion. Your client threatens litigation, expecting the victim to panic and plead for mercy; and what follows is a quickie negotiation session that ends with payment and a licensing agreement. Your client then uses this collection of licensing agreements to convince others under similar threat to accede to its demands. Let me be clear about this: there are only two ways for you to get anything out of me. You will either need to (1) convince me that I have infringed, or (2) obtain a final judgment to that effect from a court of competent jurisdiction. It may be that my inability to see the pragmatic value of settling frivolous claims is a deep character flaw, and I am sure a few of the insurance carriers for whom I have done work have seen it that way; but it is how I have done business for the last quarter-century and you are not going to change my mind. If you sue me, the case will go to judgment, and I will hold the court's attention upon the merits of your claims--or, to speak more precisely, the absence of merit from your claims--from start to finish. Not only am I unintimidated by litigation; I sometimes rather miss it.

I will also point out to you that if you do choose to undertake litigation, your "upside" is tremendously limited. If you somehow managed, despite the formidable obstacles in your way, to obtain a finding of infringement, and if you were successful at recovering a large licensing fee--say, ten cents per connector--as the measure of damages, your recovery to date would not reach four figures. On the downside, I will advance defenses which, if successful, will substantially undermine your future efforts to use these patents and marks to threaten others with these types of actions; as you are of course aware, it is easier today for your competitors to use collateral estoppel offensively than it ever has been before. Also, there is little doubt that making baseless claims of trade dress infringement and design patent infringement is an improper business tactic, which can give rise to unfair competition claims, and for a company of Monster's size, potential antitrust violations with treble damages and attorneys' fees.

I look forward to receiving the information requested and will review it promptly as soon as it is received.

Sincerely,

Kurt Denke

full text here: http://www.audioholics.com/news/industry-n...ns-strikes-back

[Seeker]

pwn3d

[Divergent Realit...]

thats a fun little letter.

[Mommy]

I wouldn't mess with that dude any further after getting a letter like that. He is obviously extremely educated.

[impala454]

Supposedly from the Minneapolis StarTribune Newspaper on Monday

"Inside Track: A Monster dispute is licked
Last update: July 20, 2008 - 10:05 PM

Attorneys for Winthrop & Weinstine recently convinced Monster Cable that a product called "Monster Deer Block" would not cause confusion in the marketplace with its cable products.

There is a considerable difference, Winthrop attorneys argued, between a flavored salt and mineral lick designed to attract wild deer and Monster Cable's electric cable and connectors for wiring household electronics. California-based Monster Cable withdrew its trademark challenge after the Minneapolis attorneys filed a dismissal motion on behalf of Denco, an ethanol producer in Morris, Minn., that has been selling Monster Deer Block since 2005."

[chook]

The suit should of been the other way, with Monster cable being sued cause the name would make the salt lick sound like it sucked.