On March 30, 2021, Gridley IP LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Gridley”), represented by Howard L. Wernow of Sand, Sebolt & Wernow, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Doordash, Inc. (hereinafter “Defendant”), seeking injunctive relief and damages with pre and post judgment interest for allegedly infringing and profiting, in an illegal and unauthorized manner, and without authorization and/or consent from Plaintiff from patents owned by Gridley. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Ohio with Judge James S. Gwin presiding.
The Plaintiff filed this action for the allegede infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,676,668 entitled “Method for determination of a time, location, and quality of goods to be made available based on mapped population activity” (“the ‘668 Patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,852,435 entitled “Telemetrics based on location and tracking” (“the ‘435 Patent) (collectively the “Patents-in-Suit”) owned by Gilead.
In this complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that “the Defendant commercializes, inter alia, methods that perform all the steps recited in at least one claim of the Patents-in-suit. More particularly, Defendant commercializes, inter alia, methods that perform all the steps recited in Claim 1 of the ‘668 Patent and Claim 9 of the ‘435 Patent. Specifically, Defendant makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, or imports a method performed by the Accused Product, defined below, that encompasses that which is covered by Claim 1 of the ‘668 Patent and Claim 9 of the ‘435 Patent.”
The Plaintiff further alleged that “the Defendant offers solutions, such as the “Doordash App” system (the “Accused Product”), that enables a method for mapping population activity.” And that “Defendant has directly infringed and continues to directly infringe at least one claim of the ‘668 Patent and the ‘435 Patent by using, at least through internal testing or otherwise, the Accused Product without authority in the United States, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this Court. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s direct infringement of the ‘668 Patent and the ‘435 Patent, Plaintiff has been and continues to be damaged.”
In the claim for relief laid down by the Plaintiff it has alleged that the Defendants have not only caused direct infringement of patents in suit but have also induced others to infringe the ‘668 Patent and the ‘435 Patent by encouraging infringement, knowing that the acts Defendant induced constituted patent infringement, and its encouraging acts actually resulted in direct patent infringement. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendant has injured Plaintiff and is thus liable for infringement of the ‘668 Patent and the ‘435 Patent, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.
In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the court to adjudge that they have infringed the Plaintiff’s patents as alleged and to pass an order for injunctive relief and damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284 with prejudgement and post judgment interest and enhanced damages including Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with this lawsuit pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285.
This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.
Disposed - Other Disposed
James S. Gwin
Gridley IP LLC
Howard L. Wernow
Attorney at Sand, Sebolt & Wernow
1100 Aegis Tower, 4940 Munson Street, Nw
Canton, OH 44718
David E. Dahlquist
Attorney at Winston & Strawn - Chicago
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Docket(#10) Report on the Determination [Closing] of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark (AO120). (Attachments: #1 Order)(W,Na) (Entered: 05/25/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#9) Order of Case Dismissal signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 5/19/2021. The Court approves voluntary dismissal without prejudice. re #8 (S,KM) (Entered: 05/19/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#8) Notice of Dismissal Under FRCP 41(a)(1) without Prejudice filed by Gridley IP LLC. (Wernow, Howard) (Entered: 05/18/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder [non-document] entered by Judge James S. Gwin on 5/10/2021 granting Motion for appearance pro hac vice by attorney David E. Dahlquist for Doordash, Inc.. Local Rule 5.1(c) requires that attorneys register for NextGen CM/ECF and file and receive all documents electronically. NextGen CM/ECF registration can be done online at www.pacer.gov. Login with your PACER credentials, go to the Maintenance tab, click Attorney Admissions/E-File Registration, select Ohio Northern District Court and then select Pro Hac Vice. If you were previously granted pro hac vice status and are already registered to file electronically, it is not necessary to register again. (Related Doc #7 )(S,KM) (Entered: 05/10/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#7) Motion for attorney David E. Dahlquist to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Filing fee $ 120, receipt number AOHNDC-10822749, filed by Defendant Doordash, Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-Certificate of Good Standing)(Dahlquist, David) (Entered: 05/07/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice to Attorney David E. Dahlquist. The Court finds no record of your being admitted to practice in the Northern District of Ohio. Pursuant to LR 83.5, an Application for Admission to Practice or a Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice in this case must be filed within 10 business days. The local rules and the attorney admission application are available on the court's web site at: www.ohnd.uscourts.gov. If you are not the attorney of record in this case, a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney pursuant to LR 83.9 must be filed within 10 business days. (O,K) (Entered: 05/04/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder [non-document] entered by Judge James S. Gwin on 5/4/2021 granting #6 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer until June 21, 2021 to answer. (S,KM) (Entered: 05/04/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#6) Unopposed Motion for extension of time until June 21, 2021 to answer or Otherwise Respond to Complaint filed by Defendant Doordash, Inc.. Related document(s) #5 , #1 . (Dahlquist, David) (Entered: 05/03/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#5) Return of Service by Clerk by certified mail executed upon Doordash, Inc. on 4/14/2021, filed on behalf of Gridley IP LLC. Related document(s) #4 . (L,Br) (Entered: 04/16/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketService by Clerk. Summons and Complaint addressed to Doordash, Inc. placed in U.S. Mail. Type of service: certified mail. Receipt # 7020 0090 0001 4429 0660. (L,MI) (Entered: 04/12/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketThis action has been identified as a Patent Case that is subject to the Local Patent Rules. Link to #Local Patent Rules. (M,MT) (Entered: 03/30/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#4) Original Summons and Magistrate Consent Form issued to counsel for service upon Doordash, Inc. (Attachments: #1 Magistrate Consent Form) (M,MT) (Entered: 03/30/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketRandom Assignment of Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 3.1. In the event of a referral, case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker. (M,MT) (Entered: 03/30/2021)Read MoreRead Less
DocketJudge James S. Gwin assigned to case. (M,MT) (Entered: 03/30/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#3) Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Gridley IP LLC. (Wernow, Howard) (Entered: 03/30/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#2) Report on the Filing of an Action Regarding a Patent or Trademark (AO120) filed by Gridley IP LLC. (Wernow, Howard) (Entered: 03/30/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Docket(#1) Complaint with jury demand against Doordash, Inc. Filing fee paid $402.00, Receipt number AOHNDC-10749760. Filed by Gridley IP LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A-US8676668, #2 Exhibit B-US9852435, #3 Exhibit C-'668 Claim Chart, #4 Exhibit D-'435 Claim Chart, #5 Civil Cover Sheet, #6 Summons) (Wernow, Howard) (Entered: 03/30/2021)Read MoreRead Less
Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases