Nimitz Technologies LLC v. Pinterest, Inc.

On August 30, 2021, Nimitz Technologies LLC (“Nimitz” or “Plaintiff”), represented by George Pazuniak of O'Kelly & Ernst, LLC, filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Pinterest, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Pinterest”), seeking an accounting of damages along with adjudication and prejudgment and post-judgment interest for the alleged infringement of the ’328 Patent owned by the Plaintiff. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Delaware with Judge Colm F. Connolly presiding.

The Plaintiff filed the complaint for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,328 (the “’328 Patent”) owned by Plaintiff.

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “In violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), Pinterest has practiced and continues to practice the method of at least Claim 1 of the ‘328 Patent by streaming the content found in https://Pinterest.com/ (“Accused Instrumentality”).”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Thus, the ‘328 Patent claims focus on specific improvements in computer capabilities as opposed to an invention that simply uses computers as a tool. The focus of the claimed advance is on a solution to a technological problem arising in computer operations and provides a specific improvement in computer capabilities or functionality, rather than only claiming a desirable result or function.”

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “As a result of Defendant’s infringement of the ’328 Patent, Plaintiff has suffered damages.” and also that “Only method claims of the ‘328 Patent are being asserted, and, thus, patent marking is not an issue. In any event, Nimitz has not commercialized any products under the ‘328 Patent and has no information that any prior owners of the Patent have not complied with patent marking requirements.”

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Nimitz is entitled to a money judgment in an amount adequate to compensate for Defendant’s infringement, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by Defendant, together with interest and costs as fixed by the Court.”

The only claim for relief laid down by the Plaintiff is for the alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,848,328 (the “’328 Patent”).

In the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff has requested the Court to pass an award of damages to be paid by the Defendant adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s past infringement of the ’328 Patent, including pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs, expenses, and an accounting of all infringing acts and an adjudication that the Defendant had infringed the ’328 Patent or any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.

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.