Walter E. Hoffman United States Courthouse
600 Granby Street, Norfolk, VA 23510
Clerk's Office Telephone Number: (757)222-7201
Civil: http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/locations/nor.htm

• 6 August 2003 Final Order and Opinion (Excerpt)
  
  On May 27, 2003, after a five-week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict finding the defendants liable for $35 million for willfully infringing the plaintiff's patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,085,176 and 5,845,265.
  
  For the defendants to now argue that they were surprised or unprepared for trial on this issue is somewhat disingenuous . . . [t]he plaintiff offered a great amount of evidence to prove to the jury that the defendants are indeed trusted networks, including escrow services, conflict resolution services, insurance, payment intermediaries, authentication services, feedback forum, and the policing of the system. This evidence was certainly sufficient to meet the plaintiff's burden by a preponderance of the evidence.
  
  The court believes that the jury was entirely reasonable in finding that the defendants did not meet their burden [on invalidity].
  
  Download: Order (PDF Format 4.57 Mb)
  
  
• 13 November 2002 Hearing (Excerpt)
  
  THE COURT: You know, in deciding whether or not to take this hearing, I had to choose between this hearing and a root canal, and the only reason I didn't take the root canal was, I couldn't get an appointment. I don't mean to be frivolous, but I said that for a particular reason.
  I had a discussion with Judge Friedman earlier this week about this case, and I want everybody to understand that we're rapidly approaching the time where there may well be sanctions imposed by the court against the parties for the way you all are conducting this case because what's happening is, the legal issues in this case are getting bogged down into nonsense that the attorneys are engaging in, and it is extremely distressing to me, and I want to give you an example. I looked at this motion for contempt [of Mr. Omidyar] and the motion had, in support of it, a number of transcript hearings, some of which I found to be exceptionally enlightening about what is going on.
  
  "Physically, where did you search for the responsive documents?" a question by Mr. Robertson to Mr. Omidyar.
  
  "MR. RANDALL: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence."
  
  I don't know what facts were assumed not in evidence, Mr. Randall
  
  Your answer continues: "Also, I will caution you not to reveal any privileged communications."
  
  Now, I looked at several of the excerpts in which there are serious interruptions to the testimony being given for not one bloody legitimate or valid reason, period. In fact, to be frank, Mr. Randall, just looking at the excerpts, if I had been present when the deposition was going on or had been called while the deposition was going on, I'd have told you to go back to your firm and get somebody from your firm who knows how to depose or go into the hearing, because a lot of the objections are just designed to disrupt the discovery that is being taken, and that's all.
  
  Download: Order (PDF Format 7.6 Mb)
  
  
• 21 October 2002 Order Denying eBay’s Motion for Invalidity; Granting in Part and Denying in Part eBay's Motion for Invalidity; and Granting in Part and Denying in Part MercExchange's Motion for Judgment on eBay's § 112 Defense
  
  Download: Order (PDF Format 1.2 Mb)
  
  
• 18 October 2002 Markman Order and Opinion
  
  Download: Order (PDF Format 5.2 Mb)
  
  
• 10 July 2002 Order Denying eBay’s Motion for Invalidity
  
  Download: Order (PDF Format 2.2 Mb)
  
  
• 21 November 2001 Order and Opinion Denying eBay’s Joint Motion to Transfer
  
  Download: Order (PDF Format 1.58 Mb)
  
  
• 21 November 2001 Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement
  
  Download: Document (PDF Format 2.1 Mb)