SAN JOSE, Calif., Sept. 18 — A just-filed nationwide class action lawsuit challenges LinkedIn’s disturbing practice of accessing users’ third-party email accounts (e.g., Google’s Gmail, Yahoo! Mail) without users’ consent, harvesting email addresses that appear in the account, and sending multiple reminder emails ostensibly on behalf of the user advertising LinkedIn to non-members. The class action lawsuit charges LinkedIn with violations of federal and state law.
“The law recognizes this type of repeated emailing – using members names, to advertise LinkedIn’s service, without consent – is unacceptable. Through this class action, LinkedIn’s members can band together and compel LinkedIn’s compliance with the law.” Plaintiffs’ counsel Larry Russ.
Contrary to reassurances on LinkedIn’s website that it will not send emails “without your permission,” LinkedIn promotes its service by downloading email addresses from members’ external email accounts and repeatedly emailing the addresses requesting they join LinkedIn, if they are not a member. “These advertising emails give the impression that the member is endorsing LinkedIn,” stated Larry Russ.
“LinkedIn is growing its network by having members endorse LinkedIn multiple times without consent. LinkedIn generates multiple millions in revenue from new members by selling services directly attributable to its membership size.” Plaintiffs’ counsel Larry Russ.
LinkedIn admits in Securities and Exchange Commission filings “In order to grow our business, we must continually attract new customers.” LinkedIn points to its new “growth optimization efforts” as accounting for LinkedIn’s rapid member base growth.
The lawsuit alleges LinkedIn’s viral marketing practices violate California’s Common Law Right of Publicity, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Stored Communications Act, California’s Comprehensive Data Access and Fraud Act, California’s Invasion of Privacy Act, and the California Consumer Remedies Act.
Larry Russ, Dorian Berger, and Daniel Hipskind of Russ August & Kabat are counsel for the Plaintiffs.
Contact Russ August & Kabat
Russ August & Kabat, a leading Los Angeles-based law firm with an impressive litigation track record against the country’s leading technology companies. www.raklaw.com.
If you believe that LinkedIn accessed your external email account and sent messages to addresses stored in that account, without your consent, please contact us to submit your complaint at www.linkedinclassaction.com. The information you provide will assist in making LinkedIn comply with the law.
There is no charge or obligation for our review of your complaint. The nationwide class action, Perkins et al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. 13-cv-04303-HRL was filed in San Jose Federal Court in the Northern District of California.
Notice
The class action lawsuit seeks monetary relief for LinkedIn members affected by LinkedIn’s allegedly illegal marketing tactics, and injunctive relief to prevent the continued use of these tactics.
Russ August & Kabat Attorneys Michael S. Brophy, Eric J. Carsten, Jay Chung, Robert F. Gookin, Irene Y. Lee, Nathan D. Meyer, Fredricka Ung, Benjamin T. Wang Recognized as 2013 Southern California Rising Stars
Rising Stars are the top 2.5% percent of attorneys in each state, under 40 years old and/or who have been practicing for 10 years or less, as chosen by their peers and through an independent research. The Rising Stars process is designed to identify lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Rising Stars is a comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys, representing a wide range of practice areas, firm sizes and geographic locations.
Michael S. Brophy’s practice focuses on probate litigation, intellectual property, entertainment and employment matters. He has extensive experience in trust and estate litigation, copyright, Lanham Act, trade secret, patent, unfair competition, contract, and wrongful termination matters. In addition to litigation matters, his experience includes risk assessment and counseling, alternative dispute resolution, and administrative proceedings. Mr. Brophy received his J.D. from Harvard Law School.
Eric J. Carsten specializes in intellectual property and litigation. He has significant trial and arbitration experience. Mr. Carsten has handled complex commercial cases involving patents, trade secrets, trademarks, copyrights, securities, and contracts. In addition, Mr. Carsten provides counseling on copyright and trademark matters to a variety of business clients. Mr. Carsten earned his law degree from the University of Michigan, which he attended as a Clarence Darrow Scholar. He graduated magna cum laude and was admitted to the Order of the Coif. While in law school, Mr. Carsten served as an Associate Editor of the Michigan Law Review and as a Legal Practice Senior Judge.
C. Jay Chung specializes in intellectual property and litigation. Mr. Chung has litigated complex patent infringement cases involving a variety of technologies, including digital video recorders, DRAM, NAND Flash memory, and medical devices. Mr. Chung earned his law degree from Loyola Law School, where he graduated magna cum laude and as a member of Order of the Coif and St. Thomas More Law Honor Society. While at Loyola, Mr. Chung was the Technology Editor of the Loyola Law Review. He earned his Bachelor of Science in Operations Research and Industrial Engineering from Cornell University.
Robert F. Gookin’s practice focuses on intellectual property, complex commercial litigation and probate litigation. Mr. Gookin has been extensively involved in all aspects of patent, trademark, securities, probate and complex business litigation. He received his B.A. from Columbia College and his J.D., cum laude, from Loyola Law School, where he was elected Order of the Coif. Mr. Gookin was a staff member on the Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review and a member of the St. Thomas More Law Honor Society.
Irene Y. Lee’s practice focuses on intellectual property matters, with an emphasis on patent and trademark enforcement and licensing. As a registered patent attorney licensed to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, she brings her patent prosecution experience to strategizing litigation matters and licensing issues. Through patent, trademark and Internet-related litigation, she has enforced intellectual property rights of some of the world’s largest medical device, computer software and apparel companies, as well as small to medium-sized businesses and individuals. She provides preventative counseling through rendering opinions and reviewing potential investments concerning intellectual property. Ms. Lee received her J.D. from Loyola Law School, where she served as the Vice President of St. Thomas More Honor Society. She earned her Bachelor of Science in biochemistry from UCLA.
Nathan D. Meyer’s practice focuses on general litigation and intellectual property matters, with an emphasis on general business litigation and soft IP. His experience includes copyright, apparel, contract and real estate litigation. Mr. Meyer is a graduate of Harvard Law School and Harvard College.
Fredricka Ung’s practice focuses on general litigation and intellectual property matters. Ms. Ung has represented clients in a variety of industries, including biotechnology, nanoclay technology, and digital signature and encryption technology. Ms. Ung is a graduate of the University of Minnesota Law School, where she served as Managing Editor of the University of Minnesota Law Review.
Benjamin T. Wang’s practice focuses on complex business and intellectual property litigation at both the trial court and appellate court levels. In 2009, Mr. Wang was appointed to a three-year term on the California State Bar’s Committee on Federal Courts. Mr. Wang earned his law degree from USC Gould School of Law, where he graduated as a member of the honor society Order of the Coif.
February 2013
Russ August & Kabat Obtains $20 Million Judgment in Patent Case Affirmed by Federal Circuit
Russ, August & Kabat attorneys Marc A. Fenster, Jules L. Kabat, Alexander C.D. Giza, Adam S. Hoffman, and Benjamin T. Wang won a $20 million judgment after a jury trial that was affirmed by the United Sates Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on February 8, 2013, in favor of their client, Clear With Computers, LLC against Hyundai Motor America, Inc.
Hyundai appealed an $11.5 million jury verdict finding that its website and related systems infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,606,739, and that the patent was neither invalid in light of the prior art nor for lack of written description. The patent generally relates to systems and methods for preparing customized sales proposals.
The jury verdict was the result of a week-long trial in the Eastern District of Texas before Chief Judge Leonard Davis. Clear With Computers was represented by Russ August & Kabat attorneys Fenster, Kabat, Giza, Hoffman, and Wang. Hyundai was represented by a team of 10 attorneys primarily from the international law firm of Winston & Strawn and led by Gene Schaerr, chair of the firm’s appellate practice.
On appeal, Hyundai challenged the jury’s verdict of numerous grounds. Hyundai argued that Clear With Computers failed to present any evidence that Hyundai’s website was of “particular interest to the customer” as required by the claims, and that Hyundai performed all of the steps of the claims. Hyundai also argued that prior art systems from the Ford Motor Co. and Buick, supported by evidence and testimony from the designers of those systems, invalidated the patent, and that the patent was invalid for lack of written description. Hyundai also challenged the damages verdict as based on evidence with no nexus to the patented technology. And Hyundai challenged the jury instructions on invalidity and the District Court’s rejection of its attempt to impugn the character of a Clear With Computer witness at trial.
Oral argument on the appeal took place on February 5, 2013, before Circuit Judges Moore, Clevenger, and O’Malley. Fenster argued for Clear With Computers, and Schaerr argued for Hyundai. Three days later the Court affirmed the jury verdict on all grounds in favor of Russ August & Kabat client Clear With Computers in a per curiam judgment. The Court also awarded Clear With Computers costs on appeal. All told, the Court’s decision results in a $20 million award consisting of the $11.5 million trial verdict awarded by the jury, royalties going forward for the life of the patent, interest, and costs.
Listen to the recording of oral argument.
Russ August & Kabat Attorneys Recognized as 2013 Southern California Super Lawyers, including Larry C. Russ and Jules L. Kabat, who are Named Top 100 Super Lawyers
Russ August & Kabat is proud of Larry C. Russ, Jules L. Kabat, Richard L. August, Marc A. Fenster, Alexander C.D. Giza, Steven M. Goldberg and Adam Hoffman, all of who have been recognized as 2013 Southern California Super Lawyers by the publishers of Los Angeles Magazine.
In addition, Larry C. Russ and Jules L. Kabat have been recognized as Top 100 Super Lawyers, a great honor. Super Lawyers are the top 5 percent of attorneys in each state, as chosen by their peers and through an independent research. Super Lawyers is a comprehensive and diverse listing of outstanding attorneys, representing a wide range of practice areas, firm sizes and geographic locations.
NOVEMBER 2012
Russ August & Kabat expands its Patent Litigation department with addition of Paul A. Kroeger.
Russ August & Kabat is pleased to announce that Paul A. Kroeger has joined the firm’s litigation and intellectual property departments.
Mr. Kroeger’s practice focuses on complex business and intellectual property litigation at both the trial court and appellate court levels. Prior to Joining Russ August & Kabat, he was an associate at Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP and Raines Feldman LLP. Mr. Kroeger earned his law degree from USC Law School. He earned a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from USC, as well.
Russ August & Kabat lawyers Marc A. Fenster and Nathan D. Meyer secured a victory for James Giebeler, the inventor and patent-holder of an oil drilling patent, against his brother Norm’s claim that he owned half of the patent.
This victory occurred after a full trial before the San Bernardino Superior Court. Mr. Meyer delivered both the opening and closing arguments in this matter, in addition to taking testimony.
See verdict.
