The US Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit ruled Tuesday that Internet phone company Vonage can subscribe new customers while it appeals a lower court finding that it infringed three patents held by Verizon Communications, Inc. In the wake of the finding, US District Judge Claude M. Hilton issued an order prohibiting Vonage from subscribing new customers. Vonage will also continue paying a 5.5 percent royalty rate on all future sales to an escrow account while the appeal is pending. The appeals court scheduled oral arguments for June 25.

Verizon filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Vonage in June, accusing it of violating seven Verizon patents. On March 8, a federal jury returned a verdict finding that Vonage had violated [Verizon press release; Vonage press release] three voice-over-Internet Protocol patents held by Verizon, awarding Verizon $58 million dollars in compensation plus future royalties amounting to 5.5 percent of Vonage's revenues if Vonage continues to use the patented technology. Hilton, saying he did not wish to irreparably harm Vonage's business, issued the partial injunction as a less severe punishment than one he initially proposed, which would would have disrupted phone service for Vonage's 2.2 million existing customers. Vonage lawyers argued in response that the ruling would "slowly strangle" Vonage because it would be unable to compensate for customers that routinely switch services in the highly competitive industry. Vonage lawyers projected that the phone service would lose approximately 650,000 subscribers over the course of next year. Earlier this month, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an emergency stay of the injunction.

Vonage customers overseas should not be affected by the Internet voice company’s recent legal troubles, according to a company spokesman.

“We don’t anticipate any changes or interruptions in phone service as a result of this litigation, so we advise customers to continue using their service as they always have,” said John Yocca, Vonage public relations manager, in a written response to a query from Stars and Stripes. “There are many options available to us and we are prepared to implement them as necessary.”

Rates for the Voice over Internet Protocol, or VoIP, technologies that allow consumers to make calls over the Internet aren’t expected to change, either, he added.

Last week, a federal judge said he would issue an injunction barring Vonage Holdings Corp. from using Internet phone call technology patented by Verizon Communications Inc., but delayed signing the order for two weeks.

Vonage currently offers service in the United States, Canada and United Kingdom, but Yocca said customers can take their Vonage devices anywhere in the world where VoIP is legal and a high-speed cable connection is available.

Servicemembers arriving in South Korea before June 1 can continue using Vonage and other U.S. VoIP companies to make international phone calls. Those arriving in country after June 1 will be required to use a South Korean VoIP provider.

An Illinois jury sided with Merck & Co. Tuesday in the latest Vioxx litigation, holding that the painkiller was not the cause of the 2003 death of 52-year-old Patty Schwaller. Schwaller's husband claimed that Vioxx contributed to his wife's fatal heart attack and that Merck failed to adequately warn doctors and consumers about the increased risk of heart attack associated with the drug. A Madison County jury found, however, that Schwaller's collapse and sudden death may have been caused by risks associated with her weight and other health issues.

In early March, the New Jersey Superior Court upheld a separate jury verdict that found Merck adequately warned physicians of the risks associated with Vioxx. A week later, a New Jersey jury awarded a plaintiff $20 million and held that Vioxx caused the plaintiff's heart attack and, had the plaintiff's doctor known of the risks associated with Vioxx, he would not have prescribed it to the plaintiff. Merck faces more than 27,000 lawsuits from people who say they were harmed by the once $2.5 billion-a-year drug before it was pulled from the market [press release] in September 2004. Merck has set aside $1 billion to fight every Vioxx court challenge. In November 2006, a federal judge declined to certify a national class action suit, ruling that it made more sense to try the cases in their respective states of origin.

David Boies is a legal superstar, a legendary attorney who has represented some of the nation's most famous clients in some of the legal industry's most heralded cases. The author of "Courting Justice," Boies recounts his most celebrated cases, a range of highly memorable - and controversial - trials: Litigants range from recently deceased General William Westmoreland to former Vice President Al Gore, each of whom - either as opponents or clients of this famed attorney - experienced the talent, eloquence and professionalism of this highly skilled individual. In fact, Mr. Boies talks passionately about his work in the Microsoft antitrust trial where he successfully proved that the software giant had an unfair monopoly over its competitors. In each of these instances, and without any use of malice or invective, Mr. Boies speaks openly about his experiences as a litigator, an author and a notable advocate on behalf of immediately recognizable clients. Yet, his most admirable trait is his humility: At no point does he resort to braggadocio or self-indulgent commentary; he speaks about his adversaries with respect and courtesy. And yes, Mr. Boies knows the bitter taste of defeat, having lost high profile cases with enormous implications. Translation: He is a mortal, just like the rest of us, albeit with an excellent legal mind. In short, David Boies is an accomplished litigator and defender of important legal rights. His story deserves our attention -- what an interesting person! You can listen to this exciting interview at www.prlawinc.com

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California today sued the city of Garden Grove for using an unconstitutional city code to prevent local Buddhists from expanding their congregation.

The lawsuit on behalf of Quan Am Temple, which is also known as the Vietnamese Buddhism Study Temple, was filed in federal district court in Santa Ana.

"Under the Garden Grove city code, city officials have full discretion to decide what religious institutions are allowed to practice in the city and where they are allowed to practice," said Belinda Escobosa Helzer, a staff attorney for the ACLU of Southern California in Orange County. "We are challenging this unconstitutional code so that Quan Am Temple and other religious institutions in the future are legally allowed to practice their religion."

The current Garden Grove statute requires religious institutions to be housed in residential zones or seek a zone change from the city and obtain a conditional use permit prior to practicing their religion in the city. The city used this ordinance to prevent the Quan Am Temple from moving to its newly purchased building, even though the city has routinely allowed non-profit organizations to be housed in commercial areas, and has granted zone changes to other religious groups.

The ACLU is asking the court to block the city from enforcing the ordinance because it violates the U.S. and California Constitutions as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, a federal statute that protects religious freedom in the land-use and prison contexts.

"It is very difficult for us to file this complaint, but we feel we have been left with no choice," said Thich Dao Quang, the abbot of the Quan Am Temple. "We have done everything possible to allay the concerns of the city. We reduced the size of the temple, we added extra parking, we offered to pay property taxes, we proposed a shuttle service for congregants on busy holidays and we even paid for a traffic study of the site that said traffic would be reduced, but still the temple has been denied. We now have nowhere to practice our religion."

Quan Am Temple opened in Garden Grove in 1999, but by 2003 the congregation had outgrown its one-story building. To better accommodate its congregation of 150 to 300 area residents and 14 monks and nuns, in 2004 temple leaders purchased a medical building on 1.8 acres using a $1.95 million loan from a congregant. The building had been on the market for three years in an area zoned for "office-professional" use. According to the complaint, the temple received assurances from city council members that the city would support converting the building to place of worship. However, despite a recommendation from city staff, the planning commission and the city council denied the temple's requests for permits to begin converting the site.

"The city says it's worried about losing its tax base, but the temple has offered to pay property taxes even though religious institutions are tax-exempt and the building has sat nearly empty for about three years," Escobosa Helzer said. "The temple is hanging on by a string. Its congregation is unable to practice its religion and the temple is losing money and barely able to survive. They cannot even afford to keep all the lights on as they try to hang on to the building while this ordeal continues."

The 10-year-old, multibillion-dollar lawsuit by American Indians against the U.S. government, known now as Cobell v. Kempthorne, has been delayed at least a month to allow more time to fine tune a settlement. Thousands of American Indians sued in 1996, accusing the government of mismanaging more than $100 billion in royalties from their lands dating back to 1887.

Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., and vice chairman Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., proposed legislation to settle the case last year, and approached the Indian plaintiffs last month with an $8 billion offer. They had planned to complete the bill during a hearing Wednesday. Instead, McCain said the hearing has been postponed at least until fall. His announcement followed his and Dorgan's meeting Tuesday with Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Kempthorne said in a letter that he is committed to resolving the case.

The Indian plaintiffs, however, called the delay "business as usual" for the government. "It is too bad that the Bush administration opposes fair settlement legislation and wants to litigate the case for another 10 years," the plaintiffs said in a statement. "Hopefully Sen. McCain will ignore the administration, mark up a fair settlement bill after recess and personally shepherd it through Congress."

McCain said both secretaries promised to work with Senate committee staff during the August recess "with the goal of producing legislation that all parties to the Cobell lawsuit can live with." Dorgan said it is imperative that all sides agree to the settlement, or the case could drag on another decade. "The very first hearing we had on this issue last March, we made clear that all parties had to be committed to reaching a settlement," McCain said.

"If we can define a legislative settlement consistent with our collective goals, I believe, together, we can determine what financial consideration and level of funding for improved beneficiary services would be provided to Indian Country," Kempthorne wrote.

Breaking Legal News.com
Robin Sheen
Staff Writer