Paul Allen

Post updated at 11 a.m. to clarify Apple's participation in the Google motion. In the case of Paul Allen vs. the Internet, the Internet is joining forces to fight back.

The online giants sued for patent infringement by the Microsoft co-founder in August have quietly aligned in an early bid to derail the litigation -- contending that the suit doesn't adequately back up its claims that they're running afoul of approaches pioneered by Allen's defunct Interval Research.

Google and its YouTube unit, two defendants in the case, are leading the charge. Their Oct. 18 motion to dismiss the case has since been joined by eBay, Apple, Netflix, Office Depot, Staples, AOL, Facebook, Office Max and Yahoo, according to the U.S. District Court docket.

[This post has been updated to make clear that Apple has, in fact, joined Google's motion -- a fact that isn't noted in the docket listing (in contrast with the other companies) but is apparent from an underlying document that I initially overlooked. My mistake. -- Todd Bishop]

Here's an excerpt from the Google motion (PDF, 11 pages).

"Interval must do more than merely state that the law has been violated – Interval must plead sufficient facts to show that it has a plausible claim for relief. In sum, Interval is not entitled to waste Court and party resources with a scattershot Complaint against multiple Defendants that fails to give any indication as to which products or services Interval contends are infringing and the factual basis for such a claim. Interval’s Complaint is so devoid of any facts to support its infringement contentions that it is impossible for Google to reasonably prepare a defense. At the very minimum, Interval must identify with particularity the products or services accused of infringement and the factual basis for any claim that such products and services allegedly infringe the patents-in-suit. Since Interval has failed to do so, its Complaint should be dismissed."

In addition, Google has filed another motion (PDF, 8 pages) contending that the case shouldn't have been filed against such a variety of companies with little or no apparent connection to one another.

Motions to dismiss are common the early stages of court cases, but the primary motion by Google could force Allen's Interval Licensing to quickly get more specific about how, precisely, it believes the various Internet giants are infringing its patents. U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman is presiding over the case in Seattle.

Responding to previous criticism, Allen's spokesman called Interval Research “an early, ground-breaking contributor to the development of the internet economy," saying it "worked hard to bring its technologies to market through spinning off new companies, technology transfer arrangements, and sales of its patented technology.”

We'll update this post with any response by Allen to the new motions.