We can help you with Venice PI lawsuits
Has Venice PI filed a lawsuit against you? Did you receive notice of a subpoena from your Internet Service Provider? They are a newer, active, BitTorrent plaintiff. We can help you with flat-rate representation with payment plans.
Through our years of BitTorrent defense, we have a network of local counsel, when needed, and the ability to operate in District Courts throughout the United States. We are well versed in BitTorrent cases, such as those brought by Venice PI. Our experience spans well over a hundred BitTorrent copyright suits and resulted in a track record favorable outcomes for our clients. Our knowledge runs deep. The Illinois State Bar Association has twice published Mr. Phillips' writings on BitTorrent cases. This experience and knowledge allows us to offer flat-rate representation with payment plans to work towards the results you need.
Shay Phillips, Ltd. has litigated against BitTorrent plaintiffs in courts across the country. We have defeated them outright. Other times, we begin our vigorous defense only to have them try to escape the case when it realizes that our clients are not willing to roll over. This typically occurs around the time we serve discovery pointing out the faults in its investigator’s efforts and the lack of a basis to bring the case. In those cases, we get favorable terms for our clients before letting the plaintiff drop the suit. Other times, for those who do not wish to litigate, we obtain favorable settlement terms for our clients at the outset. We get to these expected results predictably and can offer flat-rates to get there.
Every case has its own set of facts. Clients’ economic circumstances, desires for anonymity, or principled stances dictate the path forward. We do not force our clients to settle or force them to fight. Every case requires an initial consultation that allows us to recommend the most fitting course of action for the client. We “triage” these suits with a thirty-minute consult. And, at the end of that consult, we can offer you a recommendation of flat-rate tasks with payment plans to get there.
Many of our clients did not commit the infringement. These victims, wrongly targeted by BitTorrent plaintiff’s litigation campaign, suffer from these plaintiffs' initial presentation of tenuous evidence to allow early discovery. When these clients want to fight back, we can do so efficiently based on our prior experience with the litigation model.
We will defend Venice PI lawsuits with a tried-and-true method. We review the complaint, identify defects in the (usually) German-based investigators (usually IPP International U.G., Excipio, or MaverickEye) methods, point those out to opposing counsel, and offer to allow them out of the case at that point. This early stage, even-handed approach, allows an early resolution of the case with little cost to the client. If opposing counsel takes us up on the offer, the case ends. Unfortunately, opposing counsel rarely does. If the plaintiff refuses to drop the case, then we offer our clients a variety of litigation paths, each with a set flat-rate, for the initial stages of a defense.
Our litigation options include one of, or some combination of:
· Motions to proceed anonomously to protect your identity;
· Moving to dismiss the case at the outset because of flaws in the investigation;
· Answering the complaint and serving discovery that will point out the flaws in Venice PI's case.
For those of you who have done your research, you may ask, “Where is the motion to quash the subpoena to my internet service provider?” In many jurisdictions, a motion to quash is inadvisable. They are rarely successful and may cause adverse consequences. That said, if your case is in a jurisdiction that a motion to quash is a valid option, we will present you with the option.
We have found, but cannot guaranty, that BitTorrent plaintiffs will try to “cut-and-run” when faced with a determined defendant willing to stand up for him or herself. Use the form below to set up a consultation. We can help you with your case.
BitTorrent successes & coverage
Every BitTorrent case involves specific facts and situations. Some of our clients come in, and given the factual scenario and the clients' position (i.e. financial or family situations, likely liability for the infringement, the simple desire to put it behind them), we work towards a favorable settlement. However, when the facts and situation call for it, we are well-positioned to defend these suits. In fact, we have obtained some of the best results, of any attorney, for BitTorrent lawsuits.
In the Southern District of New York, we defended a Malibu Media case that Malibu refused to dismiss at the outset. In Malibu Media, LLC v. Levin, we used the same tried and trued method as usual. Once the case got to a point that Malibu was not comfortable proceeding further with, it wanted out of the case. But, in federal courts, if a defendant answers a complaint, then the plaintiff must secure the defendant's permission or ask the Court to dismiss the case. It cannot just give up. Our client let Malibu out after securing favorable settlement terms. The dismissal even stated that it was apparent our client was not the infringer.
In PTG Nevada, LLC v. Knott, we utilized our well honed method to defend a BitTorrent copyright case brought by PTG Nevada. In that Colorado case, once we put up a valid defense, PTG Nevada wanted out of the case. Given the procedural posture, though, it required our consent to do so. In the end, we agreed to dismiss the case after settling on terms favorable for our client.
On February 8th, 2016, Northern District of Illinois Magistrate Judge Brown granted Jonathan LA Phillips'Motion for Summary Judgment against copyright infringement claims brought by Malibu Media.
Previously, in one of the early blows to Malibu Media's (the most prolific filer of these suits) litigation model, Mr. Phillips questioned the techniques of Malibu Media's investigators, and otherwise started looking into the evidentiary basis for its suits. Upon doing so, Malibu promptly dismissed our client in Southern District of Indiana case number 12-cv-00842.
The Illinois State Bar Association has published two articles by Jonathan LA Phillips concerning BitTorrent suits. As these articles show, we are on the cutting edge of how changes in the law can help those wrongly sued by BitTorrent plaintiffs.
Will the Northern District of Illinois’ Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot program end copyright trolling in the District?, Intellectual Property, vol. 57, no. 1, Illinois State Bar Association (Sept. 2017)
The Northern District of Illinois recently adopted a Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Program. That program, essentially, front-loads cases, forcing litigants to disclose a far greater amount of information than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 ever did. Given copyright trolls difficulty in producing the evidence claimed to exist at the outset, despite months of discovery practice, will this program end trolling in the Northern District of Illinois?
How will the FRCP's amendments affect BitTorrent litigation?, Intellectual Property, vol. 56, no. 2, Illinois State Bar Ass's (Sept. 2016)
The Supreme Court recently amended the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The changes focused, in part, on the need for early and active judicial case management, ensuring cases do not stall at the outset, and ESI preservation. The new Rules became effective on December 1, 2015. Attorneys handling BitTorrent related copyright litigation should take note, given the amendments’ focus. This is particularly true for the Illinois attorney, because the Northern District of Illinois remains a hotbed of copyright litigation involving the BitTorrent protocol. Accordingly, these amendments should change the way Northern District judges approach these cases.
Academics have also recognized our experience in this area. The Iowa Law Review published Copyright Trolling: an Empirical Study by Professor Matthew Sag. Professor Sag was kind enough to honor Jonathan LA Phillips in the mentions for the paper. Matthew Sag, Copyright Trolling, An Empirical Study, 100 IOWA L. REV. 1105 (2015).
Need help with your Venice PI case?
If so, fill out the form below. Do not provide any information you believe is confidential. After filling out the form, we will reach out and schedule an initial consultation to determine what the best path forward is for you.