Declaratory Judgment Questions

[lowenstat]

"A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of each party in a dispute. It is commonly called a declaratory ruling, a term which also includes decisions of regulatory agencies. A declaratory judgment or ruling is binding as to the duties, rights, obligations and status of the parties. However, a declaratory judgment does not order any action or result in any award of damages to any party to the case. Unlike an advisory opinion, a declaratory judgment requires an actual case or controversy."

Why does this exist in courts? Does the court end up going through the entire case like it would if it was a full blown infringement suit? I guess I don't understand they can do this if they don't go through the entire standard suit. Are they really just doing a "review"?

It says that there is not award or order of action. So what typically becomes of this then?

If the plaintiff loses then it reads to me that no money is owed for damgaes, fees, or legal costs, etc?

Do these type of suits happen almost always by the person being accused of ingringement or do the attorneys work it out well before this?

Thanks

 

[seniorjudge]

Did you have a specific question?

The definition of "declaratory judgment" is pretty good.

 

[lowenstat]

I certainly wasn't being ignon with my words.

You can keep reading below to see the questions posed.

 

[seniorjudge]

I certainly wasn't being ignon with my words.

You can keep reading below to see the questions posed.

I am not familiar with the word ignon.

 

[JETX]

"A declaratory judgment is a judgment of a court in a civil case which declares the rights, duties, or obligations of each party in a dispute. It is commonly called a declaratory ruling, a term which also includes decisions of regulatory agencies. A declaratory judgment or ruling is binding as to the duties, rights, obligations and status of the parties. However, a declaratory judgment does not order any action or result in any award of damages to any party to the case. Unlike an advisory opinion, a declaratory judgment requires an actual case or controversy."

Why does this exist in courts?

Because a lot of cases have nothing to do with damages and are simply trying to force someone to do something. A declaratory judgment is simply a court order setting the 'rights, duties or obligations' that one person must do (for or to the other).

Does the court end up going through the entire case like it would if it was a full blown infringement suit?

Yes.

I guess I don't understand they can do this if they don't go through the entire standard suit. Are they really just doing a "review"?

No. As noted, the court hears the evidence and renders a judgment.

It says that there is not award or order of action. So what typically becomes of this then?

If the party ordered to do something... doesn't, the other party can file a motion for contempt to try to force compliance with the court order.

Your post references to an 'infringement lawsuit'. In that type of case, the court hears (or views) the evidence and decides whether the infringement occurred or not. If so, it will order you to cease any further infringement.

 

[lowenstat]

Am I understanding it correctly. Neither side gets awarded any damages, costs, fees legal or otherwise as a result of this suit?

Is this fast track to solving a problem for me and used rather quickly by attorneys or does this still take a whole lot of time and money in attorney costs to get to this point?

I dont understand in the process where this comes. Would the attorney rush to this point in general if the case is solid or would still try to work it out directly with company x?

 

[divgradcurl]

Am I understanding it correctly. Neither side gets awarded any damages, costs, fees legal or otherwise as a result of this suit?

That's true -- but if you file a DJ action, the other side with file counterclaims against you that include their infringement contentions. Since the whole case gets tried, if their counterclaims against you stand, they could be awarded damages, etc.

Is this fast track to solving a problem for me and used rather quickly by attorneys or does this still take a whole lot of time and money in attorney costs to get to this point?

No. It takes the same amount of time, preparation and effort as does any case. The purpose for filing a DJ action is so that you don't have to wait for the other guy to sue you. For example, if you are being accused of infringement, you don't want to continue the infringing activities because it could be considered willful -- but it's not really fair to you to be forced to wait until the other side decides to sue you. So, you can file a DJ action to "force their hand," so to speak. Clear the air, if you will.

That's the purpose of a DJ action. It's essentially taking the timing of an infringement suit into your own hands. Doesn't really change the nature of the lawsuit, or the time, effort and cost of a lawsuit, but it does impact the timing.

And you have the corollary benefits of being "first to file," which makes you the plaintiff (means you argue first and last at trial) and gives you choice of venue.

I dont understand in the process where this comes. Would the attorney rush to this point in general if the case is solid or would still try to work it out directly with company x?

Not sure what you are asking here.

 

[lowenstat]

Can someone explain how a scenario might play out if an attorney files a DJ for me and my case includes the list of ads that I want to fight the removal of. I leave out a few that are not solid.

So we argue our case, they defend their actions but bring in other ads and say that is infringement. Now things gets messy - or at least my understanding of it does.

I am fighting for my right to advertise for the future and I want to use and sell the prodcuts in the ads we listed. Bringing in other items that I no longer want to fight for and sell isn't what I brought the DJ for.

Is this valid for them to do? How does my attorney handle it if he determines that we don't have legal standing in those ads for example but we do with thte other ads or products.

What I am getting at is do we fight about anything I have ever done prior even though I am not interested in continuing that. My concern is that if I loose then I am pretty much barred from selling anything that company x has at all.

I know this is just how I think it works. How does it really work.

 

[divgradcurl]

So we argue our case, they defend their actions but bring in other ads and say that is infringement. Now things gets messy - or at least my understanding of it does.

I am fighting for my right to advertise for the future and I want to use and sell the prodcuts in the ads we listed. Bringing in other items that I no longer want to fight for and sell isn't what I brought the DJ for.

Of course they can bring up the other ads -- they only get one shot at this. If your old ads were infringing, just because you stopped using them doesn't mean you are off the hook. They still may want an injunction to stop you from ever using them again, and they may want damages for your past infringement.

Is this valid for them to do? How does my attorney handle it if he determines that we don't have legal standing in those ads for example but we do with thte other ads or products.

What I am getting at is do we fight about anything I have ever done prior even though I am not interested in continuing that. My concern is that if I loose then I am pretty much barred from selling anything that company x has at all.

I know this is just how I think it works. How does it really work.

Everything that has gone on prior to the lawsuit (and that is within the statutory limitations period) has to be tried in this lawsuit, or they lose the right to sue you for it. When you sue, you have to include all related claims -- you can't sue on some of them now, see how it goes, and sue on some later.

A DJ action, like I said before is exactly the same as a regular lawsuit, except that the role of complainant and respondent are reversed.

 

[lowenstat]

Ok, your answer may have already stated this and I just don't understand yet...

I don't quite understand an all or nothing. Why can't a suit be brought later for a different reason for the same company x? Say the suit my attorney would bring is about selling straight items with no modifications. Later it becomes a suit about modifications? Those be some of the same laws but maybe not the same arguments so suit is different.

Ok, so I pick my battle and my particular ads /products, they can add to the battle as well and claim other ads in addition. Now, the question I have is does the court come up with a "you can do this type of ad and there is not infringement but not this type of ad and you infringed - don't do that type again, but the other is fine, etc"

Can it come up split like this so that I could still proceed in selling or if any singular case of infringement is found then I must halt everything. I doubt it is like this but that is what I am asking.

I am assuming most cases can be worked out ahead of time or do most go to court if you know. Since I am agreable to changing how I must based on my attorneys advice and what company x wants then I would nto see that this would go to court. But if they say nothing can be sold, used, etc then I will go to court.

 

[divgradcurl]

I don't quite understand an all or nothing. Why can't a suit be brought later for a different reason for the same company x? Say the suit my attorney would bring is about selling straight items with no modifications. Later it becomes a suit about modifications? Those be some of the same laws but maybe not the same arguments so suit is different.

Because courts don't want to have to deal with the same issues over and over again. When you are suing someone, you have to bring all related claims together at the same time, or give 'em up. You don't get multiple bites at the same apple.

Now, if the claims are unrelated, it may be possible to bring separate lawsuits. But when everything is related, then you have to bring everything at once, or forget about it.

Ok, so I pick my battle and my particular ads /products, they can add to the battle as well and claim other ads in addition. Now, the question I have is does the court come up with a "you can do this type of ad and there is not infringement but not this type of ad and you infringed - don't do that type again, but the other is fine, etc"

It depends on how the DJ claims and counterclaims are alleged, but generally it's not an all-or-nothing sutation, each separate claim or counterclaim will be determined separately.

And don't think that just because you are worried about ads that the other side won't bring a countercomplaint concerning the apparatus, first sale, all that -- it's all going to be included. And if you lose on that, well, I guess it doesn't matter about the ads then.

Can it come up split like this so that I could still proceed in selling or if any singular case of infringement is found then I must halt everything. I doubt it is like this but that is what I am asking.

Again, it depends on the situation. It could be that selling the modifed product is found to not be infringing, but your advertising is. It could be that the sale itself could be found infringing. It could be found that some advertising is infringing and some isn't.

What you are NOT going to get is a judgment saying "here are the parameters by which you can legally do this." The court cannot issue an "advisory" opinion. You will be told whether or not what you are currently doing is infringing or not, that's all.

I am assuming most cases can be worked out ahead of time or do most go to court if you know. Since I am agreable to changing how I must based on my attorneys advice and what company x wants then I would nto see that this would go to court. But if they say nothing can be sold, used, etc then I will go to court.

95% or more of filed lawsuits do NOT result in a trial verdict. That doesn't mean that they settle before trial -- some settle AFTER trial, but before a verdict is entered. Some settle during trial, some settle the day of or the night before trial. Many settle at some point during the pre-trial process. Many cases are disposed of by pretrial adjudication, either dismissal or summary judgment.

So, in all likelihood, you will never go to trial, even if a lawsuit is filed. That doesn't mean that there won't be legal costs involved, or motion practice, etc., but it does mean that most likely an agreement will be worked out between the two sides prior to trial.

 

[lowenstat]

What I am asking now is if some parts of what I did is found to be infringement does that bar me from correcting it then continue forward with selling in a manner that is not infringement.

For example, court rules that only the ads were infringing due to X and Y but not Z. Also, modification is infringement but straight selling is not.

So can I then change the ads to only do Z and sell with no modifications (thus removing all actions of infringment found by the court) and move on with selling? Or am I banned somehow from selling anything from company x?

-----------------------------------
A side question about cases in general has been in my mind for a while. What happens if they bring a suit, someone don't defend it. Does the court even look at what is being complained about or just simply rule in their favor across the board since they never even heard the other side or saw the items in questions?

Do they investigate further to make sure they rule fairly? I guess I am asking if some does the minimal responses for whatever reason can they get mistreated and unfairly ruled against.

I have seen 5 cases for example where company x complained infringement but court ended up ruling against them. If person y didn't respond would the court have ruled against them or figured out the details?

What stops big companys friom going after easy targets with no money and winning cases when they should not have just becuase the other side didn't defend themselves at all?
-----------------------------------

 

[divgradcurl]

What I am asking now is if some parts of what I did is found to be infringement does that bar me from correcting it then continue forward with selling in a manner that is not infringement.

For example, court rules that only the ads were infringing due to X and Y but not Z. Also, modification is infringement but straight selling is not.

So can I then change the ads to only do Z and sell with no modifications (thus removing all actions of infringment found by the court) and move on with selling? Or am I banned somehow from selling anything from company x?

No, you could sell. But that doesn't mean that the other side can't haul you back into court for contempt of court for failing to abide by a court order. Then you end up with each side trying to prove whether or not what you are doing now is infringing, and thereby covered under the court order, or not.

Like I said, the court won't tell you what the parameters are for doing what you want to do legally -- they can only tell you if what you are currently doing is legal or not.

A side question about cases in general has been in my mind for a while. What happens if they bring a suit, someone don't defend it. Does the court even look at what is being complained about or just simply rule in their favor across the board since they never even heard the other side or saw the items in questions?

If the other side fails to defend the case, the side bringing suit can make a motion for a default judgment, and the court will usually enter a judgment for the moving party. No analysis of the complaint, or the merits of the case, will be looked at, with the exception of the court looking at the allegations to try and determine what the proper judgment should be. For example, if they ask for an injunction and eleven billion dollars in damages, and you don't answer, they could move for default, which the judge would enter, and then the judge would likely grant the injunction. The judge would be very unlikely to grant eleven billion dollars in damages, inless the other side had some really spectacular evidence to support it -- more likely no damages, or minimal damages and costs would be given to the winner, along with the injunction.

Do they investigate further to make sure they rule fairly? I guess I am asking if some does the minimal responses for whatever reason can they get mistreated and unfairly ruled against.

See above. Only with respect to the judgment entered, not to whether or not a judgment should be entered. The courts aren't going to take the time to try and help you out if you can't even be bothered to file an answer.

What stops big companys friom going after easy targets with no money and winning cases when they should not have just becuase the other side didn't defend themselves at all?

Nothing. But if the cases in question are so one-sided, then maybe instead of answering, the defendants could simply have filed a motion to dismiss. But, like I said, the court isn't going to step in to help you if you won't even take the steps to help yourself. That's not how our civil legal system works.

 

[lowenstat]

Thank you. I appreciate your time and your replies.