accessiBe sued (inc. false advertisement)

ON PETITION

accessiBe Ltd. petitions for a writ of mandamus direct- ing the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Texas to vacate its November 3, 2021 order denying transfer and to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. Audi- oEye, Inc. opposes the petition. accessiBe replies.

AudioEye brought this suit in the Western District of Texas against accessiBe, asserting patent infringement claims, Lanham Act claims of false advertising and product disparagement, and New York state law claims of product disparagement, slander/defamation, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, deceptive business practices, and unjust enrichment. AudioEye’s complaint alleges, among other things, that accessiBe made false, misleading, and disparaging statements regarding Audio- Eye’s products and services to two companies located in the Western District of New York and an unnamed “consumer in New York.” Appx0082 at ¶¶ 184, 189; see Pet. at 6.

In re: accessiBe Ltd., Docket No. 22-113 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (opens in a new window)

Background

Venue over Foreign Defendant; and Seeking Rehearing before Mandamus- Patently-O https://patentlyo.com/patent/2021/12/defendant-rehearing-mandamus.html (opens in a new window)

This mandamus petition has been denied, although the Federal Circuit has suggested that Judge Albright reconsider his denial of venue transfer. AudioEye sued accessiBe for patent infringement (US10423709, et al.) as well as claims under the Lanham Act (false advertisement & product disparagement) and under New York State Law (product disparagement, tortious interference, etc). But, instead of suing in New York, AudioEye sued in W.D. Tex. The focus here is on screen-reader used to help individuals with disabilities better access the internet. The software particularly helps to fix non-compliant websites to make them more accessible…