Is Dumpster Diving Legal?

Is Dumpster Diving Legal? Many people say yes--so long as the garbage is abandoned.

However, I am not so sure that I would trust a legal opinion that dumpster diving is legal. And even if it is, it may still get you in a lot of trouble. I recently obtained a $2.35 million dollar judgment in a jury trial on behalf of a client who learned that one of its competitors was digging through its trash and taking valuable business documents.

What is Dumpster Diving?

According to http://www.allthingsfrugal.com/dumpster.htm, "Dumpster Divers are people who search for things that other people have thrown out that are still useful, can be recycled, and have value. Dumpster Divers will not only pick up discarded items left at the curbside of people's homes, but they will climb into dumpsters at apartment buildings and behind shopping centers."

The United States Supreme Court has ruled, in criminal cases, that the police can dig through garbage since it is abandoned. Thus, some would argue, that this same logic arguably permits a competitor, ex-spouse, or other, to do the same thing.

So how did I obtain a multi-million dollar judgment in a dumpster diving lawsuit? Our discovery revealed that the defendant used the information from the garbage to carry out other misconduct. Think about it--if someone is willing to dig in your trash, they are probably doing other bad things.

In the case we recently handled, we uncovered during discovery that the defendant had used the information it learned from the garbage to send out defamatory letters and bribe buyers of retail stores. About half way through the case we amended our lawsuit and added counts for unfair competition, defamation, commercial bribery and tortious interference. The jury found in our client’s favor on all counts in the case and awarded $2.35 million in compensatory and punitive damages.


David Fish
dfish@collinslaw.com

NOTE: This Web site/blog is not intended to be a source of solicitation or legal advice nor should it be the basis of legal-hiring decisions. The reader should not consider this information to be an invitation for an attorney-client relationship, should not rely on information provided herein, and should always seek the advice of competent counsel. The author is licensed to practice in Illinois. Furthermore, the owner of this Web site does not wish to represent anyone desiring representation based upon viewing this Web site in a state where this Web site fails to comply with all laws and ethical rules of that state.The selection of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon written information about any attorney's qualifications and experience.

Patent Litigation on a Contingency Basis

Small inventors have given us some of the most important and remarkable advances in our history, which have made life better for all of us. The first American patent for an invention was given on July 30, 1790 to Samuel Hopkins. Since then, more than six-million patents for inventions have issued. They include Thomas Edison's electric light, Alexander Graham Bell's telephone and the Wright Brothers’ flying machine. Abraham Lincoln (who himself was awarded a patent for a device to lift boats over shoals without discharging their cargo), wrote that "[t]he Patent System added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."

America so values and respects these contributions that it has passed laws that protect the right of the inventor to benefit from his invention, and forbid anyone else from stealing the invention, or pretending that it belongs to him for a fixed period of time. During this time period, the patent owner is entitled to exclusive rights to the patent and to profit from it. It is this law, and the vigorous enforcement of it, that helps ensure that all of us will continue to enjoy the benefits of the very best creativity of our nation's most brilliant minds. It is absolutely vital to a free and progressive society. So, when someone has taken someone else's invention, and falsely claimed it as his own, he has taken something very dear not only from the inventor, but from all of us.

My law firm (www.collinslaw.com) litigates patent infringement disputes on behalf of patent owners and inventors. Businesses who steal the intellectual property of others often do so because they know that they are unlikely to be sued because litigating patent cases costs hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars. Knowing this financial hurdle is difficult for many victims of infringement, in appropriate cases, we represent patent owners/inventors on a contingency basis.

Compensation for infringing a patent is to give the plaintiff reasonable and full compensation for the loss incurred because of the patent infringement. Lost profits is one method of measuring damages for patent infringement. Another method of obtaining damage for patent infringement is a reasonable royalty.

Likewise, additional damage awards can be made when there is willfulness shown on behalf of the infringing party for doing things such as not seeking or following the advice of a lawyer or being notified prior to litigation of the infringement. Some courts have ruled that the test for willful infringement is whether, under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would prudently conduct himself with any confidence that a court might hold the patent invalid or not infringed." Knorr-Bremse Systeme Fuer Nutzfahrzeuge GmbH v. Dana Corp., 372 F.Supp.2d 833 (E.D.Va., 2005). Other courts have ruled that willfulness requires a showing that the infringer acted in disregard of the patent...[without] a reasonable basis for believing it had a right to do the acts. Id.

A determination of willfulness in a patent infringement case is a factual determination to be made on consideration of the totality of the circumstances. Id. With respect to a finding of willful infringement, courts may look at:
(i) whether the infringer deliberately copied the ideas or design of another; (ii) whether the infringer, when he knew of the other's patent protection, investigated the scope of the patent and formed a good faith belief that it was invalid or that it was not infringed; (iii) whether the infringer engaged in inappropriate behavior in the course of the litigation; (iv) the infringer's size and financial condition; (v) the closeness of the infringement and validity issues; (vi) the duration of the infringer's misconduct; (vii) any remedial action by the infringer; (viii) the infringer's motivation for continuing infringing conduct in the face of knowledge of the patent; and (ix) whether the infringer attempted to conceal its misconduct. Id.
To discuss your patent infringement lawsuit with us, contact us at: dfish@collinslaw.com