I do not want the Blog to get off track, so this will be my last post for awhile on the subject, but here is a roundup of blogs discussing yesterday's argument:
Chicago's own 271 Patent Blog
I will be back at the Blog's traditional subjects tomorrow with Northern District case updates.
The Northern District of California is considering revising its patent rules (enacted in January 2001). To start its review, the Northern District of California is seeking public comments. Comments must be sent by December 15, 2006 to patentlocalrulescommittee@gmail.com. The notice is here. The Northern District of California Local Rules are not directly relevant to Northern District of Illinois cases, but because the Northern District of California's patent rules serve as a pattern for courts across the country, including in the Northern District of Illinois, any changes to the Northern District of California's rules could effect courts in the Northern District of Illinois and across the country.
Thanks to Dennis Crouch at Patently-O for identifying the request for comments and for an interesting post, followed interesting comments, on proposed changes.
Following up on my post yesterday, The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin has published this story regarding today's Supreme Court argument in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The argument centered around whether the Federal Circuit's obviousness test should be revised (more on the KSR case from Patently-O here and here). Of course, Justices often play devil's advocate in oral arguments, so it is dangerous to presume outcomes based upon oral argument, but it looks like it was good legal theater.
Continue Reading...Although it is not about the Northern District, there is a great article on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal about the Supreme Court's increasing interest in patent law. The article is here (subscription required) or you can read about it on the Journal's Law Blog here. The Journal's Law Blog also has an interesting post here on McDonald's patent application covering methods for making sandwiches.
Huthwaite, Inc. v. Randstad General Partner (US), L.L.C., No. 06 C 1548, 2006 WL 3065470 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2006) (Lefkow, J.).
Plaintiff, a corporate sales training services provider, contacted defendant, an employment services provider, to discuss improving defendant's sales training offerings. Plaintiff told defendant that it knew defendant's current training materials incorporated techniques from plaintiff's copyrighted books -- "SPIN Selling" and "Major Account Sales Strategy" -- but assured defendant that it would not file a copyright infringement suit. As discussions between the parties progressed, plaintiff asked to review defendant's training materials and promised defendant that it would not bring a copyright suit if the materials contained plaintiff's copyrighted information. Defendant ultimately gave plaintiff its training materials, but only after signing a nondisclosure agreement requiring that the documents not be used for, among other things, filing a copyright infringement suit. Two days after receiving defendant's documents, plaintiff filed a copyright infringement suit. In response, defendant filed fraud and breach of contract counterclaims alleging that plaintiff was engaged in a broad scheme to leverage its copyrights be gaining the trust of potential infringers through marketing discussions and that the suit breached the nondisclosure agreement between the parties.
Continue Reading...Conditioned Ocular Enhancement, Inc. v. Bonaventura, 05 C 3153, 2006 WL 2982140 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 17, 2006) (Zagel, J.).
Judge Zagel held that Illinois's absolute litigation privilege, which protects communications leading up to a litigation, did not protect a patentholder's cease and desist letters because, in addition to federal preemption issues, the Illinois privilege is limited to defamation and false light claims. Plaintiff alleged that defendant was practicing its patented vision training services. In addition to filing suit, plaintiff also sent certain of defendant's customers cease and desist letters warning that defendant was unlawfully using plaintiff's patented vision training methods. Defendant filed several Lanham Act and tortious interference counterclaims alleging that plaintiff's cease and desist letters were sent in bad faith.
Continue Reading...I have much to be thankful for this year, including but by no means limited to all of you who take the time to read the Blog. So, like the Northern District, I will be taking the remainder of the week off to spend time with family and friends. Have a happy Thanksgiving. And, enjoy U.S. Patent No. 7,102,301 (by Chicago-area inventors) which teaches holiday lights with user-selectable lights. Just think, lights that stay up all year round. Anyone who has spent a November, December or January evening in the Midwest putting up or taking down lights, can appreciate this invention.
I will see you on Monday.
Although the amendment will still be open for public comment, effective December 1st the Northern District has amended Local Rule 3.2. In its current form, Local Rule 3.2 requires that any nongovernmental corporate party file a statement identifying its parent corporations and any publicly held company that owns 10% or more of the party. The Northern District has revised the rule expanding the categories of parties that must file a notification and the scope of the notification. You can read a redlined version of the amended Local Rule 3.2 here.
Continue Reading...Because the December 1st e-discovery Federal Rules changes are approaching, I will continue to provide links to resources for understanding and preparing for the changes. The Legal Talk Network recently published this Coast to Coast podcast discussing the changes and their impact upon corporations. It is worth listening to and could be a valuable resource for corporate litigants as well.
Thanks to the Illnois Trial Practice Weblog for identifying this podcast.
Nordstrom Consulting, Inc. v. M&S Techs., Inc., No. 06 C 3234, 2006 WL 2931677 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2006) (Darrah, J.).
Judge Darrah held that plaintiff plead sufficient allegations to meet the pleading requirements to include the individual defendants, Marino and Butler who were both employees of the corporate defendant, M&S Technologies ("M&S"). Plaintiff alleged that Marino and Bulter, acting on M&S's behalf, broke into plaintiff's computer, bypassed its digital security system and then downloaded, copied and distributed plaintiff's copyrighted software. Based on these allegations plaintiff alleged copyright infringement, violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, unfair competition and other common law claims.
Continue Reading...Abbott Labs. v. Apotex, Inc., __ F.Supp.2d __, 2006 WL 2884317 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2006) (Posner, C.J.).
Judge Posner, sitting on the Northern District by designation, extended the injunction he issued after a bench trial, No. 97 C 7515 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2004), aff'd by 122 Fed. Appx. 511 (Fed. Cir. 2005), to include Nu-Pharm, defendant Apotex's "stalking horse" from making, using or sell the patented drug, divalproex sodium. In 2004, the Court enjoined Apotex from making, using or selling the patented drug. At some point thereafter, Apotex slightly changed its manufacturing process and had an entity it formerly owned, and apparently still controlled, file an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") with the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). Neither Apotex nor Nu-Pharm tested the drug to determine whether the altered manufacturing process resulted in a drug with sufficiently different characteristics to avoid plaintiff's claims.
Continue Reading...Last week the Federal Circuit Clerk published two top ten lists, The Top Ten Reasons Why Briefs Are Rejected and The Top Ten Reasons Why Motions Are Rejected. They are not as entertaining as a David Letterman Top Ten List, but they are very useful for Federal Circuit practitioners.
I would love to see the Northern District Clerk's Office publish lists like these, but until then what rules violations have you seen motions or briefs for?
Thanks to the I/P Updates Blog for identifying these lists.
Enter keywords:
