Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Tomorrow is the first anniversary of the “new” electronic data discovery (“EDD”) rules.* In fact, the EDD rules were not new, they were intended to be a codification of the basic rules already in use by the various district courts. Despite that, a study conducted by LexisNexis at the October Association of Corporate Counsel 2007 Annual Meeting in Chicago found that corporate counsel continue to struggle with implementation of the rules and confusion about what the EDD rules required. For example, 70% of respondents believed that electronic files had to be produced in their native formats. In fact, you simply must work with opposing counsel to decide what format to produce the files in, either their native formats or some chosen standard format. This confusion should not have surprised anyone. Even in IP circles, lawyers rarely fully understand a company’s IT infrastructure and the IT people rarely understand the legal process. This disconnect can be very dangerous when it comes to meeting EDD obligations.

If your company is still struggling with the EDD rules or, worse, avoiding them completely, you can solve your problems with some relatively simple actions. First, take a breath, open your copy of the Federal Rules and read them thoughtfully and then set up a meeting with the head of your company’s IT infrastructure, the head of your company’s legal department or litigation staff and an outside counsel with EDD experience. Working together, come up with a general plan for gathering and preserving the appropriate information as cases arise. Pay special attention to how your plan fits with the company’s overall data retention policies (yes, your company should have data retention policies and the policy should be followed carefully) and how to suspend any periodic or automatic data removal when a litigation hold needs to be instituted. Once you have a plan, meet periodically to update it and to ensure that it is being followed. If you are prepared for EDD, it is an excellent litigation tool. If you are not, it is a potential disaster.

For more on EDD, check out these blogs:

Alextronic Discovery

Dennis Kennedy

EDD Update

E-Discovery Team

E-discovery 2.0

Electronic Discovery Blog

Electronic Discovery Law (another LexBlog blog)

Ride the Lightning

Sound Evidence

Hat tip to the EDD Blog Online via Legal Blog Watch for identifying the LexisNexis survey..

* Tomorrow is also the date that the next set of changes to the Federal Rules becomes effective. Fortunately, these changes are largely focused on making the rules more readable instead of adding or changing obligations. But once you are prepared for the EDD rules, you should still turn back to your copy of the Federal Rules and read through the revisions.  Look for a blog post next week highlighting some of the substantive changes.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Electronic court filings (ECF) are now required in the Northern District, as well as federal courts nationwide with a handful of exceptions such as the Western District of Wisconsin.  I do not claim to be an ECF whiz (I generally have someone to handle the finer points for me), but it is important for attorneys to understand the finer point of electronic filing, you never know when your people will not be available to do it for you or when knowledge of ECF mechanics may change how you put together your filing.  I have thought about writing an ECF guide for some time, but the Lawyer's Right Hand* beat me to it, and did an excellent job.  Click here for a very comprehensive look at what not to do when filing and what matters to the Clerk's office.

*  This is a great site, that every litigator should read.  If you do not have time to scroll through all of the entries, check out the ECF post and the excellent discussion of commas -- a great explanation of how to use one of the most important and misused grammar building blocks, although we disagree about whether a comma is required before the conjunction in a simple series.  You will be hooked.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Kelley v. Chicago Park District, No. 04 C 7715, Slip Op. (N.D.Ill. Sep. 14, 2007) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar ordered the parties to submit further briefing regarding whether plaintiff Chapman Kelley’s (“Kelley”) work of art “Wildflower Works” (“WW”) was copyrightable as a sculpture pursuant to the Copyright Act and the Visual Artists Rights Act (“VARA”). Kelley originally installed his WW in Chicago’s Grant Park in 1984 pursuant to a permit from the City of Chicago. WW was an installation of wild flowers in two elliptical shapes surrounded by gravel — click here for pictures from Kelley's website — that Kelley replanted and tended each year. Chicago periodically renewed the permit until 1994, when Kelley continued his WW pursuant to an oral permit renewal. Then in 2004, Chicago fenced off WW, effectively destroying it. Kelley then brought this suit alleging copyright infringement, violation of VARA and various state law claims.

The Court considered various issues relating to jurisdiction and the validity of the alleged oral permit renewal. But the Court held that it lacked sufficient information to resolve the issue of whether WW was protectable as a sculpture pursuant to the Copyright Act and VARA. The Court struggled with whether a growing, evolving planting of flowers could be considered a sculpture using common dictionary definition. But the Court also acknowledged the artistic value of arranging flowers and plants, which precluded a holding that WW was per se not a sculpture:

to do so would ignore such exquisite examples of living art as topiaries, which are created by clipping and trimming living plants, usually bushes, into exotic shapes.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Federal Trade Comm. v. Trudeau, No. 03 C 3904, 2007 WL 4109607 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2007) (Gettleman, J.).

Judge Gettleman held defendant Kevin Trudeau ("Trudeau") in contempt for violating the Court's Stipulated Permanent Injunction (the "Injunction").  In 2003, plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed suit against Trudeau* alleging, among other things, false advertising pursuant to the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 52(a).  The advertisements at issue included various informercials in which Trudeau allegedly claimed that the coral calcium in his supplement Coral Calcium Supreme could treat cancer, multiple sclerosis and heart disease, among other medical conditions.  In settlement of the FTC's suit, the parties agreed to and the Court entered the Injunction.  The Injunction generally prohibited Trudeau from producing infomercials, with the exception that he could make infomercials promoting books, so long as the infomercials did not misrepresent the books.  The FTC argued that a series of three infomercials promoting Trudeau's new book The Weigh Loss Cure "They" Don't Want You to Know About (the "Book") violated the Injunction because Trudeau made claims in the infomericals that the weight loss program described in the book was "easy,"  "simple" and prevented weight gain forever once complete. 

The weight loss plan had four phases, the last of which was to be followed for the remainder of a person's life.  Each phase had various requirements (or strong recommendations) including colonics, various organ cleansings, avoiding use of over the counter or prescription drugs, daily walks and eating only 100% organic foods.  Phase two also required daily injections of human chorionic gonadotrophin ("HCG").  HCG is available only by prescription in the US, but the FDA specifically stated that it should not be used for treating obesity.  Trudeau argued that the claims were mere puffery and opinion which, therefore, did not violate the Injunction.  But the Court held that Trudeau's claims that the Book detailed an "easy" diet were false.  Furthermore, Trudeau's claims that once the diet was complete you could eat anything you wanted were false because the fourth phase of the diet lasted for the remainder of the dieter's life.  The Court, therefore, held Trudeau in contempt  and set a hearing to determine an appropriate remedy.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

RRK Holding Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 04 C 3944, 2007 WL 495254 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2007) (Coar, J.).

As promised last week, the jury instructions are now available -- click here for a copy.  Additionally, although the verdict form is not available electronically, the Court's minute order (click here for a copy) gave some additional detail.  The jury found for plaintiff RRK on each of eleven counts and awarded damages as follows:

Damages Award

RRK's Actual Losses	$11,664,105
Sears's Unjust Enrichment	$1,688,136
Punitive Damages	$8,011,344
Total Damages	$21,363,585

For more on this case, click here for the Blog's archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Blog's first anniversary was in September.*  I chose not to do an anniversary post because I was very busy with client matters and because I did not think there was much to say about the anniversary.  But the Thanksgiving holiday reminds me that there is something to say -- thank you.  I am thankful for all of the Blog's readers.  The Blog is a lot of work, but I enjoy IP litigation and I enjoy communicating with all of you about it.  I look forward to another year of blogging about Chicago's IP happenings.  And as always, I welcome your comments and suggestions about the Blog and what I can be doing better or differently.

Happy Thanksgiving

*  Much like my dog Gert's birthday (she was a rescue dog), it is difficult to pin down the exact date the Blog began. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

RRK Holding Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 04 C 3944, 2007 WL 495254 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2007) (Coar, J.).

The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that a jury returned a $21.5M verdict, including $8M in punitive damages, Monday for plaintiff RRK Holding Co. ("RRK") in its Illinois Trade Secret Act ("ITSA") suit against defendant Sears, Roebuck & Co. ("Sears").  RRK alleged that, pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement, it disclosed to Sears its plans for a next generation “combination tool” which consisted of a rotary saw, also called a spiral saw, which could be converted into a plunge router. But after negotiations broke down over price, Sears allegedly took RRK's plans and used them to make Sears's Craftsman "All-in-One" tool.  Sears has said it will appeal the verdict.  The Court's docket has not been updated yet with a verdict form or jury instructions, but I will post them when they become available, likely next week.

For more on this case, click here for the Blog's archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Discover Financial Servs. LLC v. National Union Fire Insur. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 06 C 4359, 2007 WL 2893624 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 26, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer granted summary judgment that defendant National Union Fire Insurance Co. (“National Union”) did not have a duty to defend plaintiff Discover Financial Services (“Discover”) pursuant to Discover’s insurance policy (the “Policy”). Discover argued that its alleged infringement of a telephone call processing system patent was advertising injury covered by the Policy because Discover advertised various services when its customers used Discover’s phone system. But the Court held that the alleged infringement did not arise solely from advertising activities, as is required by the Policy. While Discover advertised services to callers, the main purpose of its system was conducting financial business and the underlying patent complaint against Discover alleged infringement without identifying any Discover advertising as infringing. The advertising, therefore, could not be considered the sole cause of the alleged injury.\

Practice tip: When responding to Local Rule 56.1 statements, make sure to support denials with admissible evidence. The parties in this case each made arguments that the Court disregarded because the opposing Rule 56.1 statements had not been refuted with evidence.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I have been meaning to highlight the University of Michigan Law Review's recent Supreme Court, Federal Circuit, and Patent Law edition for some time.  The day before the Michigan-Ohio State match-up for the Big Ten title and a trip to the Rose Bowl seems like an appropriate time to do it.  The article contains excellent analysis of the future of patent law and the effects of recent Supreme Court rulings, in particular KSR.  The specific articles are:

• Rebecca S. Eisenberg, The Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit: Visitation and Custody of Patent Law
  
• John F. Duffy, KSR v. Teleflex: Predictable Reform of Patent Substance and Procedure in the Judiciary
  
• Harold C. Wegner, Making Sense of KSR and Other Recent Patent Cases
  
• Robert A. Armitage, Now That the Courts Have Beaten Congress to the Punch, Why Is Congress Still Punching the Patent System?
  
• Stephen G. Kunin & Andrew K. Beverina, KSR's Effect on Patent Law

Each article is worth the read, perhaps as you watch the game tomorrow.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New Attorney General Michael Mukasey has nominated Northern District Judge Mark Filip to be his Deputy Attorney General (the #2 position at the Department of Justice), replacing acting Deputy Attorney General Craig Morford.  Judge Filip clerked for Justice Scalia and served as a Northern District Assistant United States Attorney for five years, before briefly entering private practice and then taking the bench.  Here is what the Chicago Tribune (via the Associated Press) had to say about Judge Filip's sterling reputation as a judge:

Filip was nominated for the federal bench in November 2003, and he is widely viewed as a smart and down-to-earth jurist. He was ranked first among federal judges in terms of integrity and professionalism in a 2006 poll of Chicago-area attorneys.

Congratulations Judge Filip.  You will be missed in the Northern District.

I will keep you updated on the confirmation process and the efforts to fill the vacancy that Judge Filip's confirmation will create.

*  A hat tip to the WSJ Law Blog for the fast post regarding Judge Filip's nomination.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Abbott Labs. V. Church & Dwight, Inc., No. 07 C 3428, 2007 WL 3120007 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2007) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly denied defendant Church & Dwight’s (“C&D”) 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) motion to transfer this patent case to the District of New Jersey, where a related case between the parties was pending, and granted C&D’s motion to dismiss a claim that the New Jersey Court previously dismissed for lack of standing. In New Jersey, C&D sued plaintiff Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) alleging infringement of patents covering lateral flow immunology devices, and pregnancy and ovulation testing methods. Abbott counterclaimed alleging infringement of three patents, including U.S. Patent No. 6,534,320 (the “’320 patent”). The New Jersey Court ultimately dismissed Abbott’s counterclaim, holding that Abbott was a nonexclusive licensee of the ‘320 patent and, therefore, lacked standing. The New Jersey Court also held that standing could not be cured by Abbott’s effort to involuntarily join its licensor Inverness pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.  Based upon the New Jersey Court’s ruling, this Court held that issue preclusion prevented Abbott from re-litigating its standing to sue. Unless Abbott revised its license agreement with Inverness, giving Abbott additional rights, the New Jersey Court’s ruling was preclusive. The Court, therefore, dismissed Abbott’s ‘320 patent infringement claim.

The Court denied C&D’s motion to transfer the case to New Jersey. The Court gave Abbott’s choice of forum deference. And the Court gave little weight to the parties’ ongoing New Jersey patent suit because the New Jersey Court dismissed Abbott’s counterclaims before making any substantive rulings. The New Jersey Court, therefore, would not have been in a better position to decide any issues in the case. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As part of a Federal Courts pilot project, free online Pacer* access and printing has been made available to the general public at sixteen libraries, including the Seventh Circuit's William J. Campbell Library on the 17th floor of the Dirksen Building.  So, you can avoid the $.08 per page charges online with a trip to the courthouse.

A hat tip to the WSJ Law Blog for alerting me to the free Pacer access.

*  Pacer provides access to the dockets from each case in the federal court system, including links to pdf versions of all publicly available documents.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

There is a debate brewing in the patent litigation community over the correct scope of a state institution's waiver of 11th Amendment immunity when that institution asserts its patents. In Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999), the Supreme Court held that state institutions were immune from patent infringement suits. Of course, if a state institution asserts a patent claim against a party, immunity is generally waived as to that party for counterclaims. But the Federal Circuit recently held in BPMC v. California Dept. of Health (Fed. Cir. 2007), that when the California Department of Health (“Cal. DoH”) intervened as a plaintiff in a patent suit (which is considered a waiver of immunity), it is only a waiver as to that suit. So, when the original suit was dismissed because of improper venue, the waiver was rescinded. As a result, the defendant in the first case, BPMC, could not bring a declaratory judgment suit that mirrored the original suit because of the Cal. DoH’s 11th Amendment immunity. 

The Federal Circuit’s decision has ignited substantial controversy (click here for the WSJ Law Blog’s article on the subject and click here for IP Biz’s responsive blog post) and some are predicting that this will be the next patent case that the Supreme Court takes on cert. It is an interesting issue, but not one that we see often in the Northern District, which caused me to investigate whether Chicago-area colleges are prolific patentees. None makes the top ten, like my alma mater the University of Michigan – Go Blue! But there is some substantial patenting going on at Chicago-area universities. The following chart show the number of patents assigned to the identified universities or their related entities between 1969 and 2005:

As you can see from the chart, this issue has significant consequences for Chicago-area schools. I will keep you posted as the case develops.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

ExcelStor Tech., Inc. v. Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG, No. 07 C 2467, 2007 WL 3145013 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted defendant Papst Licensing’s (“Papst”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs, various related ExcelStor Technology entities (collectively “ExcelStor”) licensed Papst’s patent portfolio (the “Agreement”) related to hard disk drives (“HDD”). ExcelStor alleged that when the Agreement was signed, Papst had already given third party Hitachi a license covering the same HDDs. Furthermore, ExcelStor alleged that Papst concealed the Hitachi license from ExcelStor. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Mullen v. Society of Stage Directors & Choreographers, No. 06 C 6818, 2007 WL 2892654 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2007) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar granted in part defendant United Scenic Artists’ (“USA”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment (“DJ”) claims and denied all defendants’ motions seeking dismissal of plaintiffs’ defamation claim. Plaintiffs are the various production heads of the Chicago production of the musical “Urinetown!” (“Chicago Production”). The Chicago Production was performed pursuant to a license from Blue Dog Entertainment, LLC. But despite that license, plaintiffs each received a cease and desist letter from counsel for defendants (the heads of production of the Broadway Urinetown! production (“Broadway Production”) and their unions USA and the Society of Stage Directors & Choreographers (“SSDC”). The letter warned that plaintiffs willfully copied copyrighted aspects of the Broadway Production and attempted to pass off the Chicago Production as the award-winning Broadway Production. Defendants demanded an accounting of revenues from the Chicago Production in order to calculate damages. Defendants also held a press conference during which they publicly stated that the plaintiffs “plagiarized” the Broadway Production. Plaintiffs responded by filing suit seeking declaratory judgments that the Chicago Production did not infringe any of plaintiffs’ copyrights and that it was not Lanham Act passing off. And based upon the press conference, plaintiffs included a defamation claim.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Telewizja Polska USA, Inc. v. Echostar Satellite Corp., No. 04 C 3293, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 30, 2007) (Guzman, J.). 

Judge Guzman adopted Magistrate Judge Keys’s Report and Recommendation in its entirety, awarding plaintiff all of the approximately $800,000 in attorney’s fees and costs plaintiff sought pursuant to the fee-shifting provision in the parties’ agreement and Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d). At trial, plaintiff sought approximately $2.8M for its breach of contract claim and approximately $5.8M for its unjust enrichment claim – the claims were plead in the alternative. The jury awarded plaintiff approximately $1.4M on the breach of contract claim. The jury also awarded defendant $1 in compensatory damages and approximately $18,000 in punitive damages on defendant’s defamation counterclaim. Defendant argued that plaintiff was not the prevailing party, as required by Rule 54(d) and, therefore, should not be awarded its fees and costs or, at least, should be awarded a reduced amount.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Rudnick v. WPNA 1490 AM, No. 04 C 5719, Slip. Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Judge Moran denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)-type motion for further discovery and ordered the parties to brief plaintiff’s motion to preclude defendants from arguing non-registration.” The Court held that the requested deposition of plaintiff was not required to determine whether plaintiff’s registrations were proper or timely. The Court explained that:

The copyright registration procedures are, apparently, many and varied. Plaintiff just wants to know if defendants believe he has followed the right procedures and, if not, what they think he needs to do.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Medallion Products, Inc. v. H.C.T.V., Inc., No. 06 C 2597, 2007 WL 3085913 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2007) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah dismissed defendant Broadcast Arts Group (“BAG”) for lack of personal jurisdiction, but held that the Court had personal jurisdiction over defendant ICC, Woodridge Specialty Products Corp. and an individual defendant (collectively “ICC Defendants”). Plaintiffs argued that BAG’s tortious acts against plaintiffs, all Illinois residents, created personal jurisdiction based upon the effects test doctrine. But the Court held that the alleged tortious acts against were not sufficient for jurisdiction because BAG was a Florida resident and all of its allegedly tortious acts were performed in Florida or Pennsylvania, at the request of non-Illinois residents. 

The alleged tortious acts of the ICC Defendants, however, did create personal jurisdiction pursuant to the effects test doctrine. The ICC Defendants allegedly entered an agreement to develop, market and sell a counterfeit pet-stain removal product that was packaged in bottles using plaintiff’s “Urine Gone” logo. The alleged acts and resulting injury would have occurred in Illinois.

The Court also held that plaintiffs met the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 pleading standards as clarified in Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, ____ U.S. ____, 127 S. Ct. 1955 (2007). So, the Court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ state law claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Kammin v. Smartpros, Ltd., No. 07 C 2665, 2007 WL 3046128 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2007) (Guzman, J.)

Judge Guzman transferred this copyright case to the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404. While plaintiff’s choice of forum is usually given significant weight, no party was a resident of the Northern District – both parties were New York residents. Furthermore, the non-party witnesses were closer to New York. And New York had a significant interest in deciding a case between its citizens regarding a dispute arising within New York.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week the intellectual property world obsessed over injunctions – specifically, a preliminary injunction hearing in the Eastern District of Virginia resulting in an injunction against the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) new continuation rules. There was a lot of analysis about the injunction, including live blogging by Patent Practice Center Patent Blog and a lot of post-injunction analysis by, among others: 271 Patent Blog; FileWrapper; Patent Baristas; Patent Docs (and here); Patent Prospector; PHOSITA; Patently-O; WSJ Law Blog; and Washington State Patent Law Blog. For those of you who have no idea what a continuation is or just do not care about the particulars of the rules, I promise that I am done with patent continuations for this post. Honestly, I find the rules rather tedious myself. I prefer to focus on litigating patents, rather than the PTO’s prosecution rules. So, today we talk about injunctions:

According to TechCrunch, Patent Monkey received a permanent injunction when it was sold to the Internet Real Estate Group. But Patent Monkey’s patent search technology will see its injunction lifted when it is used on www.patents.com. Hopefully, for those like me who enjoyed it, Patent Monkey’s Infinite Monkey Theorem Blog will also see its injunction lifted.

Virtually Blind has an interesting report on Second Life’s* new Patent & Trademark Office, the SLPTO. No word on whether the SLPTO and the Second Life legal system generally will allow for any permanent injunctions. Right now it appears that the SLPTO will be heavily skewed toward copyright and trademark, which makes sense in a virtual world. And before we learn whether the SLPTO has any enforcement mechanisms, Blawg IT is offering to represent virtual clients before the SLPTO. I would get a retainer up front Brett – virtual clients can be difficult to track down when the bills are due.

The Patry Copyright Blog shows why Second Life injunctions may be necessary. Six Second Life players have sued a Queens man in the Eastern District of New York for trademark and copyright infringement based upon sales of goods in Second Life. I wonder if the trademarks and copyrights were registered with the SLPTO or the US PTO/Copyright Office. And does the E.D.N.Y. have authority to issue cyber-injunctions?

Promote the Progress provides an interesting piece on the long-term effects of last week’s injunction against the PTO on shaping patent reform.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks (7)
• Share Link

I have not been able to fulfill my promised additional coverage of the inequitable conduct portion of the Trading Technologies v. eSpeed case, but it is not my fault.*  The Court decided to consider eSpeed's inequitable conduct and patent misuse defenses on the papers.  The Court ordered a briefing schedule that will complete briefing by early December for eSpeed's inequitable conduct and patent misuse defenses , as well as eSpeed's post-trial motions regarding willfulness and damages remittitur and TT's motions for its attorneys' fees and costs.  The Court has scheduled a status conference for December 20th.  Perhaps the parties will have rulings by the end of the year.

Practice tip:  In my experience, one of the dangers of doing inequitable conduct after the conclusion of the jury trial is that both the Court and the parties are exhausted and emotionally drained at the end of the jury trial (particularly after a multi-week trial like this one).  So, when it is time to try inequitable conduct, either the Court no longer wants the trial or the parties and the Court are so exhausted that they have trouble keeping their focus and energy level where it was for the jury trial despite the importance of the issues.  I do not know why the parties or the Court decided that inequitable conduct should be decided on the papers in this case.  But any time that inequitable conduct is to be tried after a jury trial, you run the risk that no live evidence will come in on inequitable conduct.

*  Click here to read much more about this case and Trading Technologies' ("TT") related cases in the Blog's archives

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Delaware IP Law Blog

E. D. Texas Blog

Florida IP Blog*

Illinois Trial Pratice Weblog (okay, it is not IP specific, but it is regional and provides excellent content)

IP Dragon(China) 

IP Legal Lounge

Las Vegas Trademark Attorney

Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog

Patent Trademark Blog(some Orange County focus) 

Seattle Trademark Lawyer Blog

Tech Law Forum Blog (N.D. Cal.)

If you know of other regional IP blogs, post a comment or send me an email (david.donoghue@dlapiper.com) and I will add them to the list.

*The Florida IP Blog is another blog developed and hosted by LexBlog just like this Blog and, as usual, it is a great looking site with easy navigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday, I blogged briefly about the Eastern District of Virginia's injunction preventing the PTO's new continuation rules from taking effect today, November 1st.  But the Court's order was not available yet.  The order has been issued -- click here for a copy -- and it is very interesting.  The Court held that plaintiff GSK had shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding several issues:

• That limiting the number of continuations a party can file violates 35 U.S.C. Section 120, which states that later filed applications have the same effect as their parent applications.
  
• That the new rules are impermissably retroactive because the limits on numbers of claims and continuations will change the terms of the bargain struck between inventors currently prosecuting their applications and the PTO when those inventors filed their applications, prior to the new rules going into effect.
  
• That the requirements for Examination Support Documents ("ESD") are impermissably vague because they do not sufficiently define the paramters of the search required.

The Court also held that GSK would be irreparably harmed by implementation of the rules because GSK has about 2,000 pending applications and GSK's rights in each of those applications would be materially altered by the new rules. 

[Updated with more links after the jump.]

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link