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

CardioNet, Inc. v. LifeWatch Corp., No. 07 C 6625, 2008 WL 567031 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2008) (Conlon, J.).

Judge Conlon granted in part counter-defendant CardioNet’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss counter-plaintiffs’ (collectively, “LifeWatch”) Lanham Act false advertising and related Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“UDTPA”) and Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“CFA”) claims. LifeWatch alleged that CardioNet improperly acquired one of LifeWatch’s prescription-only heart monitoring devices, the Life Star ACT. The device monitors a person’s heart rate and uses a cell phone to transmit irregular readings to a monitoring station. CardioNet allegedly inspected and tested the device. Then based on its tests, CardioNet allegedly misappropriated LifeWatch’s trade secrets and intentionally made false and misleading statements about the LifeStar ACT in its advertising. LifeWatch’s Lanham Act, UDTPA and CFA claims were all based upon CardioNet’s allegedly false advertising.

LifeWatch identified the allegedly false statements with specificity, but because LifeWatch did not plead who made them or when and where they were made, LifeWatch’s claims did not meet Rule 9(b) heightened pleading standards. The Court, therefore, dismissed the Lanham Act, UDTPA and CFA claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I thought I was done discussing anonymous blogging -- click here for my posts about Troll Tracker and anonymous blogging.  But the Legal Talk Network's Lawyer 2 Lawyer podcast has just published an edition about Troll Tracker and anonymous blogging featuring Ray Niro Sr. of Niro Scavone (who offered $15,000 for anyone who revealed Troll Tracker's identity) and Dennis Crouch of Patently-O.  It is a very interesting set of interviews.  I only wish that Niro and Crouch had been on together, instead of in separate interviews.  Here are some highlights:

• Niro stated that no one has claimed the $15,000 reward for identifying Troll Tracker.
  
• Niro emailed Troll Tracker and offered to donate the reward to charity (at that time it was $10,000) and fly Troll Tracker to Chicago to meet with Niro and see his firm.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Winter 2008 edition of the John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law has been published and is available online by clicking here.  It includes several interesting articles, including:

• An argument for making stage directions copyrightable, Jennifer J. Maxwell, Making a Federal Case for Copyrighting Stage Directions: Einhorn v. Mergatroyd Productions, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 393 (2008); and
  
• John W. Osborne, Justice Breyer's Bicycle and the Ignored Elephant of Patent Exhaustion: An Avoidable Collision in Quanta v. LGE, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 245 (2008), arguing that the Supreme Court should chart its own course regarding patent exhaustion, instead of adopting the parties' positions in Quanta v. LG (click here for more on the case in the Blog's archives):

The Federal Circuit held in LGE v. Bizcom that patent exhaustion could be disclaimed by contract.

The confusion regarding patent exhaustion evident in the Federal Circuit’s LGE v. Bizcom decision can be entirely eliminated by strict adherence to the Supreme Court’s Univis Lens decision. Univis Lens makes clear that the sale of an article embodying the essential features of a patent claim results in the exhaustion of that claim.

But patent exhaustion is reflective of the scope of patent rights granted by statute. A statutory grant of rights should not be expandable by private contract. The Supreme Court should thus reverse in Quanta v. LGE. 261 This conclusion applies equally to any type of patent claim, i.e., component, apparatus, composition, system, combination, method, or process claims. Identifying the essential features of a patent claim, i.e., the patentably distinct features, clarifies the exhaustion analysis, results in predictability, and eliminates the confusion between the doctrines of exhaustion and implied license.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

CardioNet, Inc. v. LifeWatch Corp., No. 07 C 6625, 2008 WL 567223 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2008) (Conlon, J.).

Judge Conlon granted in part defendants’ (collectively, “LifeWatch”) motion to dismiss plaintiff CardioNet’s state law claims as preempted by the Illinois Trade Secrets Act (“ITSA”). CardioNet alleged that LifeWatch improperly obtained one of CardioNet’s prescription-only MCOT remote heart monitoring devices by getting a false prescription for it. LifeWatch then tested the MCOT by, among other things, simulating a heart attack. Based upon the tests, LifeWatch gathered allegedly trade secret information from the MCOT.

The Court held that CardioNet’s conversion claim was preempted to the extent it was based upon gathering trade secret information from the MCOT because conversion of trade secrets is a restatement of misappropriation. But the claim was not preempted as it related to conversion of the MCOT device.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Murata Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Bel Fuse, Inc., No. 03 C 2934, Order (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2008) (Gottschall, J.).*

Judge Gottschall denied plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion without prejudice for failure to comply with both Local Rule 56.1 and the Court’s Standing Order — the Standing Order further explained that each short, numbered statement of fact required by Local Rule 56.1 should contain one fact and no attorney argument. Despite Local Rule 56.1’s clear requirements and the Standing Order’s directive to strictly comply with Local Rule 56.1, the Court held that nearly one-third of plaintiff’s 145 statements of fact did not comply with the rules:

• Many were long;
  
• One contained no facts;
  
• Several focused on an expert’s methodology instead of his results; and
  
• The rest contained inferences, argument, or legal conclusions.

The Court explained that the case’s complexity required strict adherence to Local Rule 56.1:

The court simply does not possess the resources to comb through the parties’ statements of fact in an attempt to sift out usable fact from impermissible argument or inference. … The Standing Order and LR 56.1 are composed in plain English and their meaning is clear; the court properly expects experienced and sophisticated attorneys to adhere to them strictly, particularly given the complex and sophisticated nature of this litigation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dennis Crouch at Patently-O is reporting that Cisco has amended its employee blogging policy to require that any Cisco employee blogging about issues involving or related to Cisco identify themselves as a Cisco employee and provide a disclaimer that the opinions are those of the employee alone and not necessarily Cisco.  This is a reasonable policy.  It provides Cisco's employees the freedom to blog while protecting both Cisco and its employees.  And it prevents future occurences of the mistake Troll Tracker made (anonymously commenting on cases his employer was involved in), as I discussed in my post on anonymous blogging last week, click here for the post.

Cisco also told Crouch that Troll Tracker would be free to continue blogging, presumably as long as he follows the policy.  Hopefully, that means that Troll Tracker will return to the patent litigation conversation soon, although it is easy to believe that this experience may have soured him on blogging or changed his voice substantially.  Here is Cisco's explanation of Troll Tracker's status from Cisco's official blog, The Platform:

As an employee, Rick is free to continue his personal blog, Patent Troll Tracker, in compliance with the revised policy. Rick has many fans who appreciate the information he collects and disseminates on patent litigation trends and recognize his blog as an important voice in the on-going national dialogue on patent issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cement-Lock v. Gas Tech. Institute, No. 05 C 0018 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer presided over a jury trial resulting in a verdict for plaintiffs Cement-Lock LLC and Alderman Richard Mell on behalf of Cement-Lock Group (collectively "CLG") on various RICO and breach of fiduciary duty claims.  The jury awarded CLG $15M in damages.  The jury also returned a verdict for defendants on CLG's trademark infringement and Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims.  Click here for Judge Pallmeyer's Order entering the verdict and here for the jury instructions (Count IX is the trademark infringement count and Count XI is the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act count).

This was a dispute over the control and use of Cement–Lock technology (the “Technology”) which decontaminated certain waste products and used the decontaminated waste as a beneficial cement additive. CLG asserted various IP claims, including Lanham Act unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and trademark infringement. CLG alleged that defendants permitted defendant Gas Technology Institute (“GTI”) to secure funding for Technology-related activities, despite defendants’ knowledge that GTI had no license to use the Technology and kept knowledge of the funding from CLG. GTI also allegedly claimed to own and have developed the Technology.

For more about this case and the verdict, check out:

• The Blog's archives; and
  
  
• The Chicago Sun-Times.
  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Blawg Review #152 can be found here.  TechnoLawyer hosts this edition, which is focused on law practice management and legal technology blogs.  It is a good read.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Tillman v. New Line Cinema Corp., No. 05 C 910, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2008).*

Judge Kennelly dismissed plaintiff’s copyright infringement claims holding that: (1) defendants’ allegedly infringing movie, “John Q,” was created before plaintiff’s copyrighted screenplay; (2) defendants did not have access to plaintiff’s screenplay when John Q was created; and (3) John Q was not substantially similar to plaintiff’s screenplay. Plaintiff wrote his screenplay in 1998. But defendants produced news articles and affidavits supporting the fact that their screenplay was written in 1993, including documents proving the John Q screenplay was registered with the Writers’ Guild in 1993. Plaintiff argued that defendants’ evidence was fabricated, but submitted no substantive evidence of fabrication.

The Court also held that there was no evidence that defendants’ writer had access to plaintiff’s screen play when John Q was written. First, the evidence proved that John Q was written before plaintiff’s screenplay. Furthermore, plaintiff admitted in response to a request for admission that he had not identified any witness confirming that John Q’s author had access to plaintiff’s screenplay. And while plaintiff filed his screenplay with the Writers’ Guild, the Writers’ Guild had strict regulations that would have prevented anyone from accessing plaintiff’s screenplay, and plaintiff offered no evidence proving the Writers’ Guild’s regulations had been violated.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Murata Mfg. Co., Ltd. v. Bel Fuse, Inc., No. 03 C 2934, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2008) (Gottschall, J.).*

Judge Gottschall granted plaintiffs’ motion to strike defendants’ allegedly new reverse doctrine of equivalents non-infringement argument, which defendants withdrew in response to plaintiffs’ motion. But the Court denied the motion as to all other allegedly new arguments and as to defendants’ supporting affidavits. The Court held that defendants’ non-infringement arguments were sufficiently set out in their timely expert reports.

The Court also held that defendants’ expert affidavits, submitted with their summary judgment response briefs, were proper. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) specifically permits use of affidavits as support for summary judgment arguments. And defendants’ expert affidavits met the requirements for expert affidavits:

• The experts supported their conclusions by showing their reasoning; and
• The methodology met Daubert standards.

Finally, it did not matter that discovery was closed and that plaintiffs, therefore, would not be able to test the affidavits in a deposition. Plaintiffs cited no authority for the proposition that post-discovery affidavits were not permitted.

*Click here for more on this case in the Blog’s archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dime Group Int’l, Inc. v. Soyuz-Victan USA, LLC, No. 07 C 4178, 2008 WL 450825 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 13, 2008) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah stayed plaintiff’s trademark infringement-related claims pending international arbitration in Russia pursuant to Ukranian law, as required by the parties’ liquor distribution agreement. Plaintiff argued that the arbitration clause was prohibitively expensive, but the Court held plaintiff’s proof was not sufficient. Plaintiff failed to show it was financially incapable of bearing the arbitration costs. All plaintiff offered was that it had a $13,000 operating loss in 2006. But, that was balanced by plaintiff’s $7 million in sales and good credit rating. Additionally, if plaintiff prevails, defendants would bear all arbitration costs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Strom v. Strom Closures, Inc., No. 06 C 7051, 2008 WL 489363 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2008) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted plaintiff Victoria Strom’s (“Strom”) motion to dismiss defendants’ (collectively “SCI”) counterclaims. SCI filed an earlier suit charging Strom with patent infringement. The parties settled that suit pursuant to a Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”). SCI alleged that Strom breached the Agreement and was once again, therefore, infringing SCI’s patents. But the Court held that once a district court dismisses a case with prejudice, it cannot reopen the case for enforcement of a related agreement without independent jurisdiction. SCI’s appropriate claim was for breach of the Agreement, not patent infringement. Because breach of the Agreement was a state law claim and because there was no diversity (SCI pled that all parties were Illinois residents), the Court lacked jurisdiction. Finally, the Court held that there was not supplemental jurisdiction based upon Strom’s federal employment claims. Strom’s claims and the breach of the Agreement were not sufficiently related.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Tomorrow I will be back to case analysis, but there is some Northern District news and some excellent IP and litigation blog posts worth reading, here they are:

• Ninth Annual Pro Bono and Public Interest Awards -- The Northern District and the Federal Bar Association are seeking nominations for excellence in pro bono and public interest work. Nominations should be based upon work performed in civil cases before the Northern District which are no longer pending. Send nominations by March 28 to:

Amy Rettberg, Executive Law Clerk
Email: amy_rettberg@ilnd.uscourts.gov
Chambers of the Chief Judge James F. Holderman
219 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2548
Chicago, Illinois 60604

• Patent Reform is Moving Forward -- The Senate is preparing to vote on the Patent Reform Act after its spring recess (yes, it is spring already in DC).  Here is some additional coverage of the Act's status:

271 Patent Blog -- looking at the latest amendments to the Act.

Maryland Intellectual Property Blog -- looking at the latest amendments and questioning whether proponents have the sixty votes necessary for cloture, thereby avoiding a filibuster.

Patent Docs -- taking sides, but asking you to call your Senators regardless of which side you take.

• Check out the newest entry to Chicago's law blog scene, the Lean & Mean Litigation Blog.  It is not IP-focused, but it is an interesting read for any commercial litigator or litigant.
  
• William Patry at Patry on Copyright has an interesting post about the difficulties of serving corporate entities based upon a District of the District of Columbia case involving a pro se plaintiff.  The best advice, of course, is to hire counsel because if you do not get the party served properly, you have no case.
  
• The Seventh Circuit affirmed Judge St. Eve's ground breaking opinion in the CLC v. Craigslist case.  The Seventh Circuit held that an ISP is exempt from cases based upon user content when the case attempts to treat the ISP as a publisher of the content.  This is considerably narrower than most of the other circuits, which have held that Section 230 exempts ISPs from essentially all suits based upon user content.  For more coverage, check out the WSJ Law Blog (which erroneously elevates Judge St. Eve to the Seventh Circuit), Internet Cases, and the Technology & Marketing Law Blog (very detailed analysis of Judge Easterbrook's opinion).
  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Happy St. Patrick's Day!  In addition to a few verses of Danny Boy and some homemade shepard's pie, I am celebrating with Blawg Review #151.  The St. Patrick's Day edition comes from Dublin's Lex Ferenda blog.  Check out the Review and the Lex Ferenda blog, both are excellent.

[Update]:  Blawg Review #151 has been updated to link to my post this morning about anonymous blogging and commenting -- click here for the post.  A tip o the hat to Lex Ferenda for the late inclusion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There has been a lot of coverage of Troll Tracker's recently disclosed identity.* Troll Tracker ended his anonymity a few weeks ago and now faces a libel law suit along with his employer, Cisco, based upon statements he made about a case involving Cisco -- this is one of the many reasons I do not write about cases that my firm or I are involved in.

I did not intend to weigh in on this story because there was not much to add (see below for links to some of the best coverage). But then I read Joe Hosteny's March 2008 IP Today article – click here for the article -- about anonymous blogging and anonymous commenting. Hosteny is a partner in the Niro Scavone firm, a firm that was often a focus of Troll Tracker's posts. I have not always seen eye to eye with Hosteny in the courtroom, but I found his article both very good and thought provoking.

Hosteny raises real concerns about how the anger surrounding the non-practicing entity dispute has gotten out of hand. Death threats over patent litigation (even assuming they are idle threats) cannot be tolerated. These threats make me question whether the patent litigation bar is maintaining the levels of civility and sanity required by our professional standards.

Violent threats and, more broadly, incivility have no more place in the realm of legal blogs than in the legal system. But it does not follow that anonymous blogging and commenting are inherently bad – the issue is more complex than that. Lots of electrons have been spilled over the pros and cons of anonymous blogging – blog guru Kevin O'Keefe is no fan of anonymous blogging, whereas the anonymous editor of Blawg Review provides a great service to both the legal and the blogging communities with the weekly Blawg Review, despite his anonymity.

Anonymous blogging is not the problem. The problem is with anonymous bloggers who believe that anonymity allows them to comment on cases involving themselves or their clients , or to post threatening comments (Troll Tracker, of course, never posted any threats that I am aware of). If Troll Tracker had not blogged about his client's case and if he had stuck to the verifiable facts, he likely would not have gotten sued.

Similarly, anonymous commenting is not the problem if legal bloggers, including Troll Tracker, monitored and approved comments before** they went live, the death threats against Niro never would have been published. I moderate the comments to this Blog and, as a result, angry rants against a judge or an attorney (none have been violent) do not make it on the Blog. And that anonymity may have provided the writer with false courage. But I prevent that, and so can any blogger, by acting as a gatekeeper.

Hosteny argued that anonymity is cowardly and not in the tradition of the First Amendment because the Declaration of Independence was signed by the Continental Congress. But he leaves out that the Federalist Papers were signed with aliases. Anonymity can be useful in that it can provide courage to voice ideas that otherwise might not be interjected into public discourse. For that reason, I think there is a place for anonymous blogging and commenting, as long as anonymous bloggers do not use anonymity as an excuse to avoid the rules of our profession and of common sense.

As promised above, for more coverage of Troll Tracker and the defamation suit, see:

E.D. Texas Blog

IP Law360 (subscription required, but a very thorough history)

Patently O -- discussing a related federal suit filed in the District of Arkansas, including a link to the complaint.

Prior Art Blog -- detailing the history of the suit and here and here on other aspects of the story as well.

WSJ Law Blog

[Update]:  Blawg Review #151 at Lex Ferenda was just updated discussing this post.

* There are no Troll Tracker links because the site is currently either down or subscriber only.

**  Troll Tracker did remove violent and offensive comments, but only after they were posted and he became aware of them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)

While Judge Filip heads to Washington as Deputy Attorney General, the Northern District has reassigned his cases — click here for the Executive Committee’s Order. At least the following IP cases have been reassigned:

Judge Andersen

1:07-cv-05666             Dicam, Inc. v. United States Cellular

Judge Dow

1:07-cv-02883             Kids Hope USA, Inc. v. Kids Hope United

Judge Kennelly

1:06-cv-05611             Liquid Dynamics Corporation v. Vaughn Co.

Judge Zagel

1:07-cv-03339             Borg Warner Inc. et al. v. Hilite International, Inc. et al.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Allen Bros., Inv. v. AB Foods LLC, No. 06 C 1269, 2008 WL 345600 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2008) (Andersen, J.).

Judge Andersen granted defendant AB Foods summary judgment of likelihood of confusion and dismissed plaintiff Allen Brothers’ Lanham Act claim and related state law trademark infringement claim. Allen Brothers, a seller of gourmet meats, argued that AB Foods infringed its AB trademark by using it to sell AB Foods’ gourmet meats. The Court held that this was the rare case that was so one-sided as to warrant summary judgment that there was no likelihood of confusion, even though AB Foods uses its AB mark in direct competition with Allen Brothers: 

• The marks were not similar because Allen Brothers always used its full name along with its AB mark;
  
• Allen Brothers’ customers are sophisticated meat purchasers, as evidenced by Allen Brothers’ high prices;
  
• The strength of Allen Brothers’ mark is in its full name, not just AB;
  
• Allen Brothers’ produced no evidence of actual confusion; and
  
• Allen Brothers produced no evidence that AB Foods intended to pass off its meats as Allen Brothers products.

The Court, therefore, granted AB Foods summary judgment and dismissed the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

U.S. Gypsum Co. v. 3M Innovative Props. Co., No. 07 C 6381, 2008 WL 514976 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2008) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah granted defendants’ (collectively “3M”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for lack of venue. Plaintiff United States Gypsum (“Gypsum”) filed this action asserting its own patent and seeking declaratory judgments regarding 3M’s patents, all to low dust construction compounds. Shortly thereafter, 3M filed a corresponding suit in the District of Minnesota. Prior to filing their suits, the parties were in extended negotiations regarding cross-licensing of their patents. Pursuant to those negotiations, the parties entered a confidentiality agreement (“Agreement”) requiring that all disputes “arising from the subject matter of this Agreement shall be brought . . . exclusively in [D. Minn.]” Because the express subject matter of the Agreement was the patents in suit and because the Agreement, negotiated by sophisticated parties, set D. Minn. as the exclusive jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the case in favor of 3M’s action filed in the D. Minn.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Prominent Consulting LLC v. Allen Bros., Inc., No. 07 C 6357, 2008 WL 373217 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2008) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow held that the Court had jurisdiction over plaintiff Prominent Consulting’s (“PC”) copyright claim and denied defendant Allen Brothers’ motion to stay based upon Colorado River abstention. The Court had subject matter jurisdiction over PC’s copyright infringement claim – based on source code PC wrote for Allen Brothers’ websites – because the claim was not controlled solely by the parties’ contract. At least some of PC’s copyrights existed before the parties entered the contract because PC wrote some of the code before signing the contract.

The case appeared ripe for Colorado River abstention: the parties were involved in state court proceedings paralleling the federal case; both cases arose out of the parties’ website-related agreement; and PC’s available relief was identical in each case because PC’s late federal registration prevents statutory copyright damages. But the Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over the copyright claim prevented abstention. The Court cited Colorado River for the proposition that district courts lack discretion to stay cases involving exclusively federal claims.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Blawg Review #150 is up at Trust Matters by Charlie Green, co-author of The Trusted Advisor and creator of the Carnival of Trust, which I will be hosting on the first Monday of May.  This week's review links to the Blog's follow-up post about whether photographs of copyrighted Thomas & Friends toy trains are derivative works -- click here for the post.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Gabbanelli Accordions & Imports, L.L.C. v. Italo-Am. Accordion Mfg. Co. et al., No. 02 C 4048, 2008 WL 351860 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2008) (Zagel, J.)*

Judge Zagel granted plaintiff summary judgment of trademark and trade dress infringement regarding plaintiff’s “wildly colorful” and “heavily ornamental” accordions. The Court awarded plaintiff approximately $500,000 in damages, attorneys fees and costs. Defendants – Italian entities that sold accordions in the United States – chose not to participate in the case. Instead, they filed an Italian case after this case was filed, but before defendants were served pursuant to the Hague Convention. The Court previously stayed a portion of the case pending the outcome of the Italian case, but noted that the stay may have been a mistake. Years after filing, the Italian case had not been resolved and defendants failed to participate in the U.S. proceeding based upon a belief that the Italian proceeding controlled. For example, defendants admitted personal jurisdiction when they failed to respond to jurisdictional Requests for Admission and instead of filing a motion to dismiss, defendants sent the Court an unsupported letter listing their complaints with the case and the Court’s jurisdiction over them. By failing to participate in discovery and not following the Court’s rules, defendants preempted whatever ability they might have had to make their case.

Practice tip: Participate and play by the rules. Even if you cannot or will not afford counsel, you must answer discovery, respond to motions and appear when required to. Failing to participate will not insulate you from judgment.

* Click here for more on this case in the Blog’s archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Northern District debuted a new website design based upon survey input.  The new layout is much more streamlined and user friendly than the prior design.  There are buttons on the front page that take you directly to the most used features on the site:  the daily calendar and ECF/Pacer.  Additionally, there are pull down menus along the top of the page that allow you to go directly to each judge's page, as well as to the Local Rules.  All of these features reduce the number of pages you have to navigate through to get to the information you want.  Even the judge's pages have been revised with a much more user friendly layout, including more linked information as opposed to the long text descriptions in the previous design.  And the Northern District is planning to provide a version of the site for mobile browsers.  That way if you get stuck on the way to court, you will be able to find the chambers' phone number from your Blackberry or iPhone.  My only complaint about the site has been resolved.  Early in the week the site required that you have the latest version of your browser before you could access it (not ideal for an institution that strives to provide broad public access), but that was apparently a mistake and has been fixed.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hearsay Culture recently posted its podcast with Loyola University Chicago IP Professor Brett Frischmann -- click here for the post and a link to the podcast.  The podcast discusses Frischmann's research on commons (legalese for public domain) which has vast applications in the intellectual property world, particularly with respect to copyrights and the internet.  I have discussed Frischmann's research with him a bit and can guarantee you that both he and his research are very engaging.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Schrock v. Learning Curve Int’l, Inc., No. 04 C 6927, __ F.Supp.2d __ (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2008) (Shadur, J.).*

In February, I posted about Judge Shadur's opinion in this case holding that plaintiff's photographs of defendants' copyright Thomas & Friends toy trains were derivative works and, therefore, could not be registered with the Copyright Office without defendants' express permission -- click here for the post.  Professor Rebecca Tushnet of my alma mater, the Georgetown University Law Center, at the 43(B)log has posted about the case also.  Tushnet questions why the creator of an authorized derivative work should be prevented from registering that work:

What I don’t understand is why authority to register ought to matter. The derivative works – accepting for the moment that this is what they were – were made with the permission of the copyright owner in the original works. That is all that ought to be required. Of course there is a potential problem of blocking copyrights – but other cases have avoided this by finding no derivative work at all where a translation from two dimensions to three, or three to two, has taken place.

It does seem reasonable that the authorized creator of a derivative work should have the right to register the copyright, leaving any rights held by the underlying copyright owner to be controlled by contract.  Of course, requiring that the right to register be expressly granted also leaves the rights to the contract between the parties, just with a different default.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The Northern District has posted the Seventh Circuit's new proposed pattern jury instructions for patent cases on its website -- click here for a copy.  The instructions include all of the recent revisions to the patent laws, including KSR and Seagate. The Seventh Circuit requested comments on the instructions be sent to:

Chief Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr.
robert_miller@innd.uscourts.gov
325 Robert A. Grant Federal Building
204 S. Main St.
South Bend, IN 46601

Comments will be accepted until April 1st.  Also, below is my list of IP jury instructions by Northern District judge, I am sure we will start to see some new ones soon in light of the turbulent 18 months patent law has had:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Chicago Tribune and the Washington Post have reported that the Senate confirmed Judge Filip as Deputy Attorney General yesterday, making Judge Filip the number two official in the Justice Department.  Congratulations Deputy Attorney General Filip.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The Chicago Tribune has set up a live blog, written by Bob Secter and Jeff Coen, of the government's criminal case against Tony Rezko.  The blog promises daily, "gavel-to-gavel" coverage of the Rezko trial -- click here for background on the case from the Tribune.  This case does not have an intellectual property angle that I am aware of, but it provides an excellent view of a trial as seen through the eyes of non-lawyers, a very important perspective for litigators.  Additionally, Judge St. Eve gets at least her share of IP cases -- click here for discussion of Judge St. Eve's opinions in the Blog's archives.*

Here is some of the Tribune's coverage of the voir dire from yesterday, largely performed by the Court:

Another potential juror, No. 475, teaches cooking classes, often on Fridays. St. Eve sounded as if she was ready to work with the cooking teacher to accommodate her schedule. "If we structured the trial so that it would go Mondays through Thursday and not have trial on Fridays, the days you have cooking classes, would that be good for you?" the judge asked.

Some of St. Eve's questions were more chatty than legal. The cooking teacher, for example, was asked what was on the menu at her next class. The answer: Beef Bourguignon and mashed potatoes.

Another juror was asked where she liked to go snowboarding. Still another was asked about her desire to learn Spanish. "Have you learned any words yet?" the judge asked.

"Just the bad things," the woman responded.

St. Eve also complimented No. 475 on an answer the prospective juror gave to a presubmitted question about whether people who contribute to a campaign should expect something in return. "A thank-you would be nice," the woman wrote.

I will keep an eye on the Tribune's blog and will highlight other especially interesting items from it.

*  Judge St. Eve also gets her share of high profile cases.  She must be tired of the publicity after having the Conrad Black trial and now the Rezko trial within twelve months of each other.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here are a few IP news items from the weekend and this morning that you will find interesting:

• Blawg Review #149 is up at the Antitrust Review with several IP-related links.
  
• Patent lawyer Duncan Bucknell is hosting the March Carnival of Trust, which I will host on the first Monday of May.
  
• The Northern District's new website is live (and excellent, but more on that Friday), but may be causing you some trouble today.  It is requiring that you upgrade your browser to the most current version (if you have not already) in order to access the site.  I am told by reliable sources that the upgrade is not actually necessary and that the Northern District is working on a fix so that you should be able to access the site by the end of the day with any browser.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recycled Paper Greetings, Inc. v. Davis, No. 08 C 236, __ F. Supp.2d __, 2008 WL 282687 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2008) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo denied plaintiff’s, Recycled Paper Greetings (“RPG”), motion for a temporary restraining order in this trade secret misappropriation action. RPG argued that it was either part of a joint venture or, at least, a confidential relationship with defendant Kathy Davis to develop a signature line of greeting cards. RPG contends that Davis took confidential information regarding the greeting card line to a competitor. Davis countered that she had terminated her contract with RPG pursuant to the contract’s termination provision before working with RPG’s competitor and there was, therefore, no breach or misappropriation. At an initial hearing, the Court suggested that live testimony might be required to fully resolve the motion for the TRO. But both parties told the Court that their respective witnesses would not be available during the necessary time frame to testify. Because no witnesses were available, the Court denied the TRO, holding that it lacked sufficient information to determine that RPG maintained its alleged trade secrets with sufficient secrecy or the nature of the relationship between RPG and Davis.

Practice tip: If you are seeking a TRO, line up commitments from your potential witnesses to be available both flexibly and quickly. Not many judges will grant TROs if plaintiff cannot present requested witnesses.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks