Header graphic for print
Chicago IP Litigation Tracking Northern District of Illinois IP Cases

Monthly Archives: October 2010

False Patent Marking Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum Given No Deference

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Pleading Requirements

Simonian v. Pella Corp., No. 10 C 1253, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2010) (Bucklo, J.)

Judge Bucklo granted defendant Pella’s 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) motion to transfer plaintiff Simonian’s false patent marking case to the Southern District of Iowa. The court held that Simonian’s choice of forum was not given deference, as it normally would be. First, the real plaintiff was the United States, not Simonian. Second, the situs of the material events was Iowa where Pella made its marking and packaging decisions, not Illinois where some marked products were sold. Simonian’s numerous other false marking cases filed in the district did not weigh against transfer. Each of those cases involved different defendants, different accused products and different allegedly expired patents.

Why I do Pro Bono Work & the American Brain Tumor Association

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Legal News

cpbw_banner

This week is the Second Annual National Pro Bono Celebration.  Along with many other bloggers, I pledged to post about my pro bono experiences.  Of course, had I looked at my calendar when I made the pledge I would have realized that I would be deep in trial preparation, as well as several other client responsibilities this week.  As you might expect, I found it difficult to set aside the time to write about my pro bono experiences, while balancing client responsibilities, family and, of course, my pro bono matters.  But then I heard some terrible news, followed by some wonderful news. 

A friend’s young child had been diagnosed with a brain tumor and they were waiting to find out if it was cancerous and whether the surgery to remove was successful and sufficient.  Thankfully, the surgery was successful and the tumor was not cancerous.  Of course, that was the case because of, among other things, all of the advances that have occurred in brain tumor medicine; advances funded and championed by the American Brain Tumor Association, who I am proud to do pro bono work for.  As a side note, the Association’s website is an amazing resource for patients, family, friends and survivors.  Brain tumors strike without regard to age or other demographics, and I am sad to say I have referred my share of friends and clients to the site when they or their loved ones were diagnosed with a brain tumor.

Amidst pressing responsibilities this week, I had a clear reminder in the form of a now-healthy child and his relieved family about why I do pro bono work.  I am proud that I can dedicate some of my time to aid worthy causes, and I am proud to be part of a profession that values the donation of our services to help those in need.

Court Sua Sponte Dismissed Affirmative Defense

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Pleading Requirements

Simonian v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 10 C 1297, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 16, 2010) (Shadur, Sen. J.).

Judge Shadur sua sponte struck portions of defendants’ answer to plaintiff’s false patent marking case. First, the Court struck denials that followed defendants’ statements that they lacked information and belief. While a lack of information and belief acts as a denial, denying allegations as to which you cannot form a belief is "oxymoronic."

Second, the Court struck defendants’ improper affirmative defenses. Several of defendants’ affirmative defenses were improper because they had already been brought into issue by denying allegations in the complaint. The Court also struck defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) affirmative defense with leave to promptly file a "properly supported" motion to dismiss.

Any Person Has Standing to Bring False Patent Marking Claim

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Pleading Requirements

Simonian v. Irwin Indus. Tool Co., No. 10 C 1260, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2010) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).

Judge Lindberg denied defendant Irwin Industrial Tool’s ("Irwin") motion to dismiss plaintiff Simonian’s false patent marking case. First, the Court denied Irwin’s standing arguments. While the Federal Circuit had not yet issued its Stauffer decision regarding standing, the Court used similar reasoning. The Court analogized to the False Claims Act and held that any person had standing without proof of an injury in fact. The false marking injury is to the government and the public at large.

The Court also held that Simonian sufficiently pled the requisite intent to deceive, whether notice pleading or Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) standards applied. Simonian pled that Irwin was a "sophisticated company" with years of patent experience and that Irwin knew or should have known the patent was expired when it was marked.

Northern District of Illinois Practice Tips Nos. 21-25

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Legal News

This is the fifth installment of my twenty five tips for Northern District of Illinois litigation practice, with a focus on IP litigation (here are the earlier tips:  1-5; 6-10; 11-15; and 16-20). The tips are gleaned from my practice in the Northern District, my time as a law clerk for the Hon. Gordon J. Quist in the Western District of Michigan, and my reading of all of the Northern District of Illinois intellectual property opinions over the last four years. As you read them, let me know if you come up with others. I will be glad to include them as I go. Here are numbers twenty through twenty five:

  1. Calculate extensions in 7 day increments.  The Federal Rules, and the Local Rules, now calculate deadlines in seven day increments. Based upon that, many Chicago judges expect parties to seek extensions in those same increments.
  2. Respect Chambers.  Chambers staff are pretty universally helpful, but be respectful of them and avoid annoying them. Before calling chambers, read the Local Rules and the judge’s website to make sure your question is not answered there. And call chambers with opposing counsel, unless you have advance permission from the Court or opposing counsel.
  3. Learn how to seal or redact filings early.  The Seventh Circuit frowns upon sealing court filings unless absolutely necessary. As a result, Northern District judges are particular about filing under seal, as is the Clerk’s office. Some protective orders give you a blanket right to file under seal, but others require specific permission. That permission would ideally be sought in advance of filing, but at least concurrent with the filing. Either way, it is critical to know before the evening of a major filing deadline, when the Clerk’s office may be closed, and you may not have much time to begin with. Additionally, the Seventh Circuit requires that briefs be filed in a redacted form instead of under seal. So, many Northern District judges have the same requirement. Either ask the judge’s chambers or counsel who has experience before the particular judge.
  4. Lean on the ECF hotline.  I am routinely surprised by how many people never think to call the Clerk’s ECF number for assistance. The Clerk’s staff is uniformly knowledgeable and eager to help. In particular, call them immediately if you made an ECF-based error while filing. The Clerk’s office can almost always fix it, and it is usually easier for everyone if you have not added to the problem by "fixing" it yourself. One note of caution though, as with calling chambers, give the Clerk’s office the courtesy of reviewing the ECF webpage first to make sure they have not already answered your question there.
  5. Understand the Court’s pretrial order requirements.  More than one Northern District judge will throw out inadequate pre-trial orders. One common flaw to watch for is insufficient statements of fact or conclusions of law. The local, form pre-trial order requires the parties to identify every fact they must prove at trial and every necessary conclusion of law, even for jury trials. This custom differs from some other districts (and not every Northern District judge requires it). Likely because of that and the general pre-trial time crunch, many parties fail to prepare sufficient statements. That can have serious consequences, so start on these early.

Marking With Expired Patent Sufficient for Pleading Intent

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Pleading Requirements

Simonian v. Bunn-O-Matic Corp., No. 10 C 1203, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2010) (Zagel, J.).

Judge Zagel stayed plaintiff Simonian’s false patent marking case pending the Federal Circuit’s standing decision in Stauffer – which has since issued, holding that any person has standing without regard to injury in fact.

The Court also indicated that, once the stay was lifted, it would deny defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss Simonian’s complaint for failure to adequately plead intent to deceive pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Simonian pled that defendant knowingly marked its coffeemakers with expired patents. That was sufficient to meet the rebuttable presumption of intent as set out in Solo Cup. It did not matter that Simonian’s claims were generic as evidenced by the use of nearly identical allegations in more than forty false patent marking cases Simonian had filed in the Northern District of Illinois.

Court Will Not Rewrite Claims to Avoid Nonsensical Results

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Claim Construction

Viskase Cos., Inc. v. World Pac Int’l AG, No. 09 C 5022, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 18, 2010) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo construed the claims in this patent case regarding food curing technologies for use in packing sausages and other processed foods. The following construction were of particular note:

  • The Court declined to construe "barrier casing" holding that "barrier" did not require construction beyond its ordinary meaning. The parties real dispute was over the term "impermeable" which the Court construed.
  • The Court construed "impermeable" as "having a low enough permeability or transmission rate to steam and/or gas to prevent a measurable loss of weight, flavor, and taste during customary production, cooking, and storage." This construction required a lower permeability than any known in the industry because that is how the patentee defined impermeable in the specification noting that courts cannot redraft claims to avoid "nonsensical results."
  • "Plastic Foils" was construed as "a self-supporting film or sheet of plastic." Because the patent contemplated laminating the plastic foil, it has to be self-supporting because only self-supporting foils can be laminated.
  • The Court held that "woven" in "woven fibers, fabric, knits and fleece" modified only fibers, not fabric, knits or fleece.

Northern District of Illinois Practice Tips Nos. 16-20

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Legal News

This is the fourth installment of my twenty five tips for Northern District of Illinois litigation practice, with a focus on IP litigation (here are the earlier tips:  1-5; 6-10; and 11-15). The tips are gleaned from my practice in the Northern District, my time as a law clerk for the Hon. Gordon J. Quist in the Western District of Michigan, and my reading of all of the Northern District of Illinois intellectual property opinions over the last four years. As you read them, let me know if you come up with others. I will be glad to include them as I go. Here are tips sixteen through twenty:

  1. Meet and Confer.  Wherever you practice you are likely aware of some version of a Local Rule 37.1 requirement to meet and confer regarding at least discovery motions. Generally, you do not need to meet and confer for dispositive motions, but you must for discovery motions as well as motions for extensions. Most judges will not hear a motion without a meet and confer, and some will deny the motion with prejudice for failing to meet and confer. If you are not sure whether your motion requires a meet and confer, err on the side of having one.
  2. Tell the Court about your meet and confer.  Do not forget to tell the Court you met and conferred in your motion, and describe the outcome. If you do not, you risk denial of your motion, and always identify agreed or stipulated motions in the title and the docket entry.
  3. Use the Online Transcript System.  Take advantage of the Northern District’s first-in-the-nation online transcript ordering system. Prior to this system, getting transcripts was difficult, but now getting a hearing transcript is as easy as buying a book on Amazon.com. It is a great advantage for litigators preparing motions that relate to prior hearings.
  4. Calculate your hearing date. Each judge has a different minimum notice period for motions. Many judges allow notice three business days after filing, but a few only require two and others require four. On a similar note, check the judge’s website for allowable motion call days and times, and any days when the judge will not be hearing motions.
  5. Deliver prompt, correct courtesy copies. The Local Rules require delivery of courtesy copies of to the Court within one day of filing. But some judges require same day courtesy copies if at all possible. For those judges, if you cannot deliver same day you should at least deliver early the next morning. Also, make sure you format the copies correctly. For example, most judges require exhibits to be separated by tabs, and some judges require that papers be bound on the left-hand side. And for many judges, you must include copies of any unreported cases cited in your papers.

Court Refuses Any Future Discovery Motions Without Local Rule 37.2 Certification

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Discovery

Chamberlain Group v. The Lear Corp., No. 05 C 3449, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 15, 2010) (St. Eve, J.).

Judge St. Eve denied plaintiff Chamberlain’s motion to compel further deposition of a witness in this patent case. The Court noted that the information sought from the deposition could be relevant. But the Court denied the motion for failure to comply with the meet and confer rule, Local Rule 37.2. And the Court explained that it would no longer consider motions based upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 26-37 without a Local Rule 37.2 statement:

(1) that after consultation in person or by telephone and good faith attempts to resolve differences they were unable to reach an accord, or (2) counsel’s attempts to engage in such consultation were unsuccessful due to no fault of counsel’s. Where the consultation occurred, this statement shall recite, in addition, the date, time and place of such conference, and the names of all parties participating therein. Where counsel was unsuccessful in engaging in such consultation, the statement shall recite the efforts made by counsel to engage in consultation.

Defendants’ only efforts to resolve the dispute occurred at the deposition where the issue arose. This did not meet the Local Rule 37.2 requirement.

Loosely Related State Law Claims Sufficient for Supplemental Jurisdiction

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Jurisdiction

Von Holdt v. A-1 Tool, No. 04 C 4123, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2010) (Manning, J.).

Judge Manning, having granted in part plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, decided to maintain supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ remaining state law claims despite having granted defendants summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ federal patent infringement and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") claims. Plaintiffs’ state law claims – trade secret, tortious interference and breach of fiduciary duty claims – were "loosely" connected to plaintiffs’ CFAA claim because they were based upon the alleged theft of plaintiffs’ confidential information by a former employee.

Northern District of Illinois Practice Tips Nos. 11-15

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Legal News

This is the third installment of my twenty five tips for Northern District of Illinois litigation practice, with a focus on IP litigation. The tips are gleaned from my practice in the Northern District, my time as a law clerk for the Hon. Gordon J. Quist in the Western District of Michigan, and my reading of all of the Northern District of Illinois intellectual property opinions over the last four years. As you read them, let me know if you come up with others. I will be glad to include them as I go. Here are tips eleven through fifteen:

11.  Respect Twombly / Iqbal pleading standards.  The Northern District is no different than the rest of the country’s district courts — patent infringement requirements have not changed from the form in the Federal Rules. But that is not necessarily the case for Lanham Act, copyright or trade secret claims. There are numerous decisions dismissing, often with leave to amend, these more fact-specific intellectual property claims. And even in the patent context plaintiffs benefit from pleading with more particularlity. The more detail a defendant has the more information they should disclose about their accused products or systems as part of their Local Patent Rule 2.1(b) initial disclosure document production requirements. That means that the plaintiff will have more material with which to prepare its Local Patent Rule 2.2 intial infringement contentions. Finally, regardless of the type of claim, many and perhaps most judges rely upon Twombly / Iqbal to require more than a bare recitation of the elements of affirmative defenses. So, it is especially important to add some facts to your affirmative defenses.

12.  Prepare Local Rule 56.1 statements with care.  This is probably the most frequent Local Rule hang up in Northern District of Illinois opinions. It is critical that movants meet the Local Rule 56.1 requirements, among others, a numbered statement of undisputed material facts supported by admissible evidence. If the facts are not supported or if they are legal conclusions, judges routinely strike or disregard them.

13.  Respond to Local Rule 56.1 statements with evidence.  Far too often, parties respond to Local Rule 56.1 statements without evidence. Those responses are almost always deemed admissions. Without admissibile evidence to counter statements of fact they are almost always admitted.

14.  Watch your judge’s webpage.  Each judge maintains the equivalents of standing orders on their webpage, often in multiple places and links across the page. It is critical that you read them at the beginning of your case and that you recheck them regularly. At a minimum, check them before you file anything with the Court. I find that the website instructions change with much greater frequency than the old, paper standing orders did. And while judges try to make it easy to see what they change, if you are not looking you will miss it.

15.  Always file notices of motion.  In some districts, notices of motions are not required or even discouraged. In the Northern District of Illinois, they are required of every motion. If you fail to file one, you will likely hear from the Clerk’s office. Also, make sure to file the notice after the motion, not before. If you file the notice before the motion, you will generally have to refile it.

Proof of Paying Sales Tax and Tracking Sales are not Enough Control for Trademark Licensing

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Legal News

Eva’s Bridal Ltd. v. Halanick Enters., Inc., No. 07 C 1668, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 4, 2010) (Darrah, J.)

Judge Darrah granted in part defendants’ (collectively "Halanick") motion to reconsider the Court’s summary judgment decisions in this trademark dispute. Initially, the Court overturned its decision that Sarniti could not file a proper claim in light of the Court’s earlier decision allowing the same claim.

The Court also reversed its decision regarding plaintiffs’ trademark claims. Plaintiffs exercised new control over defendants’ use of the marks. Proof of plaintiff paying sales tax and keeping tabs on sales were insufficient. As such, plaintiffs’ license is a "naked license".

Finally, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

Court Reconsiders Supplemental Jurisdiction to Assert Tort Claims

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Jurisdiction

Von Holdt v. A-1 Tool, No. 04 C 4123, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2010) (Manning, J.)

Judge Manning granted in part plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider the Court’s opinion granting defendants summary judgment on plaintiffs’ patent claims and dismissing plaintiffs’ related state law claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.

The Court reversed its supplemental jurisdiction decision because Illinois law barred the refiling more than once of a claim that was voluntarily dismissed. Presented with the "new" fact that plaintiffs had previously filed suit in state court, the Court vacated its prior decision and ordered plaintiffs to brief whether the Court should retain jurisdiction over the state law claims.

The Court, however, did not reverse its summary judgment of noninfringement. On that Plaintiffs agreements were a "rehash" of its prior agreements.

Northern District of Illinois Practice Tips Nos. 6-10

By R. David Donoghue on Posted in Legal News

This is the second installment of my twenty five tips for Northern District of Illinois litigation practice, with a focus on IP litigation.  The tips are gleaned from my practice in the Northern District, my time as a law clerk for the Hon. Gordon J. Quist in the Western District of Michigan, and my reading of all of the Northern District of Illinois intellectual property opinion over the last four years.  As you read them, let me know if you come up with others.  I will be glad to include them as I go.  Here are tips six through ten:

6.    Redact personal information.  Make sure that you are redacting personal information, social security numbers, phone numbers, etc., from any papers filed with the Court.  Most litigants are good at this in their pleadings.  But there is a significant drop off in attention to this rule in exhibits and other filed papers.  There can be serious consequences to running afoul of this rule both to the litigator and to the individual whose information is publicly disclosed.

7.    Attend hearings.  Parties often do not attend hearings because they expect a motion to by granted (for example, an extension of time or motion to withdraw when other counsel has appeared in the case) or because they do not have a stake in the motion between their opponent and a co-defendant.  This can be a critical mistake.  First, most judges require all parties’ attendance at all hearing on a case.  Second, you cannot guarantee that issues implicating yoru client will not be addressed at the hearing.  And if they are addressed, you cannot necessarily count upon either your opponent or your co-defendant to protect your interests.

8.     Pay attention to the court reporter.  The hardest working person in the courtroom is almost always the court reporter; help them out.  Offer a card or spell your name on the record.  Speak clearly and at a modest speed.  As much as you may feel the need to, do not speak over your opponent.  If you are on a telephone conference, announce yourself when you speak.  This both helps the reporter and makes the record much more clear.

9.    Attend hearings by phone sparingly.  In deference to the cost of bringing non-Chicago counsel to every hearing, many judges in the Northern District liberally permit attendance by telephone.  This is an enormous convenience and cost-savings, but when not used carefully can have a negative impact on your case.  It is impossible to interpret a judge’s visual cues on the phone, unless they describe them to you at which point it is far too late.  If the hearing is of any import, either attend live or send local counsel fully prepared to address all issues, if live attendance is not possible.

10.    Listen on phone hearings.  Too many lawyers when given an opportunity to argue their point during a telephonic hearing, speak until they are done.  That has the advantage of getting your point across, but you have no idea if the judge is trying to ask you a question or even stop you completely.  And when you are speaking into a speakerphone, you cannot hear anyone else, most importantly the judge, that may be trying to stop you or ask you a question.  In the best case, that leaves the judge exasperated, and in the worst case the judge may view you as disrespectful, unnecessarily argumentative and as not listening to the Court.  None of these are good results, and it is easily avoidable if you teach yourself to pause periodically.  The pauses give you the time for the Court to give you verbal cues that you could get visually or verbally in the courtroom.