Trading Techs. Int’l., v. CQG, No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2012) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman granted in part plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant CQG’s affirmative defenses and declaratory judgment counterclaim. The Court dismissed CQG’s bare-bones defenses which stated in their entirety:
- “Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppels, acquiescence, implied license, and/or unclean hands.”
- “Plaintiff is not entitled to any damages for the time period that it was not in compliance with the marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287.”
The Court, however, gave CQG twenty-one days to amend the defenses to include sufficient factual support.
The Court denied TT’s motion to dismiss CQG’s declaratory judgment counterclaims as redundant. While some judges in the Northern District dismiss such claims, the Court held that CQG’s counterclaims would allow the Court to retain jurisdiction if TT dismissed its claims and, therefore, were not redundant.