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

Ball Aerosol and Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., No. 05 C 3684, 2008 WL 839993 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 27, 2008) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied defendants' (collectively "Limited Brands") motion for reconsideration regarding the Court's claim construction opinion and its summary judgment opinions of infringement, validity and damages – click here to read more about those opinions in the Blog's archives. The Court previously construed the claims of plaintiff Ball Aerosol's ("BASC") patent covers a candle tine. The Court granted BASC summary judgment of infringement and validity, pre-KSR. When KSR revised the obviousness standard, the Court sua sponte ordered supplemental briefing regarding obviousness in light of KSR. Based upon that briefing, the Court again granted summary judgment of validity. The Court then granted BASC summary judgment on damages awarding it 20% royalties and finding Limited Brand's infringement willful.

The Court held that its original claim construction, validity and infringement holdings were correct and that Limited Brands had been given ample opportunities to defend itself. The Court also denied Limited Brands' argument that reasonable royalties could not be decided on summary judgment. Limited Brands' Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial regarding damages had not been violated. There is no right to a jury without a material question of fact.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Brian Higgins at the Maryland IP Law Blog posted an analysis of significant willfulness decisions post-In re Seagate, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) -- click here for the post and click here for a subsequent post discussing Se-Kure Controls, Inc. v. Diam USA, Inc., No. 06 C 4857, 2008 WL 169029 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 17, 2008) (Cox, Mag. J.).  Of the eleven decisions Higgins identified, three were Northern District decisions and one was a Federal Circuit decision analyzing a Northern District case.  Here are my posts on the Northern District decisions:

• Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 05 C 5373, 2007 WL 4287503 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2007) (Coar, J.).
  
• Se-Kure Controls, Inc v. Diam USA, Inc.
  
• Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).
  

As you can infer from the relatively small number of cases identified by Higgins, there remains a lot of law to be written about Seagate before the standard is well settled.  I suspect that within 18-24 months there will be a relatively large body of law, including numerous Federal Circuit decisions exploring the new standard's outlines.  Until then, patent litigants will face a degree of uncertainty regarding willfulness.  Of course, defendants will generally be glad to have some uncertainty in exchange for plaintiffs's higher willfulness hurdle.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Patent Reform Act is on the Senate’s calendar and is expected to be voted on in February. The version voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee is different than the version passed by the House. Experts expect that, instead of forming a joint committee to resolve the differences which generally requires a second vote by both chambers, the House will vote on any version of the Patent Reform Act passed by the Senate.

That means that it is time to take a close look at the Senate version of the Patent Reform Act. The damages and venue provisions continue to be some of the most significant and hotly-contested. And it is no surprise that the various stakeholders are making their positions heard loudly again. I considered analyzing each provision of the current Senate bill, but Patent Docs beat me to it and did an excellent job:

• First to File
  
• Assignee Filings, Mandatory Publication, and Third Party Submissions
  
• Interlocutory Decisions & Venue
  
• Damages
  
• Applicant Quality Submissions & Micro-Entities
  
• Post-Grant Procedures
  
• Inequitable Conduct Provisions
  
• Late Patent Filings         

Several other blogs are also keeping a close eye on the stakeholders and the sausage-making aspects of the Patent Reform Act, among the best:

• 271 Patent Blog
  
• Filewrapper
  
• IP Biz
  
• Patent Baristas
  
• Patently-O
  
• Maryland IP Law Blog (and here regarding the increased internet coverage of Patent Reform during February)

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2008) (Moran, Sen. J.).*

Judge Moran denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion for a new trial of damages on the condition that plaintiff Trading Technologies (“TT”) accepted a remittitur of defendant eSpeed’s portion of the damages. After a trial, the jury returned a verdict for TT and awarded $3.5M in compensatory damages, split $2M against defendant Ecco and $1.5M against defendant eSpeed. At trial, TT’s damages model was based upon a proposed reasonable royalty of between $.15 and $.25 per trade and a total of approximately 18M to 23M trades for a damages range of about $3.5M to $4.6M. TT argued that the apportionment of damages was irrelevant because the total award was within the argued range and because eSpeed purchased Ecco and, therefore, would be paying the full amount. But the Court noted that Ecco’s award would be paid from an escrow account set up for because of TT’s patent claims when eSpeed purchased Ecco. Additionally, eSpeed’s $1.5M judgment was well beyond the highest award that could be supported by TT’s evidence. The evidence showed that during the relevant time, eSpeed completed approximately 2.1M trades. Even at $.25 per trade, TT’s highest proposed royalty, the possible damages were only $539,468. The Court, therefore, offered TT a remittitur of $539,468 or a new trial on damages.

The Court also awarded TT prejudgment interest set at the average prime rate for the period compounded monthly, because TT collected license fees monthly.

* Click here to read much more about this case in the Blog’s archives and click here for a copy of this opinion.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent post on the University of Houston Law Center Faculty Blog (another LexBlog site), Ray Nimmer asks whether the Supreme Court's recent eBay v. MercExchange permanent injunction decision will lead to compulsory licensing.  Nimmer discusses two alternatives when a permanent injunction is not granted after a patent infringement finding:

One response is simply to assess damages as to past infringement, leaving any future use of the patent for a voluntary agreement of the parties (a license) or a subsequent infringement suit for the subsequent infringements. That is clearly the preferable option, although it does raise limited issues of judicial economy.

A second alternative is to permit subsequent use by the defendant subject to the payment of a reasonable royalty imposed by the court. This is a form of compulsory licensing that rewards the wrongdoer, unless the remedy has been requested by the patent owner. Nevertheless, a panel of the Federal Circuit indicated that such a remedy may be appropriate. One wonders why.

Nimmer concludes that courts should not impose compulsory licensing for future infringement absent substantial public policy reasons:

The preconditions should be both an opportunity to negotiate a license and, failing a bargain, a request by both parties for the court to impose a royalty as part of the remedy for infringement. A patent creates a right to exclude and, where the patent owner prefers to exercise that right, it should not be forced into a licensing arrangement resulting from a case in which it prevailed on the infringement claim. There may be some cases in which vital public policy interests justify this result, but those cannot be grounded simply in the fact that the court denied a permanent injunction or the parties have not agreed to license terms. A remedy should not penalize the person to whom the remedy is awarded. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Min. Orders (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).*

In addition to the willfulness decision discussed earlier today (click here for the post) and the invalidity decision that I will blog about early next week, Judge Moran also issued two minute orders deciding several of the outstanding post-trial motions.  The Court denied defendant eSpeed's motion for a new trial and its combined motion for judgment as a matter of law that: 1) the claims are invalid because of anticipation, obviousness, prior sale; and 2) because the claims have a June 9, 2000 priority date they were not infringed.

There are still several pending motions, including various motions regarding damages and interest on the jury's award and eSpeed's motion for an evidentiary hearing regarding inequitable conduct.  I will keep you posted as those are decided.

*  Click here to read much more about this case in the Blog’s archives.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

RRK Holding Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 04 C 3944, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2007) (Coar, J.).*

Judge Coar denied the parties’ damages motions in limine.* First, the Court held that defendant Sears, Roebuck & Co. (“Sears”) could have its damages expert Catherine Lawton testify regarding her analysis of a hypothetical September 2001 negotiation between the parties. Plaintiff RRK Holding (“RRK”) argued that the misappropriation began in March 2000, not when Sears began selling its product in September 2001. As a result, Sears contended that Lawton’s September 2001 hypothetical negotiation should not be allowed into evidence. But the Court held that the timing of the misappropriation was a question of fact for the jury and, therefore, allowed Lawton’s testimony.

Second, the Court held that Sears could introduce the 2003 sale of some of RRK’s assets for $17M as part of Sears’s damages case. The Court held that the value of the sale was relevant to RRK’s alleged injury based upon the alleged misappropriation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

For Your Ease Only, Inc. v. Calgon Carbon Corp., No. 02 C 7345, 2007 WL 3357631 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 13, 2007) (Andersen, J.).

Judge Andersen denied plaintiff’s motion for a turnover order regarding payments made by third party Home Shopping Network (“HSN”) to purchase defendants’ anti-tarnish jewelry boxes that infringe plaintiff’s patent. In June 2007, the Court entered a $2.1M default judgment against defendants Mark Schneider (“Schneider”) and Product Concepts Company (“PCC”). After the Court entered the judgment, Schneider transferred his supply of the infringing jewelry boxes from PCC, which he controlled, to Sevenquest, which Schneider also controlled. The Court held that this transfer evidenced a sufficient number of the “badges of fraud” set forth in 740 ILCS 160/5(b) to be presumed fraudulent. Among others, the transfer was to Schneider (an insider), Schneider retained control of the products after the transfer, Schneider concealed the transfer, Schneider was sued before he made the transfer, the transfer constituted substantially all of the assets and Schneider moved to Costa Rica after making the transfer.

But the Court held that Sevenquest’s later transfer of the jewelry boxes to Anewco, who sold the boxes to HSN, did not evidence sufficient badges of fraud. Anewco, owned by Schneider’s brother-in-law Douglas Fournier (“Fournier”), received no immediate consideration for the jewelry boxes. But Fournier testified that he had an oral contract with Schneider granting Fournier control of the jewelry box business in three years, and that Fournier performed substantial sourcing and sales work based upon the oral agreement. Because Sevenquest’s transfer of the jewelry boxes to Anewco appeared to be in good faith, the Court did not void the transfer to Anewco. And because HSN, therefore, held no assets of defendants, the Court denied the turnover order. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container, Inc. v. Limited Brands, Inc., No. 05 C 3684, 2007 WL 2570351 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 4, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted plaintiff Ball Aerosol & Specialty Container (“BASC”) summary judgment on the issue of patent damages, held that the case was exceptional and then doubled some of the damages and trebled the remainder. The Court previously construed the claims of BASC’s patent for a candle tin with a cover that can be used as a base and granted plaintiff summary judgment of infringement. In this opinion, the Court weighed the Georgia Pacific factors and held that they warranted a royalty rate of 20%. This rate represented an increase over the 17% rate BASC argued it would have granted in an arms-length negotiation to compensate BASC for the compulsory license. The Court then found that the case was exceptional because, among other reasons, defendants continued selling infringing product after the Court granted summary judgment of infringement. Based on the exceptional case holding, the Court doubled the damages from sales before the Court granted BASC summary judgment of infringement and trebled the damages for all sales after summary judgment.

Summary judgment of damages is a fairly rare occurrence. A quick review of the docket does not suggest that the parties waived their right to a jury. So, the facts in this case must have been very strong.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Montrose Wholesale Candies & Sundries, Inc., No. 03 C 5311 & 4844, 2007 WL 2580491 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2007) (Cole, Mag. J.).

Judge Cole recommended awarding plaintiff $2.5M in statutory damages. The Court had previously entered a Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) default judgment against defendants for sales of counterfeit Newport cigarettes in violation of the Lanham Act.* The Court recommended that a damages hearing was not necessary because of defendants’ four year pattern of avoiding discovery obligations leading to a default judgment, including failing to produce damages documents. Having actively avoided producing the information for four years, defendants were not now entitled to seek opportunities to present evidence in their defense. Furthermore, the Court reported that a $2.5 M award was reasonable. $2.5M was half of plaintiff’s estimate of defendants’ infringing sales and it was half of the potential $1M statutory award for each of the five marks defendants infringed.

* For more on this case, see the Blog’s archives.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks