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

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that a trademark suit between well-known Southern California chain Roscoe's House of Chicken 'n Waffles (“Roscoe’s”) against new Chicago restaurant Rosscoe's House of Chicken and Waffles (“Rosscoe’s Chicago”) was at least partially resolved the day after it was filed when Rosscoe’sChicago agreed to change its name to Chicago's Home of Chicken and Waffles.

The restaurants had no affiliation with each other, but had numerous similarities, beyond just the names:

• Both use a cartoon chicken and a waffle as logos; and
  
• Both have drinks called "Sun Rise" and "Sunset".

Those involved in an early hearing yesterday appeared to have a sense of humor about the dispute. After the hearing, Rosscoe’s Chicago’s owner Darnell Johnson was quoted as saying “I'm happy as a chicken eating waffles."  And during the hearing, Judge Der-Yeghiayan summed up the case's status this way: "I see that both parties understand the issues and facts of life and none of the parties are waffling on the issue." Roscoe’s, however, did state that it intended to pursue damages for the period before Rosscoe’s Chicago’s name change.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Angel Sales Inc. v. Hollywood Gadgets Inc., No. 07 C 1362, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2007) (Denlow, Mag. J.).

Judge Denlow sanctioned defendant in the amount of plaintiff's attorney's fees and costs for preparation and attendance at a settlement conference before the Court.  Defendant's counsel attended the conference, but defendant did not appear.  In a subsequent order, the Court entered a sanctions award of $1,710 based upon plaintiff's fee affidavit.

There is not much to say about this opinion, but I included it as a practice tip and a cautionary tale.  Parties often do not want to personally attend settlement conferences before judges, or they attempt to send a representative without full settlement authority.  But that is a perilous choice.  It can result in sanctions, as here, and, at the least, it usually harms the chances of settlement.  The opposing party that took the time to be at the conference is generally offended that its time was wasted.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99 C 626 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Speculation regarding Judge Pallmeyer's delay of the Eolas v. Microsoft trial is over.  Eolas announced that it settled with Microsoft in a letter to shareholders (available from theSeattle Post-Intelligencer).  No details of the settlement were available, but Eolas told its shareholders to expect a dividend from the settlement of up to $60-$72 per share.  Here is more coverage of the settlement:*

• Vnunet.com
  
• Todd Bishop's Microsoft Blog -- discussing the letter to Eolas shareholders.
  
• Wall Street Journal (subscription required)
  
• Patent Prospector

*  As I have explained in previous posts, I will not comment on any news from this case because of my family's connection to it, but feel free to discuss the case in the comments.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sitrick v. Freehand Sys., Inc., No. 02 C 1568, 2007 WL 2298362 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 3, 2007) (Guzman, J.).

Judge Guzman denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the Court’s final order dismissing plaintiff’s patent infringement case with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1). Plaintiff sought to amend the order to include the terms of the parties’ settlement agreement because in Lynch v. SamataMason, Inc., 279 F.3d 487, 489 (7th Cir. 2006), the Seventh Circuit held that a court only maintains ancillary jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements if the dismissal order contains (not just by incorporation) the terms of the agreement. But the Court denied the motion for two reasons. First, the Court’s original order was a nullity because it was issued after the parties filed their unconditional stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) which immediately ended the Court’s jurisdiction. Second, because the amendment was not clerical, sought within one year of entry of the order or otherwise justified, Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 prevented the Court from amending the order.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Abbott Laboratories and Andrx Pharmaceuticals have settled their Northern District patent litigation over Andrx's efforts to sell a generic version of Abbott's extended release antibiotic Biaxin XL, Case No.05 C 1490 (discussed at length in the Blog's archives).  According to IP Law360 (subscription required), the settlement includes an agreement that Andrx will not market a generic version of Biaxin XL for, presumably, the remainder of Abbott's patent term.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Super Wash, Inc. v. Allen, No. 06 C 50169, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 20, 2007) (Mahoney, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge Mahoney recommended dismissing one group of defendants' ("Genecor defendants") motion to enforce the settlement agreement and the other group's ("MJR defendants") motion for judgment and sanctions.  Plaintiff alleged that defendants infringed its trademarks related to its "Super Wash" car washes, engaged in Lanham Act unfair competition, falsely designated its origins pursuant to the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and related state law claims.  Shortly after the case was filed, it was stayed to allow settlement discussions and a settlement conference was held by the Court.  At that conference the parties agree that an agreement was reached, but disagree as to its scope and power.  Plaintiff alleged that a settlement had been reached on some terms subject to resolving the remaining terms and memorializing the agreement in writing.  The defendants, on the other hand, all agree that a binding settlement was agreed to and read aloud by the Court.  Defendants agreed that they were required to:  1) pay plaintiff a sum of money; 2) stop using plaintiff's marks; 3) provide plaintiff reasonable assistance in removing the marks from the internet, phone books, etc. and 4) were not required to admit liability.  But the Genecor defendants believe the agreement stipulated that neither the settlement agreement or any discovery from the case could be used in a pending state court case.  The MJR defendants believe there was no limitations on the use of information from or about the instant case in the pending state court case.  The Court, therefore, held that it could not grant defendants' motions to enforce the agreement or enter sanctions related to it.  There was no evidence of a meeting of the minds as to the use of information from the case in the state court case, which was a material term of the agreement.  And Illinois law required a meeting of the minds on a settlement's major terms in order to have an enforceable oral settlement agreement.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cummins-Allison Corp. v. Glory Ltd., No. 02 C 7008 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 25, 2007) (Posner, J.).

Judge Posner, sitting by designation, entered an order dismissing all claim and counterclaims without prejudice and terminating the case, on what appeared to be near the eve of trial.  The parties filed a Stipulated Dismissal earlier in the month.  No further settlement details were readily available. 

The Court's order ended what had been a fairly protracted patent dispute between the two parties centering around patents covering money-counting and bill-sorting devices.  You can read more about prior rulings from the Northern District case in the Blog's archives.  You can read about several opinions from the related Eastern District of Texas case here and here at Michael Smith's E.D. Texas Blog.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks