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

Single Source, Inc. v. Harvey, No. 07 C 1201, 2008 WL 927902 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 7, 2008) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied defendants' summary judgment motion. Defendant Harvey was employed by plaintiff Single Source (“SS”) as, among other things, its Sales Director. When Harvey was promoted to the Sales Director position he signed a confidentiality agreement which required that Harvey maintain the secrecy of SS's trade secrets and only use them for SS's benefit. SS alleged that Harvey became disgruntled and took a position with defendant Food Marketing Concepts (“FMC”). Before giving SS notice and leaving SS's employ, Harvey allegedly solicited SS's customers for FMC and used an SS expense account to pursue customers for FMC. Defendants argued that because Harvey was not an SS officer or director he did not owe SS a duty of loyalty. The Court, however, held that an employee owes it employer a duty not to compete with the employer or solicit the employer's customers before terminating the employment. The Court also held that the parties' competing evidence regarding whether Harvey had actually solicited SS's customers prior to ending his employment with SS created a material question of fact.

Practice Tip: You must respond to Local Rule 56.1 statements of material facts. The Court noted that defendants did not respond to SS's statement of additional facts. Because of that, the Court deemed each additional material fact admitted. The Court did not identify whether its decision turned on any of these admitted facts, but it is easy to imagine the circumstance in which the case could have turned on an inadvertently admitted fact.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Nordstrom Consulting, Inc. v. M&S Techs., Inc., No. 06 C 3234, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2008) (Darrah, J.).*

Judge Darrah granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff and counter-defendant (collectively "NCI") developed visual eye chart software that defendants and counter-plaintiffs (collective "M&S") incorporated into their visual acuity system which was sold to ophthalmalic distributors and end users. For a period of time, the parties worked together, selling and servicing product and sharing office space. But eventually the relationship broke down and NCI began selling a competing system. The parties charged each other with various IP claims and related state law claims. Each of the IP-related claims is addressed below.

Copyright Infringement

The Court held that NCI was the sole owner of the copyright and that its principal Nordstrom was the sole author of the copyrighted software. M&S argued that its principal Marino contributed to the software. But the Court held that Nordstrom wrote the software and Marino only offered direction and ideas.

The Court granted M&S summary judgment for all copyrighted software sales during the terms of the parties' agreements, but not as to sales outside of the agreement dates. And the Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement as to M&S's new software package "Sports Vision Testing" ("SVT"). NCI argued that SVT was an infringing derivative work. But NSI failed to produce evidence or expert testimony refuting M&S's evidence that it created its SVT software independent of NCI's software using clean room procedures.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA")

NCI alleged that M&S violated the DMCA by circumventing protections on a computer containing the software code in order to aid an NCI licensee of the code. Because the code was accessed to aid a licensee, NCI could not show that the password had been bypassed for the purpose of infringing NCI's copyright. The Court, therefore, granted summary judgment for M&S. 

The Court also denied summary judgment as to M&S's claim that NCI violated the DMCA by accessing a portion of M&S's computer system for which NCI lacked authorization and passwords. Summary judgment was not appropriate because the parties disputed whether NCI accessed the computers and whether the accessed material was copyrighted.

Lanham Act

The Court denied M&S summary judgment on NCI's Lanham Act false advertising claim and its related state law claims. M&S argued that it had not made any statements likely to cause customer confusion. But NCI countered that M&S stated in advertising that it had used the same system for five years. NCI argued that the statement must be false because M&S switched to its new SVT software during that time. Because of these disputed facts, summary judgment was not appropriate.

Illinois Trade Secret Act

The parties agreed that prior to terminating their relationship, NCI took various information from M&S's offices and computers. But the parties disagreed as to whether M&S took reasonable measures to protect the information's confidentiality. The parties agreed that M&S password protected the information. But NCI argued passwords alone were not enough and suggested other protections that allegedly could and should have been employed. The Court held that password protection alone was not per se insufficient. But the Court required more information regarding M&S's actions and the feasibility of alternative protections before it could rule on summary judgment.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

FM Indus., Inc. v. Citicorp Credit Servs., Inc., No. 07 C 1794, 2008 WL 717792 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2008) (Conlon, J.).

Judge Conlon granted Citicorp defendants and denied defendant Gelfand summary judgment of copyright infringement. Plaintiff FM Industries ("FMI") alleged that Gelfand infringed FMI's copyright in its TUCANS debt-collection software by continuing to use it after Gelfand's license expired. Gelfand argued that FMI could not prove ownership of the copyright because it could not produce the written assignment. But the Court held that FMI's deposition testimony was sufficient to create a material question of fact and, therefore, denied summary judgment.

Citicorp was accused of encouraging and inducing its outside attorneys to use the TUCANS software after their licenses expired. But at least in part because FMI failed to respond to Citicorp's Local Rule 56.1 statements or to submit its own responsive statements of fact, the Court accepted as true Citicorp's evidence that it told its outside attorneys to stop using TUCANS before licenses expired and that Citicorp was unaware that the attorneys continued using TUCANS.

Practice Tip: I cannot say it enough: you must strictly comply with Local Rule 56.1. Click here to read about other opinions considering Local Rule 56.1

• 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.

Continue Reading...

• 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.

Continue Reading...

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 05 C 5373, 2007 WL 4287503 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2007) (Coar, J.).*

Judge Coar granted defendant Sandoz’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss or in the alternative Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing plaintiff Abbott’s willfulness claims Abbott alleged that Sandoz willfully infringed Abbott’s patent related to an extended release antibiotic (clarithromycin, an erythromycin derivative which Abbott markets as Biaxin XL). At the time Sandoz entered the market with its generic version of Biaxin XL, the Federal Circuit had issued an opinion based upon an interlocutory appeal of a temporary restraining order, which included statements that Abbott’s patent was susceptible to invalidity and unenforceability argument. The Court held that Sandoz’s reliance on that opinion, regardless of the limited record it was based upon or its non-final nature was objectively reasonable, well above the In re Seagate objective recklessness standard.

* Click here for more on this case and related cases.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 05 C 5373, 2007 WL 4287501 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 4, 2007) (Coar, J.).*

Judge Coar construed the claims of plaintiff Abbott’s patent related to an extended release antibiotic (clarithromycin, an erythromycin derivative which Abbott markets as Biaxin XL), denied defendant Sandoz’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and granted Abbott summary judgment regarding anticipation, obviousness and inequitable conduct.  Of particular interest, the Court held that the use of Markush group language – “selected from the group consisting of” – in the specification did not necessarily limit the construction of claim terms. The Court also noted that materiality of a reference in an inequitable conduct analysis was determined from the perspective of a reasonable examiner, not the patentee.

* Click here for more on this case and related cases.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cement-Lock v. Gas Tech. Institute, No. 05 C 0018, 2007 WL 3374401 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer granted in part defendants’ summary judgment motion. This is 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. Plaintiffs Cement-Lock LLC and Richard Mell, a Chicago Alderman, brought this derivative action on behalf of the Cement-Lock Group (“CLG”) which owns the Technology. Plaintiffs asserted various IP claims, including Lanham Act unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and trademark infringement. This opinion focused primarily on plaintiff’s state law claims, including alleged breach of fiduciary duties. So, I will not address most of the opinion, but I will discuss the most IP-related breach of fiduciary duty allegations. Plaintiffs 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. The Court held that there was no written license between CLG and GTI regarding the Technology. But there was a question of fact as to whether GTI’s efforts to secure finding for the Technology was improper. Additionally, there was a question of fact as to whether GTI misrepresented its ownership or control over the Technology.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Here is some recent Northern District news:

• Judge Coar recently updated his case management procedures (click here to read them) to state that pursuant to Local Rule 5.2(e), parties are no longer to provide courtesy copies of electronically filed papers to Judge Coar's chambers, except for papers pertaining to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or Local Rule 56.1 (summary judgment papers).
  
• Magistrate Judges Brown (Eastern Division -- Chicago) and Mahoney (Western Division -- Rockford) are both up for reappointment in early 2008.  Pursuant to federal law, the Court has established a citizen's panel to consider their reappointments.  Members of the bar, as well as the general public, are requested to forward comments regarding the reappointments no later than January 18, 2008, to:

Magistrate Judge Advisory Panel
c/o Mr. Michael W. Dobbins
Clerk of Court
U.S. District Court
219 South Dearborn St. -- Rm. 2050
Chicago, IL 60604

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Shen-Wei (USA), Inc. v. Ansell Healthcare Prods., Inc., No. 05 C 6003, 2007 WL 2903184 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 28, 2007) (Guzman, J.).

Judge Guzman denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Defendant argued that plaintiffs sold medical gloves embodying the claims of their patent, U.S. Patent No. 6, 953,582 (the “’582 patent”), to a glove with a coating of a skin-soothing substance in July 1999, approximately two years before the ‘582 patent’s July 1, 2001 critical date. Furthermore, plaintiffs admitted that they sold patented gloves as early as July 1999 by failing to cite any contradictory evidence in their responses to defendant’s Local Rule 56.1 statement.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 25, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.). 

Judge Moran denied plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) supplemental summary judgment motion. The Court previously denied the original motions regarding the priority dates of the patents in suit.* In that opinion, the Court held that whether the patents could claim priority from their provisional application was a question of fact for the jury. The issue was whether disclosing the species of a single mouse click in the provisional application was sufficient support for the genus – a single action by the user – claimed in the patents in suit.

TT argued that eSpeed’s expert’s statement that the art – software engineering and user interface design – was predictable, was sufficient to take the patents out of the In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2004), exception (unpredictability of a species prevents support of a genus). The Court agreed that the factual issue was predictability of the art. But the Court held that eSpeed’s expert’s statement did not resolve the dispute. A generally predictable art does not mean that one of ordinary skill would understand the patentee’s description of the particular species (one-click) was necessarily in possession of the genus (one action). So the issue went to the jury.

As of this post, the jury still has this case.  I will let you know as soon as I learn the jury's verdict.  For more on this case and Trading Technologies' related cases click here for the Blog's archives.  And keep watching the Blog, while the jury deliberates and the parties try inequitable conduct to Judge Moran this week, I will continue catching up with some prior opinions from the case.

*  To read about the original summary judgment motions click here or for a copy of this opinion click here.

• 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)

Arminak & Assocs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., No. 06-1561, Slip Op. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2007) (Holderman, C.J., sitting by designation.).*

On behalf of Chief Judge Michel and Judge Gajarsa, the Northern District’s Chief Judge Holderman affirmed C.D. California’s holding that declaratory judgment plaintiffs’ (“Arminak”) “AA Trigger” shroud design for a spray bottle did not infringe declaratory judgment defendant’s (“Calmar”) design patents covering certain design elements of shrouds. The main issue, and one of first impression, was whether the “ordinary observer” for purposes of design patent infringement should be the end-user/purchaser of spray bottles or the industrial purchaser that buys triggers or shrouds for assembly into a finished spray bottle product. The district court held that the ordinary observer was the industrial purchaser and the evidence clearly established that industrial purchasers would not be confused by similarities between Arminak’s and Calmar’s patented shrouds. Calmar argued, however, that the Supreme Court in Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871), expressly excluded experts from being ordinary observers and that, therefore, retail purchasers had to be the ordinary observer. But the Federal Circuit noted that did not sell shrouds or fully assembled spray bottles including their respective shrouds to retail purchasers. The parties sell shrouds to industrial purchasers. Industrial purchasers, therefore, are the appropriate population of ordinary observers. The ordinary observer is:

A person who is either a purchaser or, or sufficiently interested in, the item that displays the patented designs and who has the capability of making a reasonably discerning decision when observing the accused item’s design whether the accused item is substantially the same as the item claimed in the design patent.

* This is not an appeal from the Northern District, but I am covering it because Chief Judge Holderman authored the Opinion. Thanks to Dennis Crouch at Patently-O for bringing the case to my attention.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Judge Moran denied the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment regarding whether GL Win with Trade Pad (“GL Trade Pad”) was invalidating prior art to plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) patents. Defendant argued that the GL Trade Pad product was on sale prior to the critical date (the critical date was either March 2, 1999 or June 9, 1999, the Court previously held that it was a question of fact for the jury) based upon a February 19, 1999 software license (“February License”). But because the February License did not specifically name the GL Trade Pad software as part of the licensed software, both parties relied upon extrinsic evidence to prove whether GL Trade Pad was part of the February. The Court held that oral invalidity testimony must be corroborated by evidence other than additional interested oral testimony. eSpeed, therefore, corroborated its main witness’s testimony with Trade Pad software code and catalogs. eSpeed argued that this evidence showed that the Trade Pad software was made and sold on or before the February License and would have been included in the February License. But the Court held that eSpeed’s evidence did not meet its evidence of proving the sale by clear and convincing evidence. TT challenged each piece of eSpeed’s evidence and the Court could not decide summary judgment of invalidity based upon eSpeed’s remaining evidence – oral testimony of an interested party (GL is a defendant in a related case). The jury must weigh competing testimony and judge the witnesses' credibility. 

Trial started in this case the week of September 10. Expect to see several more opinions in this case and its related cases (there are two weighty summary judgment opinions still in my queue, as well as several other smaller opinions and orders). Additionally, I have some other obligations, but am planning to blog some of the trial. Stay tuned.

*You can read much more about this case and related cases in the Blog's archives.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).*

Judge Moran granted in part plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) motion for summary judgment regarding prior use and denied defendant eSpeed’s cross motion for summary judgment. TT argued for a March 2, 1999 critical date (one year before the March 2, 2000 filing of TT’s related provisional application). eSpeed argued that the provisional application did not fully describe the patented invention and that, therefore, the critical date was June 9, 1999 (one year before filing of TT’s parent application). The Court held that whether the provision application met the written description requirements was a question of fact for the jury. The Court, therefore, determined this summary judgment motion in the alternative, either if the jury found a March 2 or a June 9 critical date. eSpeed argued that various uses of TT’s software before March 2 constituted public use because trades were either completely or partially performed to test the software. But the Court held that this use of the software was only experimental and done solely for the purpose of making sure the software functioned properly. The trades that were initiated during the testing were canceled prior to completion, except in several discreet incidents where the users testified that they had intended to cancel the trades but forgot. eSpeed also argued that the software was reduced to practice before March 2. But the Court held that the software was not reduced to practice until March 2 based upon the developers’ testimony that they did not believe the software was fully functioning and were still testing it prior to March 2. The Court, therefore, granted TT summary judgment for pre-March 2 use of the software. 

The Court held that the March 2 to June 9 alleged use was a question of fact for the jury. eSpeed’s email, video and trading record evidence for the March 2 to June 9 period might constitute public use, but a question of fact remained.

Trial started in this case the week of September 10. Expect to see several more opinions in this case and its related cases (there are two weighty summary judgment opinions still in my queue, as well as several other smaller opinions and orders). Additionally, I have some other obligations, but am planning to blog some of the trial. Stay tuned.

*You can read much more about this case and related cases in the Blog's archives.

http://www.chicagoiplitigation.com/tags/trading-technologies/

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (5)

Autotech Techs. Ltd. Partnership v. AutomationDirect.com, Inc., No. 05 C 5488, 2007 WL 2388794 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 2007) (Holderman, C.J.).

Judge Holderman denied the parties’ cross-motion for summary judgment regarding the parties’ opposing trademark infringement claims regarding the “EZTOUCH” and “EZTEXT” marks. For approximately five years, the parties worked together with plaintiff manufacturing and defendant exclusively distributing a line of operator interface panels using the “EZTOUCH” and “EZTEXT” marks. When the business relationship deteriorated the parties disputed ownership of the marks and each attempted to register them with the PTO, as well as filing suits which were consolidated into this suit. The Court held that in a dispute between manufacturers and distributors, trademark ownership is first governed by contract and, if not resolved by contract, then presumed to be with the manufacturer. In this case, the parties agreed by contract that the trademark ownership was disputed. The Court, therefore, looked to a series of factors to determine whether ownership could be determined. The Court held that the parties raised factual disputes and competing positions which the trier of fact must weigh to determine ownership. The parties each presented evidence that they created and first used the marks in commerce. The parties both used their names in connection with the marks and controlled the quality of the products sold. And both parties paid for advertising involving the marks. The Court, therefore, could not decide trademark ownership or summary judgment.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trading Techs. Int'l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).*

Judge Moran denied plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) motions to reconsider the Court’s grant of summary judgment of noninfringement regarding defendant eSpeed’s software utilizing automatic and drift recentering of a price axis (discussed here). This opinion is most notable for the Court’s blunt footnote acknowledging that this case will be appealed to the Federal Circuit and that, therefore, the Court believes that “speedy resolution” is in all parties’ best interests:

We recognize that TT may have a valid argument [that an amendment during prosecution did not narrow the claims] and note that this was a close call. We also recognize that our decision may have been influenced by the impending trial and our disinclination to reopen a significant issue for debate. We have previously noted that this case is certain to find itself in front of the Federal Circuit for ultimate resolution and acknowledge our place as a “way station” to the Court of Appeals. Therefore, we are further convinced that speedy resolution of all issues before this court is in everyone’s best interest. . . .

Certainly other courts have thought along these lines, but few voice these opinions. 

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Herman Miller, Inc. v. Teknion Corp., No. 05 C 2761, 2007 WL 2230042 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 30, 2007) (Gettleman, J.).

Judge Gettleman construed the claims of the asserted patents covering features of swivel office chairs and granted partial summary judgment of infringement for plaintiff on one of the two patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,588,741 (the “‘741 patent”), with the exception of claim 10 which plaintiff admitted was not literally infringed, and summary judgment of noninfringement for defendant as to claim 10 of the ’741 patent and the second patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,588,842. But the most interesting part of this opinion is not the Court’s constructions or infringement analysis, but what appears to be plaintiff’s reasonableness – a trait seldom displayed at this stage of the case in my experience. At the beginning of its opinion, the Court noted that the case originally included two other patents and that the parties had filed and briefed cross summary judgment motions regarding those patents as well. But in light of the KSR v. Teleflex decision, plaintiff issued a statement of non-liability as to those patents and the parties voluntarily dismissed all of their claims and counterclaims related to those patents. It must have been an exceptionally strong obviousness case. I have read several post-KSR decisions and this is the first case in which I have seen a plaintiff voluntarily dismiss its claims in light of the “new” obviousness standard.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Am. Needle, Inc. v. New Orleans Louisiana Saints, __ F. Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 2042764 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 11, 2007) (Moran, J.).

Judge Moran granted defendants, the NFL, NFL Properties and each of the thirty two teams (collectively the “NFL”) as well as Reebok International, Ltd. (“Reebok”), summary judgment on plaintiff’s Sherman Act antitrust claims, finding that the NFL acts through NFL Properties as a single entity for IP licensing purposes. For more than twenty years, NFL Properties licensed plaintiff to use various trademarks on its headwear. Plaintiff filed this suit after NFL Properties entered an exclusive license with Reebok, ending plaintiff’s license rights. Plaintiff argued that the NFL teams collectively, as well as in concert with Reebok, violated the antitrust laws by acting together through NFL Properties to license their collective intellectual property rights exclusively to Reebok (plaintiff argued that the NFL did not violate antitrust laws when it licensed to numerous parties, including plaintiff, through NFL Properties). But the Court held that licensing coordination between the NFL and its teams was equivalent to coordination between a corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary. Because the Supreme Court treats corporations and their wholly-owned subsidiaries as single entities, there could be no conspiracy and no antitrust violation.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Trading Techs. Int'l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No 04 C 5312, Slip op. (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).*

Judge Moran granted defendants (collectively "eSpeed") summary judgment of noninfringement regarding eSpeed's Dual Dynamic, eSpeedometer and Modified eSpeedometer products (collectively the "Products").**  The Court held that none of the Products met the "static" limitation in the claim terms "common static price axis" and "static display of prices."  In previous opinions, the Court construed and reconstrued "common static price axis" as:

a line comprising price levels that do not change positions unless a manual re-centering command is received . . . .

(emphasis added).  The Court also construed "static display of prices" as:

a display of prices comprising price levels that do not change positions unless a manual rec-centering command is received.

(emphasis added).  Because each of the Products included either an automatic re-centering feature or "drift" re-centering (automatic re-centering in response to market changes), the Court held that the Products did not meet the "static" limitation and, therefore, did not literally infringe plaintiff Trading Technologies' ("TT") patents.  In support of its ruling, the Court cited its claim construction reconsideration opinion (discussed in the Blog's archives), where it explained that "any movement of the static price axis leaves accused technology outside the protection of [TT's] patents."

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Stafford Trading, Inc. v. Lovely, No. 05 C 4868, 2007 WL 1512417 (N.D. Ill. May 21, 2007) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar granted in part declaratory judgment plaintiffs' (collectively "Stafford") motion to dismiss and denied Stafford's summary judgment motion.  The Court dismissed defendants' fraud and unjust enrichment counterclaims after holding that they were preempted by the Illinois Trade Secret Act.  The Court also dismissed defendants' fraudulent concealment.  The material fact that Stafford allegedly failed to disclose was the opinion that Stafford owned the RIVAS electronic options trading platform outright.  But the Court held that an allegedly withheld opinion could not support a fraudulent concealment claim.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Vanguard Prods. Group, Inc. v. Diam USA, Inc., No. 05 C 1323, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2007) (Bucklo, J.).*

Judge Bucklo granted plaintiffs summary judgment of infringement and denied defendants summary judgment of invalidity.  The Court first construed the two claim terms at issue -- "electrically coupled" and "via the modular connector."  In both cases, the Court adopted the plaintiffs' construction after a detailed review of the intrinsic and extrinsic evidence.  Because neither term was in the original application or appears in the specification, the intrinsic evidence focused on the use of the terms within the claims.  Defendants also attempted to use claim language from a parent application to support their constructions, but the Court held that the prosecution of a term in a parent application generally does not limit different terms in its progeny.  In the instant case, the Court found that the parent application had used the broader term "electrical connection" instead of "electrically coupled" which weighed against defendants' construction.  Having ruled in plaintiffs' favor on the claim construction, the Court held that defendants' products infringed the asserted claims of plaintiffs' patents.  And the Court held that defendants' asserted prior art did not anticipate plaintiffs' patents.

*  Because I beat Westlaw on this one, you can access a copy of the Court's opinion here.  Please note that the Court issued a subsequent order modifying the opinion by deleting footnotes three and four, which were not intended to be part of the opinion.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

United States Gypsum Co. v. LaFarge N. Am., Inc., No. 03 C 6027, 2007 WL 1100804 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2007) (Hart, J.).

Judge Hart granted in part and denied in part the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment.  This case was a dispute over technology related to gypsum wallboard manufacturing and included patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, Stored Communications Act ("SCA"), Computer Fraud and Abuse Act ("CFAA") and various related state tort claims.  The Court first looked at plaintiff's patent infringement claims regarding methods for making gypsum board and resolved the parties' claim construction disputes.  The Court then turned to defendants' argument that plaintiff was estopped from claiming infringement by equivalents because it failed to expressly refer to the doctrine of equivalents in its complaint or in its contention interrogatory responses.  The Court held that it was sufficient to allege infringement and cite Section 271 in a complaint.  And as to waiver for failure to disclose equivalents in its interrogatory responses, the Court held that defendants had shown no prejudice from plaintiff's failure to disclose equivalents and that while plaintiff did not use the term equivalents in its responses, it did state that it contended defendants infringed the patents even if defendants processes did not meet timing requirements in the claims.  As a result, plaintiff was not barred from arguing infringement pursuant to the doctrine of equivalents.

Continue Reading...

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bryant v. Gordon, __ F. Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 461326 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2007) (Kennelly, J).

This opinion replaces Judge Kennelly's February 8, 2007 opinion.  The result is not altered, the Court granted summary judgment for defendants, Gordon and Mach 1 LLC ("Mach 1"), on plaintiff's, Bryant, claims of copyright infringement based upon copyrighted goods Mach 1 purchased free of encumbrances in a bankruptcy auction.  The only substantive change appears to be a statement that to the extent that Mach 1 acquired merchandise from the asset sale, Mach 1 was likely entitled to to depict that merchandise for advertising purposes, including on the internet.  But the Court stops short of holding that the goods depicted on Mach 1's internet site were all acquired from the asset sale.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Global Computing, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., No. 05 C 6753, 2007 WL 844618 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2007) (Hibbler, J.).

Judge Hibbler granted defendant-insurer summary judgment that it had no duty to indemnify or defend plaintiff-insured.  Microsoft brought suit against plaintiff alleging that plaintiff distrbuted counterfeit Microsoft software and used Microsoft logos in its advertising for the software, thus infirning Microsoft's copyrights and trademarks.  Plaintiff tendered the claim to defendant, its insurer, but defendant refused to defend plaintiff stating that its policy did not cover Microsoft's allegations.  After settling with Microsoft, plaintiff brought the instant suit alleging defendant breached its duty to defend and indemnify.  The Court noted that by refusing to defend, defendant estopped itself from denying coverage for policy reasons if it breached its duty to defend.  But because Microsoft's alleged infringement of its copyrights and trademarks (which were exempted from coverage), instead of the use of Microsoft's advertising ideas, the suit was not covered by the insurance policy.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc., No. 05 C 4088, 2007 WL 844610 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).*

Judge Moran denied in part and granted in part declaratory judgment defendant Trading Technologies' ("TT") Rule 37 motion for sanctions.  The Court held that declaratory judgment plaintiff Rosenthal Collins Group's ("RCG") motion for summary judgment of invalidity was "somewhat misleading" and possibly "disingenuous," but refused to dismiss the case.  Instead the Court struck the declaration underlying RCG's motion, denied RCG's summary judgment motion with leave to refile a motion "supported by proper evidence" and awarded TT its costs and attorneys fees associated with the Rule 37 motion, as well as its software expert's fees.  RCG filed a summary judgment motion arguing that TT's patents covering "double click" methods for executing an electronic trade were anticipated by the alleged prior art system "Wit DSM" as embodied in a software package RCG presented to the Court and TT on a laptop and claimed was essentially the software as it is existed more than one year prior to TT's patent filing.  TT's software expert identified that several lines of code had been added to the software by RCG's declarant, and that the added code performed certain functionalities required for anticipation.  When RCG's declarant was deposed, he stated that he had not written the "double click" portion of the original code and could not be sure that it was in the alleged prior art version of the WIT DSM.  These facts did not warrant dismissal of the case or barring of any evidence because RCG and its declarant had not made any false statements, although they had made deliberately vague statements.  Furthermore, while RCG did not identify that the software package included added code which the Court found disturbing, it did include a comparison program on the laptop it provided to TT and the Court which would have identified the added code.

This case involves the several of the same patents as the other TT case before Judge Moran.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Hickory Farms, Inc. v. Snackmasters, Inc., No. 05 C 4541, 2007 WL 772919 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 8, 2007) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly held that plaintiff's "Beef Stick" and "Turkey Stick" marks were generic and canceled the Beef Stick mark, plaintiff had already let its "Turkey Stick" registration lapse.  Plaintiff alleged that defendant infringed its marks by marketing defendant's beef and turkey snacks in stick forms and labeling them "Beef Sticks" and "Turkey Sticks," respectively.  But defendant countered with evidence that numerous companies use the terms to refer to meat products sold sell in stick form.  For example, Trader Joe's, Flat Iron, Jimmy Dean, Slim Jim and Tombstone all sell meat stick products using the marks.  The Court held that the terms were generic because they name a class of goods -- meat packaged in a stick form.  The Court also noted that "it [was] difficult to imagine what else a seller would call a beef or turkey product packaged in stick form."

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks