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

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...

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• 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...

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• 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.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• 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...

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• 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.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• 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.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• 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.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• 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."

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Lincoln Park Hotels, Inc., No. 06 C 2960, 2007 WL 551570 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.)

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted plaintiff summary judgment on its trademark infringement and Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("IDTPA") claims, among others.  Plaintiff owns various marks relating to its Days Inn chain (the "Days Inn Marks").  Plaintiff licensed defendants Lincoln Park Hotels, Inc. and Richard Erlich (collectively "LPH") to use the Days Inn Marks in connection with the operation of a hotel in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood.  In 2005, LPH sold the hotel to defendant Gold Coast Investors ("GCI") without informing plaintiff, in violation of the parties' license agreement.  GCI continued operating the hotel using the Days Inn Marks without licensing the rights to the marks from plaintiff.  As a result, plaintiff brought the instant action against defendants alleging that, among other things, GCI infringed plaintiff's Days Inn Marks and LPH contributorily infringed plaintiff's Days Inn Marks by selling the hotel to GCI with the knowledge that GCI intended to continue using the Days Inn Marks and without informing plaintiff of the sale or removing the Days Inn Marks from the hotel, as required in the parties' license agreement. 

Continue Reading...

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Murphy v. Murphy, No. 04 C 3496, 2007 WL 551576 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2007) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah granted defendants summary judgment of noninfringement of plaintiff’s copyright. Plaintiff, a documentary filmmaker, filmed several residents of Chicago Housing Authority Projects. Plaintiff copyrighted his documentary film and, in early 1998, sent it to Oprah Winfrey at Harpo Productions. He requested that Winfrey and Harpo air his documentary on the Oprah Winfrey Show and that they forward it to a list of people in the film industry, several of whom are named defendants. Winfrey never responded to plaintiff and his documentary was never aired on her show. Shortly thereafter, defendants’ animated program, “The PJs” – telling the story of several fictional characters living in an urban housing project – aired on the Fox network. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants collectively infringed his copyrighted documentary by using scenes from it, as well as unique features of several of plaintiff’s subjects to make their characters.

Continue Reading...

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

RRK Holding Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 04 C 3944, 2007 WL 495254 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2007) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar denied defendant summary judgment on plaintiff’s trade secret and breach of contract (nondisclosure agreement) claims. The Court also granted defendant summary judgment on plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim holding that because it was based upon the trade secret misappropriation allegations it was preempted by the Illinois Trade Secret Act (“ITSA”). Plaintiff alleged that, pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement, it disclosed to defendant its plans for its “combination tool” which consisted of a rotary saw, also called a spiral saw, which could be converted into a plunge router. But after negotiations broke down over price, defendant allegedly disclosed the idea to its Canadian subsidiary, which then allegedly disclosed the idea to another party, Choon Nang Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Ltd. (“Choon Nang”), that obtained a British design patent on the combination tool and produced it for defendant. 

Continue Reading...

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cummins-Allison Corp. v. Glory Ltd., No. 02 C 7008, 2007 WL 487564 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2007) (Kendall, J.).

Judge Kendall denied summary judgment of invalidity for defendant in this patent dispute (you can find the Court's prior claim construction ruling here).  Defendant argued that plaintiff's public use of money-counting machines embodying the patented inventions in banks more than one year before filing of the patent application invalidated the patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 102(b).  Defendant relied upon the testimony of several bank employees that the machines were beta-tested by banks in locations that bank patrons could see without signing any confidentiality agreements.  But plaintiff put forth evidence that defendant had taken steps to keep the use confidential and that, even if the use was public, it was only an experimental use which does not create a Section 102(b) bar.  Based on the conflicting evidence, the Court held that there were questions of material fact as to the patents' validity and, therefore, denied summary judgment.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Bryant v. Gordon, No. 05 C 3066, 2007 WL 461326 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 8, 2007) (Kennelly, J).

Judge Kennelly 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.  Because Bryant had notice that copies of posters including his copyrighted photograph of U.S. Army snipers in Ghillie suits (the "Bryant photo") would be sold at the auction and he did not object, he had no claim of infringement for those copies.  The Court denied summary judgment for both Bryant and defendants on their cross-motions for summary judgment regarding infringement of a picture taken by defendant, Urtis, (the "Urtis photo") which allegedly copied the Bryant photo.  The Court held that the Bryant photo was copyrightable based upon Bryant's choice of composition, lighting, camera angle and other factors, but denied summary judgment as to whether the Urtis photo copied the Bryant photo.  The Court noted that both photos were "taken from the same angle, perspective, and with the same scene and terrain."  There were differences between the photos, but the Court could not say as a matter of law that the differences would be sufficiently obvious to an ordinary person.  The Court, therefore, held that a reasonable jury could find that the Urtis photo copied the Bryant photo or that it did not and denied summary judgment.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Clarus Transphase Scientific, Inc. v. Q-Ray, Inc., No. 06 C 4634, 2006 WL 4013750 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 6, 2006) (Cole, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge Cole denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction holding that plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on its trademark, trade dress and copyright infringement claims.  Plaintiff marketed and sold pendants incorporating its "Sympathetic Resonance Technology" which it claimed enhanced the human biofield under its "Q-Link" mark.  Defendants sold a line of pendants and bracelets under the "Q-Ray" mark which they claim are "bio-magnetic ionized" which they claim enhance a person's overall well-being.  The Court held that there was no likelihood of success on the trademark infringement claims because the three most important likelihood of confusion factors -- the similarity of the marks, defendants' intent and evidence of actual confusion -- all favored defendants.  The marks, "Q-Link" and "Q-Ray" share only one letter, "Q," and a hyphen and use substantially different fonts, making even the Q's employed in each mark look different.  Plaintiff's actual confusion evidence consisted of a declaration from plaintiff's employee stating that she had added a Professional Golfers Association ("PGA") trade show at which "a number of attendees" were confused as to whether plaintiff sold the "Q-Ray" pendants.  The Court noted that the number of attendees that stated there confusion could have been as low as two.  As a result, the Court could not find a likelihood of success on the issue of actual confusion. 

Continue Reading...

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Civix-DDI, LLC v. National Assoc. of Realtors, No. 05 C 6869, 2007 WL 178318 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2007) (St. Eve, J.).

Judge St. Eve granted defendant Hotels.com summary judgment that certain of its alleged activities are protected by plaintiff Civix's covenant-not-to-sue with Hotels.com covenant-provider MapQuest and denied summary judgment as to activities that might be covered by Civix's similar covenant-not-to-sue with Hotels.com content-provider Navteq.  Another opinion on a similar issue with defendant Yahoo in the case is discussed in this post.  The Court held that both covenants prevented suits against the licensee's customers or end users with respect to or relating to the licensee's technology.  But in the case of the Navteq agreement, there was an issue of fact as to whether a third party in the stream of commerce between Navteq and Hotels.com added independent value to Hotels.com thereby giving Hotels.com more than the Navteq technology and kept Hotels.com from benefiting from the covenant-not-to-sue.  In the case of the MapQuest technology, there was no such third party in the stream of commerce and, therefore, no question that Hotels.com was protected by MapQuest's covenant-not-to-sue.

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick, __ F. Supp.2d __, 2006 WL 3626770 (N.D. Ill.  Dec. 7, 2006) (Hart, J.).

Judge Hart granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed all of plaintiffs' claims in this trademark case.  First, the Court did a detailed analysis of each of the seven likelihood of confusion factors and determined that a reasonable jury could not find a likelihood of confusion between plaintiffs' AutoZone mark and defendants' Oil Zone and Wash Zone marks.  The Court found that plaintiffs' mark was strong, but held that there was not great similarity between the marks, that plaintiffs' and defendants' services were not similar, and that there was no evidence of actual confusion or intentional infringement.  As a result, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' trademark infringement and unfair competition claims.

Continue Reading...

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Best Vacuum, Inc. v. Ian Design, Inc., No. 04 C 2249, 2006 WL 3486879 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2006) (Hort, J.).

In this trademark and Lanham Act unfair competition suit, Judge Hort granted summary judgment for defendant and dismissed the case.  Plaintiff had operated under the name "Best Vacuum" since 1983 and operated a www.bestvacuum.com website since 1996.  In 2003, defendant began operating a www.bestvacuumcleaners.com website, but when plaintiff complained, defendant changed its website to www.bestchoicevacuums.com.  After defendant refused to take down its second site, plaintiff sued.  Plaintiff's trademark infringement claim was dismissed earlier in the case because plaintiff never registered its "Best Vacuum" mark.  The case was before the Court on cross summary judgment motions.

Continue Reading...

• Send To A Friend
• Print This Article
• Comments
• Trackbacks