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

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2008) (Moran, Sen. J.).*

Judge Moran is scheduled to begin a two-day inequitable conduct bench trial this morning, and everything appears to be ready.  The deposition designations, exhibit lists and motions in limine have all been filed.  The eSpeed defendants have also filed motions to preclude Trading Technologies' counsel from testifying and to enforce eSpeed's understanding  of a stipulation (not surprisingly, the parties disagree as to what was stipulated) regarding the critical date.

Trial is scheduled to begin this morning at 10:30 am CDT.  Unfortunately, client obligations will prevent me from attending.  But I will continue to keep you updated based upon the Court's rulings.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cement-Lock v. Gas Tech. Institute, No. 05 C 0018 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer presided over a jury trial resulting in a verdict for plaintiffs Cement-Lock LLC and Alderman Richard Mell on behalf of Cement-Lock Group (collectively "CLG") on various RICO and breach of fiduciary duty claims.  The jury awarded CLG $15M in damages.  The jury also returned a verdict for defendants on CLG's trademark infringement and Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims.  Click here for Judge Pallmeyer's Order entering the verdict and here for the jury instructions (Count IX is the trademark infringement count and Count XI is the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act count).

This was 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. CLG asserted various IP claims, including Lanham Act unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and trademark infringement. CLG 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.

For more about this case and the verdict, check out:

• The Blog's archives; and
  
  
• The Chicago Sun-Times.
  

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Chicago Tribune has set up a live blog, written by Bob Secter and Jeff Coen, of the government's criminal case against Tony Rezko.  The blog promises daily, "gavel-to-gavel" coverage of the Rezko trial -- click here for background on the case from the Tribune.  This case does not have an intellectual property angle that I am aware of, but it provides an excellent view of a trial as seen through the eyes of non-lawyers, a very important perspective for litigators.  Additionally, Judge St. Eve gets at least her share of IP cases -- click here for discussion of Judge St. Eve's opinions in the Blog's archives.*

Here is some of the Tribune's coverage of the voir dire from yesterday, largely performed by the Court:

Another potential juror, No. 475, teaches cooking classes, often on Fridays. St. Eve sounded as if she was ready to work with the cooking teacher to accommodate her schedule. "If we structured the trial so that it would go Mondays through Thursday and not have trial on Fridays, the days you have cooking classes, would that be good for you?" the judge asked.

Some of St. Eve's questions were more chatty than legal. The cooking teacher, for example, was asked what was on the menu at her next class. The answer: Beef Bourguignon and mashed potatoes.

Another juror was asked where she liked to go snowboarding. Still another was asked about her desire to learn Spanish. "Have you learned any words yet?" the judge asked.

"Just the bad things," the woman responded.

St. Eve also complimented No. 475 on an answer the prospective juror gave to a presubmitted question about whether people who contribute to a campaign should expect something in return. "A thank-you would be nice," the woman wrote.

I will keep an eye on the Tribune's blog and will highlight other especially interesting items from it.

*  Judge St. Eve also gets her share of high profile cases.  She must be tired of the publicity after having the Conrad Black trial and now the Rezko trial within twelve months of each other.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I have run across a couple of items that fall outside of the Blog's Northern District IP focus, but that are useful for all of us focused on resolving IP disputes in the courts:

• An Idaho Business Review* article about a patent trial between Rambus and Micron reminded me of the importance of viewing trial proceedings through the eyes of the jury.   The reporter explained that after a week and a half of proceedings, much of them under seal, the Court has issued an order requiring that the jury be provided daily refreshments paid for by the United States.  That was the extent of what the reporter knew about the proceedings.  Of course, the Court likely decided numerous complex issues during the week and a half, but all the reporter, and likely the jury, saw was mysterious and sometimes frustrating delay.  Lawyers often forget how juries see repeated sidebars and morning or mid-day motion hearings.  Do your best to fill in or at least explain the gaps and delays for your jury, otherwise they will do it themselves. 
  
• Patent Troll Tracker identified this blog by E.D. Texas patent defendant Desire2Learn chronicling its ongoing patent infringement trial.  This is dangerous territory for a litigant, but it could be a fascinating look at the trial process from the corporate litigant's vantage point.

*  Why do I read the Idaho Business Review?  I don't.  I found the article through the wonders of RSS feeds and content searches.  Thank you Kevin O'Keefe and LexBlog for teaching me the power of RSS.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 2, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).*

Judge Moran denied defendants’ (collectively “eSpeed”) motion for judgment as a matter of law that plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) patent was invalid for indefiniteness based upon the claim term “single action of a user input device” (“Single Action”). The Court previously construed Single Action as “an action by a user within a short period of time that may comprise one or more clicks of a mouse button or other input device.” Before trial, the Court used the definition to exclude evidence regarding a Tokyo Stock Exchange (“TSE”) software package that required double clicking, entering a quantity and pressing “enter” – click here for the Blog’s discussion of that opinion.

TT argued that the phrases “one or more clicks” and “short period of time” in the Court’s construction were indefinite because they did not sufficiently delineate the scope of the term. The Court noted that it did not need absolute clarity to define a claim term and held that the Single Action was sufficiently definite. The Court reasoned that it had been able to construe the term based largely upon the specification. And neither “one or more clicks” nor “short period of time” rendered the claim indefinite because the phrases are part of the definition, not the claim language. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

Judge Moran granted defendants’ (collectively “eSpeed”) motion for judgment as a matter of law that their infringement was no willful. The Court instructed the jury using the objective recklessness standard from In re Seagate Techs., LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007), but when the Court reviewed the totality of the circumstances it found no support for the willfulness verdict and, more specifically that plaintiff Trading Technologies (“TT”) had not met its burden of proving that there was an objectively high likelihood of infringement when eSpeed sold its infringing product, Futures View. When eSpeed launched Futures View, TT’s patent had not issued. And while eSpeed was aware of the application, knowledge of an application does not prove willfulness. Furthermore, TT produced no evidence of post-issuance willfulness. TT submitted two internal eSpeed emails, but both were sent before TT’s patent issued and the emails only suggested that eSpeed should mimic certain features of the TT software. And upon learning of TT’s issued patent, eSpeed immediately began a redesign of Futures View, resulting in new software products that the Court granted summary judgment of noninfringement. As a result of the redesign, the infringing Futures View was only on the market for five months after TT’s patent issued. 

TT also argued that eSpeed’s failure to make noninfringement arguments in preliminary injunction proceedings showed willfulness. But the Court held that eSpeed denied infringement in its answer and that there was no need to argue noninfringement of Future View in preliminary injunction proceedings because eSpeed was not selling Future View. There was no danger of an injunction over a product eSpeed was not selling. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

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

As promised last week, the jury instructions are now available -- click here for a copy.  Additionally, although the verdict form is not available electronically, the Court's minute order (click here for a copy) gave some additional detail.  The jury found for plaintiff RRK on each of eleven counts and awarded damages as follows:

Damages Award

RRK's Actual Losses	$11,664,105
Sears's Unjust Enrichment	$1,688,136
Punitive Damages	$8,011,344
Total Damages	$21,363,585

For more on this case, click here for the Blog's archives.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that a jury returned a $21.5M verdict, including $8M in punitive damages, Monday for plaintiff RRK Holding Co. ("RRK") in its Illinois Trade Secret Act ("ITSA") suit against defendant Sears, Roebuck & Co. ("Sears").  RRK alleged that, pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement, it disclosed to Sears its plans for a next generation “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, Sears allegedly took RRK's plans and used them to make Sears's Craftsman "All-in-One" tool.  Sears has said it will appeal the verdict.  The Court's docket has not been updated yet with a verdict form or jury instructions, but I will post them when they become available, likely next week.

For more on this case, click here for the Blog's archives.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

I have already posted on the verdict generally, but the jury's completed verdict form is now available and provides some more detailed information -- click here for a copy.  The jury found infringement, either literal, contributory or induced, for every accused product on every asserted claim.  The $3.5M damages award was split $1.5M against eSpeed and $2M against Ecco.  And both eSpeed and Ecco were found to have willfully infringed the patents.

Additionally, click here for the final jury instructions.  Of particular interest, the willfulness instruction, at page 35, is likely one of the first that used the new objective recklessness standard from In re Seagate.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As I posted yesterday afternoon, the jury came back for Trading Technologies ("TT").  The jury found that eSpeed willfully infringed TT's patents for a six month period in 2004, found the patents valid and awarded $3.5M in damages.  The parties have not completed their bench trial on inequitable conduct.  So, the Court may still hold the patents invalid based upon inequitable conduct, which would render the $3.5M damages award moot.  But unless and until that happens, the award stands and has the potential to be as much as trebled based upon the willfulness finding. 

There has been some press coverage already.  Here is some of the best:

• Crain's Chicago Business
  
• Wall Street Journal (subscription required)
  
• Ad Hoc News
  
• CNN Money (AP story)
  
• Futures Magazine
  
• Reuters

You can read much more about this case and its related cases in the Blog's archives by clicking here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The jury returned a verdict for Trading Technologies, finding infringement and awarding $3.5M for software sold by eSpeed over six months in 2004.  The Court previously granted summary judgment of noninfringement for eSpeed's software from 2005 to the present.  I will provide more particulars as soon as I can get them.  And I will continue posting about a few of Judge Moran's opinions from the case, in addition to his opinions regarding the post-trial motions that I am sure will be filed.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The jury continued its deliberations yesterday and reconvened this morning.  That is not a very informative update, but based on the Blog's traffic this week people are looking for updates on the case.  And that is all there is right now.

A relative who is a criminal defense attorney, often said that longer jury deliberations benefited the defense.  Of course, when he had a close case and a fast jury, he sometimes thought that benefited the defense also.  It is difficult to read the tea leaves with a jury.  But I will let you know as soon as I learn the jury's verdict.  For more on the case and Trading Technologies' related cases click here for the Blog's archives.

• 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

Trading Technologies (“TT”) and eSpeed rested on the issues of infringement, validity and damages last week, and the jury now has the case.  I attended closings last Thursday. Both sides made strong, persuasive arguments for their desired outcomes. What I thought was most interesting about the closings, from a trial standpoint, was the use of themes. TT’s theme was a story of a boy who eats cookies knowing he is not supposed to and, when his Mom returns and asks him about it, tries repeated lies and distractions to avoid punishment. The story was simple and compelling. Also, it fit well with TT’s case theory, that eSpeed copied its patented software and was simply trying to avoid payment for it. The only problem I saw with the theme, putting aside whether it was supported by the evidence since I did not attend the entire trial, was that it was introduced in the middle of the closing and only referred to sporadically. As a result, even though it was likely a stronger choice of theme than eSpeed’s, it was distracting instead of being integrated into TT’s and, hopefully for TT, the jury’s thinking about the case.

eSpeed’s theme was that TT engaged in a pattern of overreaching, evidenced by exaggerations and partial truths. With each TT witness discussed during its closing, eSpeed identified an alleged exaggeration or partial truth from that witness. eSpeed’s consistent use of the theme was compelling and, although I cannot comment on whether it was supported by the facts at trial, likely resonated well with the jury.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The parties have rested on the issues of infringement, validity and damages.  Closings were Thursday and the jury now has the case.  I attended the closings.  Look for my thoughts on them Monday morning -- unlike the Northern District, other government offices, the Post Office and many schools, the Blog will be working on Columbus Day.  Judge Moran will hear the inequitable conduct case beginning next week. 

I will let you know as soon as I learn the jury's verdict.  For more on this case and Trading Technologies' related cases in the Blog's archives click here.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, 2007 WL 2713335 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 12, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Judge Moran granted in part plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) motion in limine, precluding defendant eSpeed from arguing to the jury that any feature requiring the specific sequence – a double mouse click, keying in a value and pressing the enter key – fell within the Court’s construction of a “single action.”* The Court reasoned that it defined single action from the perspective of the software end-user. And from the user prospective the double-click/quantity/enter sequence was clearly more than a single action.

The Court acknowledged that taking this decision from the jury was “unusual,” but the Court believed its decision was warranted because of the complexity of the case and how clearly outside the construction of single action the double-click/quantity/enter sequence was: 

The parties have no lack of theories, especially when it comes to invalidity and prior art. Therefore, as we are convinced that it would be impossible for a reasonable jury to find that the three steps described by eSpeed’s attorney could fit into our definition of single action, we grant TT’s motion to exclude evidence that it does. Rather than throw a non-starter at the jury or deal with this issue during post-trial motion practice, we exclude the evidence from the start. Although our decision is nearly akin to a partial summary judgment ruling, we are convinced that it is correct, it will save precious judicial resources, and simplify the case for the jury.  (Citations and footnotes omitted).

I understand that the trial is ongoing.  I am hoping to make it to closing arguments and will post about them if my schedule allows me to see them. 

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., (N.D. Ill.) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Last week, I attended several hours of the Trading Technologies (“TT”) v. eSpeed trial. I watched the direct exam of TT’s infringement expert. Unfortunately, because of an ill-timed lunch break and other responsibilities, I missed eSpeed’s cross-exam. The jury is made up of eight members and two alternates, equally split between men and women. To their credit and that of the Northern District’s jury pool generally, the jurors appeared very engaged, dressed appropriately for court and were taking detailed notes.

None of the issues that I have written about came up (click here for the Blog’s archive on the case), but I came away with several thoughts about making your case to a jury:

• TT’s PowerPoint slides were often, although not always, very dense. This led to a jury that was over-focused on the slides and not listening to the testimony. Of course, TT’s infringement case was on the slides so they may be comfortable with that. But I want the jury focused on my expert and her credibility, not her slides.
  
• Despite their occasional wordiness, TT’s expert interacted very well with his slides. When the expert stepped away from the witness stand and pointed out information on the slides, he recaptured the jury’s attention very well.
  
• When the expert relied upon deposition or trial testimony, TT put the testimony on a slide next to the person’s picture. This was an excellent way of humanizing the cold transcript. I suspect it also helped the jurors remember the testimony by attaching the words to a face.

I understand that trial will continue at least this week and maybe in to next week. I will try to observe the trial again, but I am traveling most of this week so it will not be until late this week or early next. And if I do make it back, I will do my best to watch both the direct and the cross of a witness or maybe both sides’ closings. That way I will be able to provide more perspective on the substance of the trial.

• 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 defendant eSpeed’s motion to compel production of damages documents from plaintiff Trading Technologies (“TT”). eSpeed sought, among other things, monthly licensing reports, monthly product profitability reports and documents for determining TT’s costs and sales budgets. TT argued that it had already produced the requested information, to the extent that it was kept in the form requested. And to the extent that the information was not kept in the requested form, TT stated that it had provided documents sufficient to determine the requested information. Noting that counsel are officers of the Court, the Court relied upon TT’s representations and denied eSpeed’s motion because TT stated that the documents had been produced.

Trial is set to start in this case the week of September 10. Between now and then 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 that week, but am planning to blog some of the trial. Stay tuned.

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

• 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. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

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”) motion to preclude defendant eSpeed from arguing its prior sale defense at trial. In a previous Order, the Court struck eSpeed’s summary judgment motion regarding its prior sale defense because it was filed after a case deadline. The Court stated eSpeed could use its “full arsenal of defenses” with the jury.

Trial is set to start in this case the week of September 10. Between now and then 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 that week, but am planning to blog some of the trial. Stay tuned.

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

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

Judge Moran granted in part plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) motion to bifurcate inequitable conduct from the rest of the trial – in another opinion issued on the same day, the Court denied defendant eSpeed’s motion to bifurcate willfulness and damages from the liability phase of the trial. The Court noted that bifurcation is the exception not the rule, but that Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b) allows the Court to bifurcate trials for convenience, to avoid prejudice or when bifurcation benefits expediency and economy. The Court also explained that bifurcating inequitable conduct does not violate the Seventh Amendment, citing Gardco Mfg., Inc. v. Herst Lighting Co., 820 F.2d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 1987). 

TT sought an inequitable conduct bench trial after the conclusion of the jury trial. eSpeed asked the Court to try inequitable conduct before the jury and have the jury issue an advisory verdict pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 39(c). The Court observed that there was substantial case law supporting both TT’s and eSpeed’s positions, showing the discretion the Court has on the issue. But the Court followed the reasoning of Judge Norgle in THK Am., Inc. v. NSK, Ltd., 1996 WL 33398071 (N.D. Ill. 1996). Judge Norgle bifurcated inequitable conduct, but heard the evidence of inequitable conduct each day after the jury was dismissed as the inequitable conduct evidence came up. The Court reasoned that this form of bifurcation prevented the jury from hearing potentially prejudicial evidence, while allowing witnesses not to have to return for additional days of testimony.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

Judge Moran denied defendant eSpeed, Inc.'s (“eSpeed”) renewed motion to bifurcate willfulness and damages from the liability phase of the trial.  The Court denied eSpeed's original bifurcation motion.  The Court noted that since the initial motion, the Court had issued claim constructions largely favorable to eSpeed and summary judgment of noninfringement as to the majority of eSpeed's accused products.  But the Court had also denied eSpeed's motions for summary judgment of invalidity, leaving invalidity to be resolved by the jury.  The Court reasoned that the Real v. Bunn-O-Matic, 195 F.R.D. 618 (N.D. Ill. 2000) factors weighed in favor of not bifurcating the trial or were neutral.  The Court's summary judgment of noninfringement rulings severely limited the damages case and "significantly simplified" the infringement issues. 

• 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 starting in the MSM and on the internet.  The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Internetnews.com both have pieces reporting that Eolas and Microsoft are working toward settlement.  Both stories quote a Microsoft spokesperson as saying, "[Microsoft is] in active discussions with Eolas Technologies regarding a possible settlement ."

As I said in my 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 (1)
• Trackbacks

Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99 C 626, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Jul. 30, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Late yesterday Judge Pallmeyer entered a minute order striking the Eolas v. Microsoft trial scheduled for this week and setting a status conference for August 30.  As I said in my previous post, I will not comment on any news from this case because of my family's connection to it, but feel free to discuss the order in the comments.

And thank you to all of you who were interested in guest blogging the trial.  I will get in touch if the trial is rescheduled.  If anyone else is interested email me.

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks