Balshe LLC v. Ross, No. 08 C 3256, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 7, 2011) (Zagel, J.).
Judge Zagel granted in part defendants’ motion to reconsider the Court’s prior ruling regarding the parties’ settlement agreement in this case regarding a patent to a system of pooling life insurance policies to create a predictable income stream. Pursuant to the agreement, defendants were to transfer their respective interests in the patent to newly-created, third party Institutional Pooled Benefits LLC ("IPB"). Defendants refused to transfer their rights, arguing that provisions of IPB’s operating agreement were in tension with the agreement.
The Court held that, while the agreement did not require that defendants sign IPB’s operating agreement, terms of the operating agreement did require defendants’ signature. Those signatures, however, were mere formalities.
Defendants’ argument that they did not agree to naming the Newco contemplated by the agreement IPB was no different than the argument in defendants’ original papers and was, therefore, improper as a motion for reconsideration.
The Court denied defendants’ request, in its reply brief, for additional relief. Defendants were limited to the relief sought in their motion to reconsider.
Normally, courts do not consider new evidence presented in a reply. But in light of the particular circumstances of this case, the Court considered defendants’ new evidence offered in their reply.
Zojo Sol’ns., Inc. v. Cooper Tools, Inc., No. 10 C 1504, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 15, 2011) (Norgle, J.).
Judge Norgle entered final judgment as part of an agreed settlement that had been approved by the Department of Justice in this false patent marking case, which was entered before President Obama signed the America Invents Act. Of particular interest:
- Any litigation involving alleged false marking before the date of the judgment was barred.
- Defendant Cooper Tools was free to sell existing inventory with the accused markings as of the Effective Date until such product was fully depleted.
The Counselors of Real Estate v. Masters Commercial Real Estate, Inc., No. 11 C 3173, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2011) (St. Eve, J.).
Judge St. Eve entered a consent judgment as part of a settlement in this trademark dispute involving the CRE and CRE marks. Here were the key elements of the judgment:
Defendant Masters Commercial Real Estate could not use the letters "CRE" in "sequence or substantial sequence", except when referring to plaintiff, in relation to real estate services.
Defendant was also enjoined from using the letters "MCRE" in sequence or substantial sequence.