Avery Dennison Corp. v. Continental Datalabel, Inc., No. 10 C 2744, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2010) (Kennelly, J.).
Judge Kennelly granted plaintiff Avery Dennision’s ("ADC") Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant Continental Datalabel’s ("CDI") inequitable conduct, Walker Process fraud and sham litigation counterclaims in this patent dispute regarding labels with a tear off liner to expose a portion of a label column for easy removal.
CDI alleged two bases of inequitable conduct. First, ADC allegedly intentionally failed to tell the examiner that certain limitations outlined in a series of bullet points were from a particular prior art reference. That claim filed because ADC had previously disclosed the prior art reference at issue to the examiner – once a reference is before an examiner, it cannot be found to have been withheld from the examiner. Second, ADC allegedly intentionally failed to disclose to the examiner that curling up of labels is an inherent characteristic of adhesive labels. But ADC had disclosed the inherent curling up by disclosing various prior art references regarding adhesive labels that taught the inherent curling up, combined with the examiner’s presumed experience in the art.
Walker Process Fraud Claim
Because CDI’s Walker Process claim was premised upon the alleged inequitable conduct, CDI’s Walker Process claim failed. The Court further noted that because inequitable conduct is a broader concept than Walker Process fraud, a party that fails to make its case for inequitable conduct, cannot make a Walker Process fraud claim.
CDI’s sham litigation claim was based upon allegations that ADC knew the patent was invalid based upon the Brady prior art reference, which was before the examiner, and because had ADC tested CDI’s accused labels, ADC would have realized its suit was baseless. Because the Brady reference was before the examiner, however, the Court could not find that the claim was "objectively baseless" as required for sham litigation. ADC could have reasonably believed that after the examiner considered Brady and granted ADC’s patent, ADC’s patent was in fact valid over Brady.
And ADC’s alleged failure to test the accused CDI product was not sufficient for a sham litigation claim. Sham litigation requires more than an unsuccessful suit. While CDI may eventually prove that it did not infringe, ADC’s failure to perform one test identified by CDI does "not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility" that ADC’s suit was in bad faith.
Optics Planet, Inc. v. OpticSale, Inc., No. 09 C 7934, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 14, 2010) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
The Court granted in part Plaintiff Optics Planet’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Initially, the Court noted that defendants’ tortious interference with prospective business relationships and with prospective economic advantage were not separate counts, but at most separate theories of recovery for a single court, calling the claims "Tweedledum and Tweedledee."
But the claims, whether single or multiple counts did not survive the competitor’s privilege. Defendants offered no evidence showing that plaintiff was doing anything except "feathering its own competitive nest". Defendants’ attempted monopolization claims were also dismissed because there was no evidence that plaintiff did anything but compete, and there was no indication that plaintiff would or could acquire power over market pricing.
Finally, the Court dismissed defendant’s accounting counterclaim to the extent the claim was based upon the dismissed counterclaims.
Simonian v. Merck & Co., Inc., No. 10 C 1297, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 16, 2010) (Shadur, Sen. J.).
Judge Shadur sua sponte struck portions of defendants’ answer to plaintiff’s false patent marking case. First, the Court struck denials that followed defendants’ statements that they lacked information and belief. While a lack of information and belief acts as a denial, denying allegations as to which you cannot form a belief is "oxymoronic."
Second, the Court struck defendants’ improper affirmative defenses. Several of defendants’ affirmative defenses were improper because they had already been brought into issue by denying allegations in the complaint. The Court also struck defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) affirmative defense with leave to promptly file a "properly supported" motion to dismiss.