Algierz, Inc. v. The Source of Apparel, Inc., et al., No. 12 C 5361, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. July 13, 2012) (Chang, J.).
Judge Chang ruled upon plaintiff Algierz’s motion to extend temporary restraining orders (“TROs”) and for preliminary injunctions (“PIs”) in this patent case as follows:
- The Court denied to extend the TRO and denied a PI as to defendant Source of Apparel and an individual defendant because there was insufficient evidence that those defendants knew of the asserted direct infringement. The defendants therefore, could not be liable for contributory infringement.
- As to defendant Selah USA and another individual defendant, the TRO was extended based upon evidence of direct infringement. The Court deferred ruling upon the PI until expiration of the TRO to give the defendants time to defend against the PI and to finalize settlement.
- Defendant Hip Hop Trading LLC and two other defendants, each of whom did not appear, had a PI entered. They were given leave to file motions to dissolve the PIs upon their “prompt appearance.”
- The Court ordered Algierz and defendant D&J International and another defendant to submit their agreed, proposed PI for the Court’s consideration.
Gharb v. Mitsubishi Elec. Automation, Inc., No. 10 C 7204, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. June 4, 2012) (Chang, J.).
Judge Chang granted defendant Mitsubishi Electric Automation’s (“Mitsubishi”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s patent complaint. With respect to direct infringement, plaintiff only accused Mitsubishi’s programmable logic controller (“PLC”), but in a previous suit on the patents-in-suit, the Federal Circuit held that a PLC alone could not infringe the patents.
The Court also dismissed plaintiff’s contributory infringement claims because plaintiff did not make sufficient allegations to show that Mitsubishi’s PLC was not a staple article. And plaintiff’s various exhibits showed that the PLC had multiple non-infringing uses.
Finally, the Court dismissed the inducement claims. Plaintiff only identified Mitsubishi’s PLC, not an entire security system to show direct infringement. And the PLC’s non-infringing uses called into question the necessary intent claims.
In late January, the Northern District’s six newest judges attended a Federal Bar Association panel to offer insights into their practices and chambers. The recurring theme of the discussion was a call for civility: Civility in court. Civility in briefs. Civility in emails. Over the next several weeks, I will provide summaries of each judge’s comments and insights. This post (the second nin the series) focuses upon Judge Chang (a University of Michigan aerospace engineer like me Go Blue!):
- Send someone to hearings that knows the case and/or motions.
- Civility: Do not casually suggest misconduct; avoid work like "fabricated," "concocted" or "misleading".
- Rule 56 motions: omit unnecessary details and "use brevity."