Feit Elec. Co. v. Beacon Point Capital, LLC, No. 13 C 9339, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2015) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman granted in part declaratory judgment plaintiff Feit’s motion for summary judgment of collateral estoppel regarding defendant Beacon Capital’s ‘464 and ‘140 patents – both from the Ole Nilssen portfolio. The Court held … Continue Reading
Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC v. Wendy’s Int’l, Inc., No. 14 C 865, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 4, 2015) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman denied Wendy’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Marshall Feature Recognition’s (“MFR”) patent complaint accusing QR codes. The Court earlier denied MFR’s motion to amend its complaint to respond … Continue Reading
Feit Elec. Co. v. Beacon Point Capital, LLC, No. 13 C 9339, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 2015) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman granted in part declaratory judgment defendant Beacon Point Capital’s (“Beacon”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) & (6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Feit’s declaratory judgment counts seeking a judgment that certain of Beacon’s … Continue Reading
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2014) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman denied defendants’ (collectively “CQG” motion for summary judgment of noninfringement in this patent case involving futures trading software. For more on plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) various cases, click here. CQG argued that TT … Continue Reading
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill.) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman granted plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) motion to terminate Markman proceedings in this patent case involving commodities trading software — click here for much more on this case in the Blog’s archives). Defendants (collectively “CQG”) sought construction … Continue Reading
The Court also struck some, but not all, of the experts’ opinions based upon trader usage. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2014) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman granted in part and denied in part defendants’ (collectively “CQG”) motion to strike portions of plaintiff Trading Technologies’ … Continue Reading
On March 5, 2014 from 5:30 to 7:30, the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) is hosting its annual Federal Judicial Panel at the Chicago-Kent College of Law. Margaret Duncan of McDermott, Will & Emery will moderate a panel consisting of N.D. Illinois Judges Coleman, Darrah, and Kendall. The panel will discuss: N.D. Illinois … Continue Reading
Apotex, Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., No. 12 C 9295, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2014) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman granted defendant’s (collectively “Sankyo”) Fed. R. Civ. P 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss this ANDA patent litigation involving Benicar, a drug used for treating high blood pressure. Apotex sought declaratory judgment of noninfringement of Sankyo’s … Continue Reading
DSM Desotech, Inc. v. 3D Sys. Corp., No. 08 C 1531, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2013) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman awarded defendants (collectively “3D Systems”) approximately $140K in fees and costs as the prevailing party. Of particular note, the Court held as follows: The Court awarded witness fees for days testifying, but not … Continue Reading
Malibu Media, LLC v. Reynolds, No. 12 C 6672, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2013) (Kendall, J.). Judge Kendall: 1) denied defendant Doe 15’s motion to dismiss; 2) denied Doe 15’s motion to quash the subpoena of Doe 15’s internet provider; 3) granted Doe 15’s unopposed motion to remain anonymous; and 4) severed each … Continue Reading
Sage Prods, Inc. v. Primo, Inc., No. 12 C 3620, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2013) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman granted defendant Primo’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in this trade dress case involving a boot designed to cushion and prevent heel ulcers. Primo did not … Continue Reading
Addiction & Detoxification Institute, LLC v. Rapid Drug Detox Center, No. 11 C 7992, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2013) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman granted defendant Rapid Detox’s 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) motion to transfer this patent infringement case to the Eastern District of Michigan. While Rapid Detox had a website and had patients … Continue Reading
Trading Techs. Int’l., v. CQG, No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 31, 2012) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman granted in part plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant CQG’s affirmative defenses and declaratory judgment counterclaim. The Court dismissed CQG’s bare-bones defenses which stated in their entirety: “Plaintiff’s … Continue Reading
Radiation Stabilization Sol’ns LLC v. Accuray Inc., No. 11 C 7700, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2012) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman granted in part defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Radiation Stabilization Solutions’ (“RSS”) claims in this patent infringement suit regarding technology for stabilizing irradiated targets. While defendant Cancer Treatment … Continue Reading
Addition & Detoxification Institute, LLC v. Rapid Drug Detox Center, No. 11 C 7992, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2012) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman granted in part plaintiff ADI’s motion to compel limited jurisdictional discovery in this patent case. ADI’s requests were overly broad and the Court accepted defendant’s declarations, but the Court ordered … Continue Reading
Flava Works, Inc. v. Terry, No. 12 C 1884, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2012) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman granted defendant’s motion to transfer this copyright and trademark infringement case to the M.D. Florida. As an initial matter, defendant did not waive the issue of personal jurisdiction because the answer contested it. While there … Continue Reading
Global Total Office Ltd. Partnership v. Global Allies, LLC, No. 10 C 1896, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2012) (Coleman, J.). Judge Coleman denied plaintiffs summary judgment as to their Lanham Act infringement, deceptive trade practices and unfair competition claims. All three required a factual finding of a likelihood of confusion, which the Court … Continue Reading
Akoo Int'l, Inc. v. Harris, No. 10 C 1685 Slip. Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 9, 2011) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman denied plaintiff Akoo International ("AI") a preliminary injunction to prevent rapper Clifford Harris from using the Akoo mark for his clothing line. The Court held that AI had not shown a sufficient likelihood of confusion:
· AI's advertising system was very different than Harris' clothing line.
· The parties sold in different channels.
· There was no evidence that Harris began using the mark to confuse AI's customers.
… Continue Reading
Free Green Can, LLC v. Green Recycling Enterprs., LLC, No. 10 C 5764, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. June 20, 2011) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman granted the individual defendant Menas' motion to dismiss the counterclaims against him and granted in part defendant Green Recycling Enterprises' ("GRE") motion to dismiss plaintiffs' (collectively "FGC") counterclaim in this trademark case regarding recycling can systems with integral advertising.
The Court's significant holdings included:
GRE did not plead sufficient facts showing Menas was PGC's alter ego that would warrant piercing the corporate veil. GRE only pled that Menas made significant investment in FGC and that Menas directed FGC without any factual support or detail.
GRE's deceptive trade practices act claims were all based upon actions taken before Menas invested. So, Menas could not be liable for them.
The holdings with respect to FGC's motion were all related to Nebraska causes of action. So, I am not addressing them here.
… Continue Reading
Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int'l., Inc., No. 05 C 4088, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 19, 2011) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman granted declaratory judgment plaintiff Rosenthal Collins Group's ("RCG") motion for protective order and to quash third party subpoenas as to third party CQG. The subpoenas sought information regarding RCG's use of CQG's trading software. The Court previously entered judgment against RCE and the only issue left in the case is a January 23, 2012 damages trial. But the judgment and the damages trial were limited to RCG's use of its software, not other third parties that have not yet been held to infringe, such as CQG's software.
… Continue Reading
Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int'l., Inc., No. 05 C 4088, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. June 1, 2011) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman denied plaintiff Rosenthal Collins Group's ("RCG") motion to reconsider or clarify the Court's February 23, 2011 Order entering defendants judgment in favor of declaratory judgment defendant Trading Technologies ("TT") and sanctioning RCG $1 million. While the discovery misconduct - which the Court described as "attempted fraud" - related to invalidity, it was appropriate to enter default judgment as to infringement because TT's infringement case would have been "futile" if the "fabricated" evidence had been successfully used to invalidate the patents. Furthermore, RCG should not be allowed to benefit from the thwarting of its misconduct.
Finally, the Court's sanctions were not criminal, they were made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 and the Court's inherent powers.
… Continue Reading
Simonian v. Astellas Pharma US Inc., No. 10 C 1539, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2011) (Coleman, J.).
Judge Coleman granted defendant Astella's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Simonian's false patent marking claims for failure to meet the Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) heightened pleading standards, but did so without prejudice. The Court held that Simonian's complaint contained "precisely the same" general allegations -- a "sophisticated company" that "knew or should have known" of the expired patent -- that the Federal Circuit rejected as deficient in BP Lubricants.
… Continue Reading
E.B.N. Enters., Inc. v. C.L. Creative Images, Inc., No. 09 C 6279, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2011) (Coleman, J.)
Judge Coleman granted in part plaintiff's ("Fantastic Sams") preliminary injunction motion in this case involving a non-compete agreement related to a terminated Fantastic Sams hair salon franchise. The Court granted a preliminary injunction regarding Fantastic Sams' operations manual which defendants were contractually required to return to Fantastic Sams. The Court denied the remainder of the requested injunction. Fantastic Sams alleged that defendant's decision to operate a new salon at the same location breached the two-year requirement that defendants not operate a salon within five miles of the prior Fantastic Sams location. Fantastic Sams made an uncontested showing that defendants breached that agreement. But Fantastic Sams did not sufficiently show irreparable harm. There is no question of irreparable harm from breach of a non-compete agreement. Fantastic Sams did not ever show that another franchise wanted defendants' territory. Finally, there was no evidence that defendants' customers continued using defendants because of features unique to Fantastic Sams.
… Continue Reading
Newt LLC v. Nestle USA, Inc., No. 09 C 4792, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2011) (Coleman, J.)
Judge Coleman denied defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, but dismissed the false patent marking case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to sufficiently plead intent to deceive. The Court held that plaintiff Newt had standing to sue without proof of particularized injury, citing Stauffer v. Brooks Bros., Inc., 619 F. 3d 1321, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Newt alleged that defendant Graphic Packaging ("GPI") falsely marked the products and sold them to the customer defendants. GPI made no allegations that the customer defendants marked the accused products. The customer defendants were, therefore, dismissed.
Further, all defendants were dismissed because Newt only made generalized intent allegations -- e.g., that defendants were "sophisticated companies."
Finally, the Complaint was dismissed because Newt made only general allegations against all defendants, rather than particular allegations against each defendant.
… Continue Reading