Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 13 C 4417, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 29, 2015) (Hart, Sen. J.). Judge Hart granted defendants’ Mercedes-Benz USA’s and Daimler’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion to dismiss plaintiff Vehicle Intelligence & Safety’s (“VIS”) patent claims as unenforceable because they were patent ineligible pursuant … Continue Reading
Vehicle Intelligence & Safety LLC v. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, No. 13 C 4417, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2014) (Hart, Sen. J.). Judge Hart denied defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s patent infringement claims related to screening drivers for various types of impairment and “controlling operation” of the vehicle if … Continue Reading
NanoChem Sol’ns, Inc. v. Global Green Prods., LLC., No. 10 C 5686, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2013) (Hart, Sen. J.). Judge Hart denied defendants’ motion in limine to exclude plaintiff NanoChem’s late-disclosed lost profit damages analysis. The Court also granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to NanoChem’s Lanham Act and Illinois state … Continue Reading
Spitz v. Proven Winners N. Am., LLC, No. 11 C 3997, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2013) (Hart, Sen. J.). Judge Hart granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment in this trade secret case involving alleged trade secrets identifying pet-friendly plants. Plaintiff alleged that defendants used plaintiff’s trade secret identification of pet-friendly plants without paying … Continue Reading
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., No. 09 C 2945, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 6, 2012) (Hart, Sen. J.). Judge Hart entered findings of fact and conclusions of law after a patent bench trial related to cell phones with caller ID, text messaging, pictures or video. The Court dismissed with prejudice plaintiff Intellect Wireless’s … Continue Reading
Nanochem Solutions, Inc. v. Global Green Prods., LLC, No. 10 C 3212, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 2012) (Hart, Sen. J.). Judge Hart denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment of noninfringement. Defendants argued that plaintiff Nanochem failed to offer admissible proof of any direct infringes necessary to support Nanochem’s indirect infringement claims based … Continue Reading
Intellect Wireless, Inc. v. HTC Corp., No. 09 C 2945, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2, 2012) (Hart, Sen. J.). Judge Hart denied defendant’s (collectively “HTC”) motion for summary judgment of inequitable conduct based upon the submission to the Patent Office of allegedly false and misleading declarations. The Court held that there were disputed questions … Continue Reading
Wells-Gardner Elecs. Corp. v. C. Ceronix, Inc., No. 10 C 2536, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 14, 2011) (Hart, J.).
Judge Hart construed the term "flange" and granted defendant C. Ceronix summary judgment of noninfringement in this patent case involving flat panel television mounting frames. The Court held that "flange" as used in the claims was interchangeable with "bracket," which C. Ceronix argued should be excluded from the definition of flange. In addition to the intrinsic evidence, the Court looked to dictionary definitions of flange.
C. Ceronix had brackets on the sides of the frame, but the brackets did not directly attach to the sides of the flat panel display as required by the claim. Instead the bracket attached at the back of the display. The doctrine of equivalents did not apply because allowing a flange that attached at the back not the side would vitiate the claim element.
The Court exercised its discretion to dismiss C. Ceronix's claim for declaratory judgment of invalidity.
… Continue Reading
Farag v. Defense Threat Reduction Agency, No. 07 C 1688, 2007 WL 2404625 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2007) (Hart, J.).
Judge Hart dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction plaintiff's suit seeking that the Court order the PTO to place a secrecy order on plaintiff's patent application for a process of separating an isotope from uranium for use in nuclear applications. Plaintiff's application is about to be published and plaintiff believes that publication of the application would allow use of his process for illicit purposes that might threaten national security. The Invention Secrecy Act provides a patent applicant the right to appeal the issuance of a secrecy order, but not the right to appeal the denial of a secrecy order. See 35 U.S.C. Section 181; 35 C.F.R. Section 5.4. The Invention Secrecy Act also permits a suit for compensatory damages, but only based on damage created by a secrecy order, not the absence of one. Finally, the Court noted that plaintiff might have a claim pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (the "APA"), but the APA requires that the plaintiff by harmed by the agency (PTO) action. The Court noted that potential threat to national security based upon a review of plaintiff's patent application was too remote and general to create standing pursuant to the APA. As a result, the Court dismissed plaintiff's complaint. It is also interesting to note, the Court instructed plaintiff to file any appeal with the Seventh Circuit, instead of the Federal Circuit despite the fact that the case is focused on PTO procedure.
… Continue Reading
AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick, No. 03 C 8152, 2007 WL 683992 (N.D. Ill. March 1, 2007) (Hart, J.). Judge Hart denied plaintiffs’ motion for a Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) entry of final judgment on plaintiffs’ Lanham Act and related state law trademark infringement and dilution claims, which the Court dismissed in this opinion. The Court … Continue Reading
AutoZone, Inc. v. Strick, __ F. Supp.2d __, 2006 WL 3626770 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2006) (Hart, J.). Judge Hart granted summary judgment for defendants and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims in this trademark case. First, the Court did a detailed analysis of each of the seven likelihood of confusion factors and determined that a … Continue Reading