Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

Callprod, Inc. v. GN Netcome, Inc., No. 06 C 4961, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 1, 2010) (Kendall, J.).

Judge Kendall granted in part plaintiff Callprod's motion to stay determination regarding attorney's fees pending appeal of the underlying patent issues and the Court's determination as to whether the case was exceptional. The Court held that the Court's and the parties' resources were best preserved if all proceedings regarding attorney's fees were stayed until the Federal Circuit ruled on Callprod's appeal of the Court's grant of summary judgment of noninfringement. The Court, however, ordered Callprod to respond to defendants' bill of costs.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Rosenthal Collins Group, LLC v. Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc., No. 05 C 4088, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 17, 2008) (Moran, Sen. J.).

Judge Moran denied declaratory judgment plaintiff Rosenthal Collins Group's ("RCG") motion to vacate the Court's March 14, 2007 order awarding declaratory judgment defendant Trading Technologies' ("TT") Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 sanctions – click here to read the Blog's post about that opinion and click here to read much more about this case and the related cases. In that earlier order, the Court held that RCG's motion for summary judgment of invalidity was "somewhat misleading" and possibly "disingenuous." Instead of dismissing the case as TT requested, the Court struck the declaration underlying RCG's motion, denied RCG's summary judgment motion with leave to refile a motion "supported by proper evidence" and awarded TT its costs and attorneys fees associated with the Rule 37 motion, as well as its software expert's fees.

In this motion, RCG argued that the Court should vacate that sanctions order because the Court held that TT had not proved by clear and convincing evidence that RCG acted willfully or with bad faith. But the Court held that Rule 37 sanctions could be based upon willfulness, bad faith or fault. Fault went to the reasonableness of the party's content, not necessarily intent. And the Court held that RCG's actions met the standard for fault. Furthermore, while clear and convincing was the burden of proof for dismissal, clear and convincing proof is not required for lesser sanctions.

Finally, the Court held that the categories of fees and costs sought by TT were within the scope of the Court's order, but ordered the parties to brief the reasonableness of the specific fees sought by TT, using the Local Rule 54.3 requirements (a rule usually used for post-judgment fees and costs).

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Lincoln Park Hotels, Inc., No. 06 C 2960, 2007 WL 1455798 (N.D. Ill. May 16, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.)

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted in part defendants' motion for reconsideration of the Court's award of plaintiff's attorneys fees' and costs for preparing summary judgment motions.  Plaintiff owns various marks relating to its Days Inn chain (the "Days Inn Marks").  Plaintiff licensed defendants Lincoln Park Hotels, Inc. and Richard Erlich (collectively "LPH") to use the Days Inn Marks in connection with the operation of a hotel in Chicago's Lincoln Park neighborhood.  In 2005, LPH sold the hotel to defendant Gold Coast Investors ("GCI") without informing plaintiff, in violation of the parties' license agreement.  GCI continued operating the hotel using the Days Inn Marks without licensing the rights to the marks from plaintiff.  As a result, plaintiff brought this suit against defendants alleging that, among other things, GCI infringed plaintiff's Days Inn Marks and LPH contributorily infringed plaintiff's Days Inn Marks by selling the hotel to GCI with the knowledge that GCI intended to continue using the Days Inn Marks and without informing plaintiff of the sale or removing the Days Inn Marks from the hotel, as required in the parties' license agreement.  In February, the Court granted plaintiff's summary judgment motion on twelve of fifteen counts and dismissed the remaining three counts as moot (you can find discussion of that opinion in the Blog's archives).  The Court also awarded plaintiff its attorneys' fees, approximately $150,000, for preparing its summary judgment motion.  Defendants moved the Court to reconsider, arguing that the Court should have required the parties to meet to resolve the attorneys fees dispute pursuant to  Local Rule 54.3 before ruling on the fees and that the Court should specifically apportion the fees between defendants.  The Court held that it was not required to follow the Local Rule 54.3 procedure in this case because defendants did not object to plaintiff's requests for fees made in its summary judgment briefing and because additional briefing required by the rule would not have benefited the Court because of its intimate knowledge of the case.  The Court did, however, apportion the fees that it was able to identify as only applicable to one group of defendants.  And the Court awarded an additional $35,000 of fees and costs that had not been presented in the initial motion.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link