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

Autotech Techs. Ltd. Partnership v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., No. 05 C 5488 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008) (Cole, Mag. J.).*

Judge Cole granted in part defendant Automationdirect.com's ("ADC") motion to compel additional records from plaintiff Autotech's database. The parties agreed that an ADC expert would be allowed to develop queries which Autotech would run on its database. After a dispute regarding how to produce the results of the search, the Court ordered production of the documents, which related to records of, among other things, customer confusion. Upon review of the records, ADC demanded that Autotech supplement them with information such as the date of the communication and the identity of the Autotech employees involved. Autotech eventually supplemented the documents with an index identifying, among other things, the identity of the Autotech employee involved in each communication, but not the dates of the communications. ADC moved to compel the production of all fields in Autotech's database for each entry identified by ADC's query. But Autotech countered that it had produced all fields generated by ADC's expert's query. Had the query generated all available fields, they, presumably, would have been produced them all. Because Autotech produced the information generated by ADC's search and supplemented that production with an index, sanctions were not warranted. But the Court did order production, at ADC's expense, of the dates of each communication. The Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer to determine how to produce the dates in a useful format.

*Click here for more of this case in the Blog's archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Autotech Techs. Ltd. Partnership v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., No. 05 C 5488, 2008 WL 783303 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008) (Cole, Mag. J.).*

Judge Cole granted in part plaintiff Autotech's motion to compel communications between defendant Automationdirect.com, Inc. ("ADC") and any third party regarding ADC's competing C-More touch screen panel. The Court held that ADC need not produce documents related to source code for the C-More product. The Court previously denied Autotech's motion to amend its complaint adding claims related to that source code. But the Court held that ADC's third party communications could be relevant to show whether ADC has complied with its contractual obligation to use its best efforts to sell Autotech's product, or if its C-More sales efforts interfered with sales of Autotech's products. The Court also held that any communication evidencing customer confusion must be produced.

Practice Tip: Do not employ new arguments in reply briefs. The Court did not consider Autotech's reply brief because it changed the scope of its argument on reply. Autotech's opening brief sought ADC's third party communications with the exception of those regarding ADC's source code because claims regarding ADC's software were not in the case. But on reply, Autotech also sought the source code related communications.

*Click here for more about this case in the Blog's archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Autotech Techs. Ltd. Ptnshp. V. Automation Direct.com Inc., No. 05 C 5488, 2007 WL 2746654 (N.D.Ill. Sep. 18, 2007) (Cole, Mag. J.).*

Judge Cole denied plaintiffs’ (collectively “Autotech”) motion to compel production of defendant Koyo Electronics’ (“Koyo”) touchscreen source code. In Autotech’s Third Amended Complaint – filed without the leave of Court required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, but later allowed by Chief Judge Holderman – Autotech alleged that defendants infringed Autotech’s copyrights in its touchscreen display images. Autotech also alluded to source code infringement, but did not explicitly claim it. 

In a later interrogatory response, Autotech stated that it was not claiming that defendants’ source code infringed Autotech’s copyrights, but reserved the right to amend the complaint adding such charges. Because Autotech had not sought leave to add source code infringement claims to its complaint, the Court held that the requested source code was not relevant and production was not required. The Court also noted that the request seeking source code was improper because it was served less than thirty days before the fact discovery close in violation of Local Rule 16.1. It did not matter that the deadline was ultimately extended because the extension was granted after the original fact discovery close and after the deadline for responding to the document requests.

Practice tip: Whenever a Court issues a fact discovery close, get out your calendar, count backward thirty days and mark the last day for serving discovery requests. You would be amazed at how many litigators do not take note of this important date.

*Click here for more on this case in the Blog's archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Autotech Techs. Ltd. Partnership v. AutomationDirect.com, Inc., No. 05 C 5488, 2007 WL 2388794 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 17, 2007) (Holderman, C.J.).

Judge Holderman denied the parties’ cross-motion for summary judgment regarding the parties’ opposing trademark infringement claims regarding the “EZTOUCH” and “EZTEXT” marks. For approximately five years, the parties worked together with plaintiff manufacturing and defendant exclusively distributing a line of operator interface panels using the “EZTOUCH” and “EZTEXT” marks. When the business relationship deteriorated the parties disputed ownership of the marks and each attempted to register them with the PTO, as well as filing suits which were consolidated into this suit. The Court held that in a dispute between manufacturers and distributors, trademark ownership is first governed by contract and, if not resolved by contract, then presumed to be with the manufacturer. In this case, the parties agreed by contract that the trademark ownership was disputed. The Court, therefore, looked to a series of factors to determine whether ownership could be determined. The Court held that the parties raised factual disputes and competing positions which the trier of fact must weigh to determine ownership. The parties each presented evidence that they created and first used the marks in commerce. The parties both used their names in connection with the marks and controlled the quality of the products sold. And both parties paid for advertising involving the marks. The Court, therefore, could not decide trademark ownership or summary judgment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks