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

Here are a few stories that do not warrant a full post:

• The mainstream media and the blogosphere are buzzing with predictions of who is on President Obama's shortlist for replacing Justice Souter  The Northern District's Judge Castillo and the Seventh Circuit's Judge Wood are both making many of the lists -- check out one list at the Daily Writ.  Both excellent choices.  Over the weekend, the Chicago Tribune ran a story about a local expectation that someone connected to the University of Chicago would be appointed to the Supreme Court during the Obama presidency.  I also wonder if the Northern District's Judge St. Eve is or should be on some shortlists.
   
• Ronald Slusky is bringing his two-day patent claim drafting seminar to Chicago May 19-20.  Slusky promises to teach "a comprehensive approach to analyzing inventions and capturing them in a sophisticated set of patent claims.  Through this interactive seminar, participants will enhance their skills in a classroom setting."  I have not attended Slusky's seminar myself, so I cannot speak to its value, but it definitely looks interesting.
  
  
• Last week the House held hearings about the Patent Reform Act.  Check out some commentary on the hearings at Patently-O.
   
• I got out of the habit of posting each week's Blawg Review, but last week's was both too good and too unique to pass up.  Blawg Review #209 is up at John Hochfelder's New York Injury Cases Blog (another LexBlog site) -- read it here.  Hochfelder tells the moving story of his father's life, the life of an American hero.   Blawg Review #210 is also available at the China Law Blog -- click here to read it.  It is also an excellent Review based loosely on the 90th anniversary of China's May 4th Movement.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. Guerrero, No. 08 C 2752, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 19, 2009) (Castillo, J.).

Judge Castillo granted plaintiff summary judgment as to defendants' declaratory judgment counterclaim in this trademark, copyright and contract dispute. Plaintiff licensed its content, including certain copyright and trademark rights, to defendants for use in an online Spanish-language reference site. Because a third party did not provide certain additional content required by the parties' agreement, plaintiff exercised an option to terminate the parties' license agreement and attempted to exercise a purchase option provided for in the agreement. Defendants, however, argued that the agreement did not allow exercise of the purchase agreement for a six year period, which had not yet passed. The Court held that a dispute over the meaning of a contract clause did not necessarily make a contract ambiguous. The Court determined that while the Agreement could be read to support either party, the intent of the agreement was to allow for immediate purchase by plaintiff in the event of termination, regardless of whether or not the termination occurred after the six year period.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Helferich Patent Licensing v. ASUStek Computer Inc., No. 08 C 5189, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Sep. 22, 2008) (Castillo, J.)

Judge Castillo sua sponte dismissed without prejudice plaintiff’s patent infringement complaint. The Court held that defendants were foreign entities without business entities in the Northern District. The Court allowed plaintiff to proceed with expedited jurisdictional discovery, and gave plaintiff until December 15 to refile an amended complaint, if they could, with more facts supporting jurisdiction and venue. The Court did not cite the Supreme Court’s Twombly decision regarding Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 pleading standards in its brief opinion. But this decision could flow from Twombly’s plausibility pleading standards.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

SMC Corp., Ltd. v. Lockjaw, LLC, __ F. Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 983850 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 3, 2007) (Castillo, J.).

Judge Castillo granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants from breaching the parties' agreement, unless plaintiff acted in a manner triggering the agreement's termination provision, and from contacting plaintiff's customers for any purpose without plaintiff's consent.  Plaintiff was the exclusive distributor of defendants' patented Lockjaw pliers in certain Western European countries.  For about eighteen months, plaintiff's distributed defendants' pliers without incident.  But then defendants altered payment terms, which was their right if they followed certain procedures.  Plaintiff alleges that defendants did not follow those procedures and based on this dispute the relationship appears to have broken down.  Shortly after defendants altered the payment terms, plaintiff filed this suit seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that the agreement is binding and enforceable, and that defendants breached the agreement.  Plaintiff also sought an injunction to prevent the defendants from terminating the agreement and/or contacting plaintiff's customers.  Relying upon the UCC, the Court found that plaintiff had a likelihood of success on the merits based upon, among other things, the fact that its brief (and cured) nonpayment for two shipments likely did not constitute a breach of the agreement.

The Court also held that plaintiff would likely suffer irreparable harm without an injunction.  Plaintiff's goodwill would be damaged by loss of customers and harm to plaintiff's reputation.  Plaintiff's potential loss of goodwill tipped the balance of harms in its favor.  The Court also held that the public interest was served when courts enforce valid contracts.  As a result, the Court granted a preliminary injunction against defendants.

But in order insure defendants against an erroneous injunction, the Court ordered plaintiff to post a $500,000 bond to protect defendants' potential lost profits, should plaintiff lose or fail to pay for any orders placed with defendants.  The Court also required that plaintiff provide defendants with letters of credit to prove its ability to pay defendants.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Kenall Mfg. Co. v. Genlyte Thomas Group LLC, 439 F. Supp.2d 854 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2006) (Castillo, J.).

Judge Castillo denied opposing infringement and invalidity summary judgment motions in this very detailed and thorough opinion. The opinion is most remarkable for its illustration of two basic, but important, practice tips, which are best understood from the following excerpts:

The only thing that the multitude of summary judgment motions and expert reports filed in this hotly-disputed patent case make clear is that multiple issues of material fact remain to be determined. Instead of moving this case toward a timely resolution, the parties are driving up the costs of litigation with superfluous briefing that has repeatedly failed to abide by this Court’s local rules.

                                                                * * *

This case has been poorly litigated up to this point. By failing to file a 56.1 statement of facts and by failing to respond to Genlyte’s 56.1 statement, Kenall’s attorneys have come dangerously close to losing this case for their client based on nothing but their own ineptitude. On the other side, both Genlyte and Kenall have fanned the flame of excessive and superfluous briefing with arguments for unfeasible claim construction and a litany of expert reports that show nothing but material issues of facts. The parties have now spent tens of thousands of dollars on seven expert reports and extensive briefing of three separate motions for summary judgment to prove to this Court that this case is certainly not appropriate for resolution on summary judgment.

Practice Tip #1: realistically assess your summary judgment positions; rather than making every possible argument regardless of merit (the despised “kitchen-sink” approach), make your good arguments well. Throwing every possible argument at a court confuses the issues and – even worse – makes it easy for the court to find questions of fact and to deny your motion. Similarly, filing multiple summary judgment motions generally only frustrates the court and slows down the court’s adjudication of your motion.

Practice Tip #2: follow the Local Rules, in particular, Local Rule 56.1.  Before filing your summary judgment papers, read this rule, read it again and then make sure everyone on your team has read it. Every party filing or responding to summary judgment motions must file a Rule 56.1 statement and must respond to every contention in the opposing party’s Rule 56.1 statement. If you fail to file a Rule 56.1 statement in proper format, fail to correctly cite evidentiary support, improperly fill the statement with statements of law, or fail to file a Rule 56.1 statement at all, you risk losing your motion because all of the statements in your opponent’s Rule 56.1 statement may be deemed admitted. Similarly, if you choose not to respond to your opponent’s Rule 56.1 statement or respond to it without citing supporting evidence, you risk the court accepting your opponent’s statement of facts as true. And you will probably lose.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks