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

Wound Care Educ. Institute v. Thomas, No. 07 C 6505, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 17, 2008) (Conlon, J.).

Judge Conlon denied defendants' (collectively “Wound Care Plus”) motion to dismiss plaintiff Wound Care Education Institute's (“WCEI”) trademark and copyright infringement case for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and forum non conveniens. WCEI provided wound treatment education to health professionals across the country using copyrighted materials, and is largely based in the Northern District. It alleged that Wound Care Plus attended three of its seminars and then began running competing seminars, including at least one in Chicago, using course materials that were substantially similar to or exact copies of WCEI's copyrighted course materials. Wound Care Plus also operated a website which allowed its customers to register online for the Wound Care Plus seminars.

Personal Jurisdiction

The Court held that it had specific personal jurisdiction over Wound Care Plus, a New York resident, because it advertised its Chicago seminars in national publications seeking to register Illinois customers. Additionally, Wound Care Plus's website created jurisdiction because it was an active, commercial website that allowed Wound Care Plus's customers to register for, among others, its Chicago seminar online.

Venue

Venue was proper in the Northern District, despite the fact that Wound Care Plus did not reside in Illinois because a substantial part of the events giving rise to WCEI's claims, the Chicago seminars, occurred within the Northern District.

Forum Non Conveniens

The Court noted that the motion should have been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), instead of the common law forum non conveniens.  Forum non conveniens was inapplicable to this case because the alternate forum was not abroad or a state court. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Palantir.net, Inc. v. Palantir Techs., Inc., No. 07 C 4271, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Nov. 27, 2007) (Guzman, J.).*

Judge Guzman granted defendant's motion to transfer this Lanham Act case to the Northern District of California ("N.D. Cal.") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  Defendant's principal place of business was in the N.D. Cal. and defendant had an earlier-filed case against plaintiff pending in the N.D. Cal.  The Court, therefore, held that the convenience of the parties and the witnesses, as well as the interests of justice, were best served by transferring the case to the N.D. Cal.

*  Click here for a copy of the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Morton Grove Pharms., Inc. v. Nat'l. Pediculosis Assoc., __ F. Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 4259422 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2007) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo granted in part defendants Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss and denied defendants’ motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiff manufactures a line of lotions and shampoo which are FDA-approved for treating lice and scabies.  Defendants are a Michigan non-profit group, Ecology Center, Inc., and related individuals (collectively the "Center"), as well as the National Pediculosis Association. The Center mailed two newsletters related to passage of Michigan legislation to approximately 19,000 addresses of which 44 were in Illinois.  99% of the Center's donors were from Michigan, with just .23% from Illinois (18 Illinois-based donors total).  The Center's strongest ties to Illinois consisted of two donations totaling $270,000 from an Illinois-based foundation and an interactive website which accepts donations, although none have come from Illinois.  The Court previously held that these contacts did not create general jurisdiction.* 

The Court held that the Center’s act of sending even the two newsletters with the allegedly misleading and defamatory statements created specific jurisdiction over the Center. But the Court held that there was not specific jurisdiction over individual defendant William Weil. Weil’s name appeared in the newsletter, but he submitted an affidavit stating that he did not participate in mailing the newsletter and had no knowledge that it was being sent to any Illinois residents.

The Court did not transfer the case to the Eastern District of Michigan because the Center did not show that Michigan was clearly more convenient than the Northern District. Each party’s witnesses were in their preferred jurisdiction – the plaintiff’s in Illinois and the Center’s in Michigan – and the interests of justice are served by keeping the case in the Northern District. While median times to trial in both districts were comparable, plaintiff’s related, pending case in the Northern District made the Northern District the correct court to hear the case, even though the Court had severed the related case from this one.

* For discussion of the Court’s previous personal jurisdiction decision in this case, click here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Jewel Am., Inc. v. Combine Int’l., Inc., No. 07 C 3596, 2007 WL 4300589 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 30, 2007) (Guzman, J.).

Judge Guzman denied defendants’ 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) motion to transfer this copyright case to the Eastern District of Michigan. Plaintiff argued that its choice of forum should be given deference because its relevant subsidiary was an Illinois entity with its place of business and all of its operations in Illinois. But the Court looked to the residence of the named plaintiff, not the plaintiff’s subsidiary. Because the named plaintiff was a New York entity, plaintiff’s chosen forum was not given deference. Further, the situs of material events was Michigan. Defendants were Michigan entities and the alleged infringement and related planning occurred in Michigan. The Court discounted the location of documents because, “[i]n this age of faxing, scanning and overnight courier services, however, the location of documentary evidence is largely irrelevant.”

No party identified a third party witness that would be required to testify. And convenience of the parties tipped slightly to plaintiff whose subsidiary’s business would be disrupted if its main employees and key witnesses had to travel from Illinois to Michigan for court proceedings and depositions. Based upon these factors, the Court held that defendants had not shown that the Eastern District of Michigan was clearly more convenient and denied the motion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Abbott Labs. V. Church & Dwight, Inc., No. 07 C 3428, 2007 WL 3120007 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2007) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly denied defendant Church & Dwight’s (“C&D”) 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) motion to transfer this patent case to the District of New Jersey, where a related case between the parties was pending, and granted C&D’s motion to dismiss a claim that the New Jersey Court previously dismissed for lack of standing. In New Jersey, C&D sued plaintiff Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) alleging infringement of patents covering lateral flow immunology devices, and pregnancy and ovulation testing methods. Abbott counterclaimed alleging infringement of three patents, including U.S. Patent No. 6,534,320 (the “’320 patent”). The New Jersey Court ultimately dismissed Abbott’s counterclaim, holding that Abbott was a nonexclusive licensee of the ‘320 patent and, therefore, lacked standing. The New Jersey Court also held that standing could not be cured by Abbott’s effort to involuntarily join its licensor Inverness pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19.  Based upon the New Jersey Court’s ruling, this Court held that issue preclusion prevented Abbott from re-litigating its standing to sue. Unless Abbott revised its license agreement with Inverness, giving Abbott additional rights, the New Jersey Court’s ruling was preclusive. The Court, therefore, dismissed Abbott’s ‘320 patent infringement claim.

The Court denied C&D’s motion to transfer the case to New Jersey. The Court gave Abbott’s choice of forum deference. And the Court gave little weight to the parties’ ongoing New Jersey patent suit because the New Jersey Court dismissed Abbott’s counterclaims before making any substantive rulings. The New Jersey Court, therefore, would not have been in a better position to decide any issues in the case. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Kammin v. Smartpros, Ltd., No. 07 C 2665, 2007 WL 3046128 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2007) (Guzman, J.)

Judge Guzman transferred this copyright case to the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404. While plaintiff’s choice of forum is usually given significant weight, no party was a resident of the Northern District – both parties were New York residents. Furthermore, the non-party witnesses were closer to New York. And New York had a significant interest in deciding a case between its citizens regarding a dispute arising within New York.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mitchell v. First Northern Credit Union, No. 07 C 1891, 2007 WL 2948374 (N.D. Ill. October 4, 2007) (Norgle, J.).

Judge Norgle granted defendant Arizona State Credit Union’s ("ASCU") motion to transfer to the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 in this patent dispute. The Court acknowledged that plaintiff’s chosen forum was given significant weight. But the ease of access to the evidence in Arizona dictated that the case be transferred. Plaintiff was an Arizona resident, at least as of his filing date. And ASCU, all of its documents and all of its employees were in Arizona.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Varitalk, LLC v. Lahoti, No. 07 C 1771, 2007 WL 1576127 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2007) (Conlon, J.).

Judge Conlon denied defendant Dave Lahoti’s (“Lahoti”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the Court’s previous opinion denying Lahoti’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and forum non conveniens (you can read more about the previous decision in the Blog’s archives). Lahoti, a California resident, operated a website from California using the domain name www.veritalk.com. Lahoti’s site was an internet portal which allowed visitors to his site to click through links to buy various products or services. The Court held that Lahoti’s website fell in the gray area between active websites (which create specific jurisdiction) and passive websites (which do not create specific jurisdiction). But the portal’s interactive and commercial nature combined with plaintiff Varitalk’s evidence that some consumers were confused and erroneously visited Lahoti’s website created personal jurisdiction. Lahoti argued for reconsideration because he contends that his website did not link to businesses located in or doing business in Illinois, and that a third party puts the content on his website. The Court denied both of these arguments, explaining that Varitalk had put presented evidence that Lahoti’s website included links to business with substantial Illinois operations and that whether Lahoti or an agent of his placed the content on his website did not change the Court’s analysis. But the Court’s procedural analysis may be the most useful part of this case for litigators. The Court notes that Lahoti styled his motion as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration, but that it is actually a Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) motion. Rule 60(b) is for reconsideration of final judgments, where as Rule 54(b) is for interlocutory decisions. A denial of a motion to dismiss is necessarily interlocutory.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks