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

Abbott Labs. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., No. 05 C 6561, 2007 WL 625496 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2007) (Kendall, J.).

Judge Kendall denied plaintiff's, Abbott, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant's, Mylan, antitrust counterclaims.  Mylan alleged that two Abbott employees submitted declarations and/or testimony stating the weight and structure of certain oligomers related to the patented invention, despite their knowledge that the tests they relied upon were known to be incapable of measuring the oligomers at issue.  Mylan further alleged that based upon these fraudulent statements, the USPTO issued certain of the patents-in-suit which then prevented Mylan from entering the market with a generic version of Abbott's pharmaceutical Depakote.  Abbott relied upon a prior Northern District ruling against third party Torpharm which held that Abbott's conduct before the USPTO was not inequitable.  But the Court held that while that ruling prevented a sham litigation claim, it did not estop Mylan's inequitable conduct allegations because Mylan was not a party to the prior case and, therefore, had no opportunity to present its evidence and argument.  Additionally, the Court held that Mylan adequately alleged antitrust injury by stating that it prepared to enter the market with generic Depakote, but was prevented from doing so by Abbott's alleged inequitable conduct.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Lincoln Park Hotels, Inc., No. 06 C 2960, 2007 WL 551570 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.)

Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted plaintiff summary judgment on its trademark infringement and Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("IDTPA") claims, among others.  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 the instant action 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. 

Defendants did not challenge plaintiff's evidence on its trademark, IDTPA or other related state law claims and, it appears, did not fully respond to plaintiff's Local Rule 56.1 statement.  In fact, defendants' only defense was LPH's argument that they were not liable because the alleged infringement and related acts occurred after LPH sold the hotel to GCI.  But the Court denied this defense because LPH did not challenge plaintiff's statement of fact paragraph 37 which stated that at the time of sale LPH was aware that GCI intended to operate the hotel using the Days Inn Marks.  Paragraph 37 also stated that LPH neither removed the Days Inn Marks from the hotel themselves,  nor obligated GCI to remove them.  The Court held that LPH's actions as detailed in, at least, paragraph 37 "far surpass[ed]" the "willful blindness standard of contributory infringement.

Practice tip:  Make sure that you fully respond to each issue raised in every paragraph of your opponent's Local Rule 56.1 statements of material fact. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., No. 05 C 1490, 2007 WL 551551 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2007) (Brown, Mag. J.).*

The Court denied defendant's motion to compel production of attorney-client privileged documents pursuant to the crime-fraud exception.  Defendant argued that plaintiff's failure to disclose full results from two studies with conflicting results (for and against the applications' claims) to the USPTO, both of which were material to the claims, was both inequitable conduct and fraud.  The studies were conducted during the pendency of one application and prior to two others.  Additionally, three of the named inventors co-authored a journal article detailing the results.  And during her deposition, prosecution counsel admitted being aware of the studies during prosecution of the applications.  The Court held that the evidence warranted in camera review of selected documents from plaintiff's privilege log to determine whether there was evidence of intent.  But after its review, the Court found no direct evidence of intent to defraud the USPTO.  The Court noted that "[n]one of the documents . . . contained a 'smoking gun' or anything close to it."  Furthermore, while intent can be inferred based upon circumstantial evidence, there most be more evidence than failure to disclose to support the inference. 

* You can see more on this case, in particular, various preliminary injunction opinions here and here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Murphy v. Murphy, No. 04 C 3496, 2007 WL 551576 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2007) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah granted defendants summary judgment of noninfringement of plaintiff’s copyright. Plaintiff, a documentary filmmaker, filmed several residents of Chicago Housing Authority Projects. Plaintiff copyrighted his documentary film and, in early 1998, sent it to Oprah Winfrey at Harpo Productions. He requested that Winfrey and Harpo air his documentary on the Oprah Winfrey Show and that they forward it to a list of people in the film industry, several of whom are named defendants. Winfrey never responded to plaintiff and his documentary was never aired on her show. Shortly thereafter, defendants’ animated program, “The PJs” – telling the story of several fictional characters living in an urban housing project – aired on the Fox network. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants collectively infringed his copyrighted documentary by using scenes from it, as well as unique features of several of plaintiff’s subjects to make their characters.

The Court granted summary judgment for defendants for several reasons. First, after reviewing the evidence, including a comparison of clips from each work, the Court held that no reasonable jury could find that plaintiff’s documentary is substantially similar to The PJs. Plaintiff’s movie is a series of interviews of people, while The PJs is an animated program telling fictional stories using fictional characters. And to the extent that any similarities existed, they were in non-copyrightable elements of the video. For example, the Court noted that plaintiff could not hold a copyright in someone else’s appearance or how a building looks.

Second, plaintiff had not established that defendants had access to plaintiff’s film. Plaintiff only provided his film to Winfrey via Harpo Studios and plaintiff provided no evidence that she or anyone at Harpo had sent the film to any third party. Additionally, Harpo Studios never aired the film and plaintiff could not even provide any evidence proving that Winfrey or Harpo Studios had actually received the film.

Third, defendants presented uncontradicted evidence that they conceived of the characters and concept of The PJs before plaintiff sent his film to Winfrey and Harpo Studios. While The PJs began airing on Fox in 1999, defendants submitted evidence that they had drafted characters and plots for The PJs by December 1997.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

RRK Holding Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 04 C 3944, 2007 WL 495254 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2007) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar denied defendant summary judgment on plaintiff’s trade secret and breach of contract (nondisclosure agreement) claims. The Court also granted defendant summary judgment on plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim holding that because it was based upon the trade secret misappropriation allegations it was preempted by the Illinois Trade Secret Act (“ITSA”). Plaintiff alleged that, pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement, it disclosed to defendant its plans for its “combination tool” which consisted of a rotary saw, also called a spiral saw, which could be converted into a plunge router. But after negotiations broke down over price, defendant allegedly disclosed the idea to its Canadian subsidiary, which then allegedly disclosed the idea to another party, Choon Nang Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Ltd. (“Choon Nang”), that obtained a British design patent on the combination tool and produced it for defendant. 

The Court held that there was at least a question of fact as to whether the combination tool was maintained as a trade secret because: 1) plaintiff only disclosed the idea to defendant after receiving verbal assurances of confidentiality followed by a nondisclosure agreement; 2) plaintiff marked documents regarding the combination tool confidential; and 3) plaintiff presented evidence that both plaintiff’s and defendant’s combination tools enjoyed substantial sales upon their respective introductions to the market.

The Court also held that there was at least a question of fact as to whether defendant misappropriated the combination tool. The parties put forth conflicting evidence as to whether defendant disclosed the combination tool to Choon Nang, and, if it was disclosed, whether the disclosure occurred before or after Choon Nang filed its British patent application.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Why Intellectual Property Cases in the Northern District of Illinois?  I expect that many people will ask that question. The answer is simple. The N.D. Ill. is and consistently has been one of the four or five most active patent courts in the country. See, e.g. Kimberly A. Moore, Forum Shopping In Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation?, 79 N.C. L. Rev. 889, 903 (2001); Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics, Tables C-2 & C-3. 

This remains true even as “new” courts, for example the E.D. Texas, have come into vogue with intellectual property owners. And experience tells me that your assigned judge in any district will likely work hard to get the law right and understand the technology. But experience also tells me that the judges of the N.D. Ill. are uniformly good judges who are experienced with all forms of intellectual property cases and are not afraid of technology. 

I plan to build this blog into a premier resource for attorneys and litigants who either routinely practice in the N.D. Ill. or find themselves in the District for the first time. I also plan for this to be an organic discussion. I will facilitate that discussion by posting about:  each intellectual property case handed down by the N.D. Ill.; developments at the N.D. Ill. such as rule changes; and practice tips, some specific to the N.D. Ill. and some more general.  I encourage you to ask questions and to debate. 

Finally, I will not blog about decisions in cases that I am involved in. For those cases, I will seek out guest bloggers.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)