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

Shen Wei (USA), Inc. v. Ansell Healthcare Prods., Inc., No. 05 C 6003, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2008) (Guzman, J.).

Judge Guzman construed the disputed claim terms from plaintiff's patent for a skin-enhancing glove. The parties disputed two terms: dehydrated and dry. Defendants argued dehydrated meant removal of all water, while plaintiffs argued it meant removal of water, but not necessarily all water. Judge Holderman construed dehydrated as used in a related patent in an earlier suit between the parties, consistent with plaintiff's proposed construction.* Because Ansell advanced the same construction in the present suit that it lost in the earlier suit before Judge Holderman, the Court held that collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, prevented Ansell from arguing against plaintiff's construction. The Court also noted that Judge Holderman's construction was correct.

The Court construed "dry" in a similar fashion to mean removal of water, but not necessarily all water, based upon the prosecution history.

* I was involved in the briefing before Judge Holderman, but I am not involved in the current case.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Junction Solutions, LLC v. MBS Dev., Inc., No. 06 C 1632, 2007 WL 4233995 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2007) (Gottschall, J.).*

Judge Gottschall denied defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s trade secret misappropriation complaint based upon the parties’ prior settlement agreement and resulting dismissal with prejudice by the District of Colorado. While the alleged misappropriation was the same — defendant employees leaving plaintiff to start their own competing software company — the use of the trade secrets was different. In the Colorado case, defendants allegedly harmed plaintiff by starting a competitor using plaintiff’s trade secrets. In this case, the alleged harm was developing competing software, after the Colorado settlement and dismissal. Claim preclusion, therefore, did not apply. Issue preclusion did not apply because the Colorado court did not make any substantive final judgments. The settlement agreement could have barred plaintiff’s claim, but the agreement’s release expressly excluded claims arising after the agreement’s effective date.

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

• Email This
• Print
• 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
• Trackbacks