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

Glenayre Elecs., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 02 C 0256, 2007 WL 2492105 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 30, 2007) (Leinenweber, J.).

Judge Leinenweber denied a motion for an injunction against declaratory judgment defendant Jackson (“Jackson”) making arguments in a related malpractice case against Jackson’s prior counsel Niro Scavone (“Niro”). In the original case, the jury returned a verdict for Jackson finding direct infringement and awarding him $12.1M. Jackson accepted a remittitur of $2.65M which the Court ruled prevented Jackson from pursuing further indirect infringement claims against declaratory judgment plaintiff Glenayre Electronics (“Glenayre”). Jackson appealed the issue to the Federal Circuit which upheld the Court’s decision. Jackson then sued his Niro in Illinois state court for, among other things, malpractice. Niro brought the instant motion in this case seeking to prevent Jackson from taking any position that contradicts the principle that the $2.65M remittitur represented all possible damages in the case. Because Niro had already moved the state court to prevent the arguments at issue, the Court had to determine whether the relitigation exception applied to allow the Court to reconsider the decision rendered by the state court. The Court held that the exception did not apply for two reasons. First, Counsel showed no “equitable entitlement” to the relitigation exception. Counsel may still appeal the state court decision through the state appellate system. And the costs of litigation are not a sufficient equitable consideration. Second, the characterization of the Court’s ruling was incorrect. The Court held only that once he accepted the remittitur, Jackson was not entitled to any further damages for the infringement. The Court did not hold that Jackson had never been entitled to more than the $2.65M remittitur.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Ortho-Tain, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Inc., No. 05 C 6656, 2007 WL 1238917 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 25, 2007) (Leinenweber, J.).

Judge Leinenweber granted plaintiff's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) motion to strike, dismissing without prejudice defendants' respective patent misuse affirmative defenses and all patent-related statements in defendants' counterclaims.  Plaintiff, Ortho-Tain ("OT"), sued Rocky Mountain Orthodontics ("RMO") and Planmeca Oy ("Planmeca") alleging that RMO breached the distributorship agreement between the OT and RMO.  Pursuant to the Agreement, OT manufactured dental appliances (allegedly covered by OT's patents) and RMO sold those appliances in France.  RMO allegedly breached the Agreement by sourcing equivalent dental appliances from Planmeca.  RMO counterclaimed for, among other things, declaratory judgment of noninfringement and unenforceability of OT's relevant United States patents.  The Court previously dismissed defendants' patent-related declaratory judgment counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  OT now argues that the Court should strike RMO's and Planmeca's respective patent misuse affirmative defenses because they are insufficient.  The Court first held that patent misuse was a proper affirmative defense, negating the first prong of a Rule 12(f) analysis. 

But neither RMO nor Planmeca met their Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 notice pleading obligations as to the defense.  RMO's and Planmeca's statement of their defenses were identical:  "[OT's] claims are barred by the doctrine of patent misuse."  The defense pled no facts and failed to identify which of OT's "many patents" were allegedly misused.  The Court, therefore, dismissed the affirmative defenses without prejudice.  And because the defenses were not well pled, the Court did not address the third prong of a Rule 12(f) analysis -- whether the defense could withstand a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.  The Court also briefly looked at whether Rule 8 notice pleading or Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) heightened pleading was required for a patent misuse defense, noting that at least one court had used Rule 9(b) pleading, but did not reach the issue, as the defenses did not meet the Rule 8 standard.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Allied Ins. Co. v. Bach, No. 05 C 5945, 2007 WL 627635 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 27, 2007) (Leinenweber, J.).

Judge Leinenweber granted declaratory judgment defendants/counter-plaintiffs (collectively "defendants") summary judgment DJ plaintiff/counter-defendant's ("plaintiff") duty to defend defendants against Lanham Act and related state law claims.  Defendants were sued by third party Acushnet which accused defendants of willful and intentional violation of Acushnet's marks related to its Titlest Pro VI golf ball based upon defendants' alleged marketing of counterfeit golf balls.  Defendants sought defense and indemnification from plaintiff, their insurer.  Defendants' insurance policy covered, among other things, defendants' infringement of third party marks or copyrights in defendants' advertising so long as the infringement was not done with knowledge or intent of the infringement.  Although the Complaint charges defendants' with willful and intentional violations of the marks, the Lanham Act provides claims without regard to intent.  Because not all of Acushnet's claims require intent, plaintiff has a duty to defend defendants' against the suit.  The Court did note, however, that should Acushnet prove that defendants' acts were willful and intentional, plaintiff would have no duty to indemnify.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

Ortho-Tain, Inc. v. Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Inc., No. 05 C 6656, 2006 WL 3782916 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 20, 2006) (Leinenweber, J.).

Judge Leinenweber dismissed defendant's, Rocky Mountain Orthodontics ("RMO"), patent-related declaratory judgment counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Plaintiff, Ortho-Tain ("OT"), sued RMO alleging that RMO breached the distributorship agreement between the parties pursuant to which OT manufactured dental appliances (allegedly covered by OT's patents) and RMO sold those appliances in France.  RMO counterclaimed for, among other things, declaratory judgment of noninfringement and unenforceability of OT's relevant United States patents.  RMO argued that OT's breach of contract and tortious interference suit combined with OT's warnings to RMO's customers that RMO was no longer authorized to sell OT products created the requisite reasonable apprehension of suit.  The Court, however, held that there was no reasonable apprehension.  OT's suit had been pending for over a year and OT had not added patent claims.  OT had also repeatedly stated that the suit was only a contract and tortious interference action.  While OT's statements stopped short of an affirmative disavowal of suit, they were sufficient to prevent a reasonable apprehension of suit.

Additionally, there was no present activity by RMO which constituted infringement.  RMO's counterclaims identified only United States patents, but RMO's sales activities were all in France.  Because there was no evidence submitted of infringing activity in the United States, there was no subject matter jurisdiction for a declaratory judgment action.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks

JVI, Inc. v. Universal Holdings, Inc., __ F.Supp.2d __ (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2006) (Leinenweber, J.).

In this opinion Judge Leinenweber construed the claims of plaintiff's U.S. Patent No. 6,185,897 which covers an improved flange connector for precast concrete double tee members.  Of particular interest, the Court considered whether a specification including a single preferred embodiment limited the scope of the claims and discussed the claim differentiation doctrine.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks