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

MCGIP, LLC v. Does 1-14, No. 11 C 2887, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 10, 2011) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).

Judge Lindberg granted plaintiff MCGIP limited, early discovery to identify the fourteen Does based upon their IP addresses. MCGIP was allowed to serve subpoenas upon six identified internet service providers ("ISP") seeking limited information about the identity of the Does. McGip, however, could only use any information it received for purposes of protecting its interests in the complaint and not for any other purposes.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Simonian v. The Quigley Corp., No. 10 C 1259, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 19, 2010) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).

Judge Lindberg granted defendant The Quigley Corp.'s ("Quigley's") motion to dismiss plaintiff Simonian's false patent marking case for lack of standing. Simonian's case was the second filed against Quigley regarding the identical allegedly false patent marking of its COLD-EEZE branded products. Noting a lack of controlling case law, the Court analogized to the False Claims Act and held, citing a 1941 New York state case, that a second false marking plaintiff lacks standing to bring suit.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Simonian v. Irwin Indus. Tool Co., No. 10 C 1260, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2010) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).

Judge Lindberg denied defendant Irwin Industrial Tool's ("Irwin") motion to dismiss plaintiff Simonian's false patent marking case. First, the Court denied Irwin's standing arguments. While the Federal Circuit had not yet issued its Stauffer decision regarding standing, the Court used similar reasoning. The Court analogized to the False Claims Act and held that any person had standing without proof of an injury in fact. The false marking injury is to the government and the public at large.

The Court also held that Simonian sufficiently pled the requisite intent to deceive, whether notice pleading or Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) standards applied. Simonian pled that Irwin was a "sophisticated company" with years of patent experience and that Irwin knew or should have known the patent was expired when it was marked.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Chicago Bd. Options Exchange Inc. v. Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO, No. 09 C 4486, Slip. Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 8, 2009) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).

Judge Lindberg granted declaratory judgment for defendant Realtime's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The parties agreed that the Court lacked general jurisdiction and focused their arguments on specific jurisdiction. Because plaintiff Chicago Board Options Exchange ("CBOE") brought declaratory judgment claims, the analysis focused upon whether Realtime's patent enforcement activities were directed at the jurisdiction. CBOE argued that specific jurisdiction was created by Realtime's Texas patent infringement suit against, among others, Chicago-based defendants, including eventually CBOE. But the Court held that Realtime's Texas action alone did not create specific jurisdiction, and the Court did not consider the Texas suit against CBOE because CBOE was not added to the Texas action until after the instant suit was filed.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

UTStarcom, Inc. v. Starent Networks, Corp., No. 07 C 2582, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2009) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).

Judge Lindberg denied the individual defendant's Fed. R. Civ P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The individual defendant's four business trips to Illinois and prior work in California for plaintiff did not create general jurisdiction.  But the Court did have specific jurisdiction over the individual defendant.  Individual defendant was president of defendant Starent.  As president, he had authority over Starent's alleged pattern of hiring away plaintiff's employees and allegedly misappropriating plaintiff's trade secrets from those employees.  Because the alleged trade secret misappropriation harmed plaintiff's Illinois-based business in Illinois, the Court had general jurisdiction over Starent and its president, the individual defendant.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Kingsbury Int'l., Ltd. v. Trade the News, Inc., No 08 C 3110, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2008) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).

Judge Lindberg denied defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff's copyright infringement claim and defendant's alternative Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) motion for a more definite statement of the claim. Plaintiff alleged that it owned a copyright in its Chicago Business Barometer monthly business index; that it specifically informed its subscribers that the index was copyrighted and that it could not be reproduced or rebroadcast in any manner until plaintiff publicly released the index at 8:45 AM; and that defendant released unidentified “parts” of the May 2007 issue of the index at 8:42 AM, three minutes before plaintiff's public release. The Court held that these allegations met the Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) pleading standards, without specifically identifying which parts of the index were copied, noting that copyright claims did not require Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) heightened pleading. Furthermore, defendant's defense that, if anything, it copied only unprotected facts was not appropriate for a Rule 12(b) determination on the pleadings.

Finally, the Court held that the complaint was not “so vague or ambiguous” that it warranted requiring a more definite statement.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

UTStarcom, Inc. v. Starent Networks, Corp., No. 07 C 2582 Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 5, 2008) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).

Judge Lindberg granted in part plaintiff's motion to dismiss certain of defendant Starent's counterclaims.  Starent's allegations that specific patentee withheld specific references from the Patent Office were sufficient to meet the Rule 9(b) heightened pleading standards for inequitable conduct.  But the Court dismissed Starent's tortious interference counterclaim to the extent that it was based upon the filing of a law suit because Illinois prohibits tortious interference with prospective economic advantage claims based upon filing law suits.  The Court also dismissed Starent's malicious prosecution counterclaim because Starent did not allege a special injury, such as arrest, seizure of property, taking or interference with property.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Hope Family Vineyards Pty, Ltd., v. Hope Wine, LLC, No. 08 C 3246, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 11, 2008) (Lindberg, J.).

Judge Lindberg granted defendant’s §1404(a) motion to transfer to the Central District of California. Plaintiff was an Australian entity with its principal place of business in Australia. Its only direct connection to the Northern District was that its exclusive U.S. distributor was headquartered in Illinois. The distributor, however, was not a party to the suit. The Court therefore, gave plaintiff’s choice of forum minimal deference.

Defendant was a California entity with its principal place of business in the Central District of California. While defendant sold its wine on the internet, 90% of its sales were in California, and only 5% over the internet. Of that 5%, only four sales were to Illinois, including one to plaintiff’s distributor. Based on these facts, the alleged harm and confusion occurred in California, not Illinois.

Finally, transfer would increase the ease of access to the evidence because defendant, its documents and witnesses were all in California, and plaintiff would have to travel from Australia regardless of which district court heard the case.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Judge Lindberg granted individual defendants Mr. and Ms. Greiling's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Both Greilings were German citizens and residents. Mr. Greiling was previously Managing Director of plaintiff's parent company, but no longer held that role. First, the Court held that the Greilings were not amenable to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) nationwide service of process because the Lanham Act, which created federal question jurisdiction in this trade secret misappropriation case, did not provide for nationwide service, as some acts do. As a result, the Greilings' general contacts with the United States were irrelevant. The issue was whether the Greilings had sufficient minimum contacts with Illinois for specific jurisdiction.

The Court did not have specific jurisdiction over Ms. Greiling because she had no contacts with Illinois. She had never been to or conducted business in Illinois and she had no other attachments to Illinois.

Mr. Greiling was a closer question, but the Court held that it lacked specific jurisdiction over him as well. Mr. Greiling was formerly Managing Director of plaintiff's parent entity, and plaintiff was an Illinois entity. But Mr. Greiling was no longer employed by plaintiff's parent. And plaintiff provided no facts indicating that Mr. Greiling had any contacts with Illinois during the time relevant to the case.

The Court also denied plaintiff's request for jurisdictional discovery. Plaintiff had not made a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction and jurisdictional discovery was not appropriate without the prima facie showing of jurisdiction.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Timebase Pty Ltd. v. Thomson Corp., No. 07 C 460, 2007 WL 772946 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2007) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).

Judge Lindberg transferred this patent case to the District of Minnesota because all of the relevant documents and witnesses reside within that district or its subpoena power, while the dispute has no apparent unique connection to Illinois.  The software at issue, Westlaw's PastStat Locator, was researched, designed and developed in Minnesota and the related documents were still there.  Additionally, although the PastStat Locator can be accessed in any state, including Illinois, the hardware and software necessary to operate it are located in Minnesota.  Finally, 24 of the 25 witnesses identified as related to defendant are within the D. Minn. or its subpoena power.  And plaintiff's witnesses are in Australia, so whether they flew to Illinois or Minnesota was a minor difference to them at most.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link