Court Reconstrues "Cooking Enclosure"

Posted on October 26, 2011 by R. David Donoghue

Morningware, Inc. v. Hearthware Home Prods., Inc., No. 09 C 4348, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 12, 2011) (St. Eve, J.).

Judge St. Eve granted defendant Hearthware's motion for reconsideration holding that the claim term cooking enclosure required no construction. The Court originally construed "cooking enclosure" to mean "an oven housing and a metallic oven pan supported by a base." The Court held that the instruction imported a claim limitation. Furthermore, the doctrine of claim differentiation required broader constructions because other independent claims that further defined the cooking enclosure as having a metallic oven pan as a base were made superfluous by the original construction.

The Court also held that Hearthware's motion should have been brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) which gives the Court authority to reconsider its interlocutory decisions, not Rule 59(e) which only applies once the Court has entered judgment.
 

Tags: , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link

Court Will Not Import Limitations From the Specification

Posted on August 26, 2011 by R. David Donoghue

Morningware, Inc. v. Hearthware Home Prods., Inc., No. 09 C 4348, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2011) (St. Eve, J.).

Judge St. Eve construed the the claims of counter-plaintiff Hearthware's patent involving halogen convection ovens. Of particular note, the Court construed the following terms:

  • "A cooking enclosure" means "an oven housing and a metallic oven pan supported by a base." This definition fit with the language of the abstract and the summary of the invention.
     
  • "A fan" means "one or more fans." The Court declined Morningware's argument that fan be limited to the fan described in the preferred embodiment.
     
  • "A fan chamber" means "one or more enclosed spaces, through which a fan moves air, that are in the power head and above both the cooking enclosure and the heating unit." The Court held that a more particular definition proposed by Morningware would require improper importation of limitations into the claims from the specification.
Tags: , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link

Google AdWords Purchase May be a Lanham Act "Use"

Posted on February 15, 2010 by R. David Donoghue

Morningware v. Hearthware Home Prods., Inc., No. 09 C 4348, Slip. Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 16, 2009) (St. Eve, J.).

Judge St. Eve denied defendant Hearthware's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Morningware's Lanham Act unfair competition and product disparagement claims, as well as related state law claims.  Hearthware allegedly bought Morningware's trademarks as Google AdWord keywords so that when a Google user searched for Morningware's trademarks, a Hearthware "sponsored link" showed up above the standard search results, along with the following text written by Hearthware:

        The Real NuWave® Oven Pro Why Buy an Imitation?  90 Day Gty.

Hearthware did not dispute that the MORNINGWARE mark was protectible or that it was owned by Morningware.  Instead, Hearthware argued that purchasing "Morningware" as an AdWord keyword was not a "use" in commerce.  The Court noted that although the Seventh Circuit had not decided the issue, courts have largely adopted a broad reading of "use" that included AdWords purchases.  But in this case, the Court could not decide the issue without fact-finding which was not appropriate in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.  The Court, therefore, denied the motion to dismiss.

Hearthware also argued that purchasing AdWords could not create customer confusion.  But the Court held that Morningware pled sufficient facts to show initial interest confusion which is actionable pursuant to the Lanham Act, even if the confusion is only brief and the customer is aware of the true source of the goods by the time a purchase is made.

The Court also held that Hearthware's alleged "Why Buy an Imitation" advertisement text was sufficient for a disparagement case as a fact-finder could determine that the text could lead a consumer to believe that Morningware's product was an imitation of Hearthware.  Morningware's state law claims survived the motion to dismiss for the same reasons as the Lanham Act claims. 
 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link