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

Capitol Indemnity Corp. v. Elston Self Serv. Wholesale Grocs., Inc., No. 04 C 6536, 2008 WL 696919 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2008) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer held that the advertising injury claim in plaintiff Capitol Indemnity's ("CI") insurance policy required that it defend defendants the "Elston Grocery" defendants in the underlying trademark infringement, unfair competition and Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("IDTPA") claims. In the underlying litigation, Lorillard Tobacco accused Elston Grocery of selling counterfeit Newport cigarettes using Newport cigarette advertisements.

The advertising injury clause covered infringement of "copyright, title, or slogan" and "[m]isappropriation of advertising ideas." The Court held that "title" does not mean just the title of a work, but also encompasses, among other things, trademarks and names. CI, therefore, had a duty to defend Elston Grocery against Lorillard's trademark infringement claims. A duty to defend was also created by the trademark infringement claims because they accused Elston Grocery of misappropriating Lorillard's advertising ideas – its trademarks and advertisements.

CI argued that there was an exclusion for allegedly intentional acts. But the Court held the exclusion did not apply, even though Lorillard pled intent, because intent was not required for trademark infringement.

Additionally, it did not matter that the policy covered only compensatory damages. Lorillard sought punitive damages, but they would only be awarded if compensatory damages were awarded. So, the punitive damages exclusion did not alter CI's duty to defend.

Finally, the Court declined to rule on indemnity because Lorillard's claims had not been finally resolved. An indemnity ruling regarding an ongoing case was inappropriate because it would be an advisory opinion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Dennis Crouch at Patently-O is reporting that Cisco has amended its employee blogging policy to require that any Cisco employee blogging about issues involving or related to Cisco identify themselves as a Cisco employee and provide a disclaimer that the opinions are those of the employee alone and not necessarily Cisco.  This is a reasonable policy.  It provides Cisco's employees the freedom to blog while protecting both Cisco and its employees.  And it prevents future occurences of the mistake Troll Tracker made (anonymously commenting on cases his employer was involved in), as I discussed in my post on anonymous blogging last week, click here for the post.

Cisco also told Crouch that Troll Tracker would be free to continue blogging, presumably as long as he follows the policy.  Hopefully, that means that Troll Tracker will return to the patent litigation conversation soon, although it is easy to believe that this experience may have soured him on blogging or changed his voice substantially.  Here is Cisco's explanation of Troll Tracker's status from Cisco's official blog, The Platform:

As an employee, Rick is free to continue his personal blog, Patent Troll Tracker, in compliance with the revised policy. Rick has many fans who appreciate the information he collects and disseminates on patent litigation trends and recognize his blog as an important voice in the on-going national dialogue on patent issues.

IP Law360 (subscription required) has a detailed article this morning outlining Troll Tracker's history, including several quotes from Ray Niro of Niro Scavone who received substantial media attention after offering a reward for Troll Tracker's identity.  Niro reportedly likened Cisco's policy to "repairing a sidewalk after someone was hurt" and said that some of Troll Tracker's statements were "hurtful, harmful and, in many cases, 100% inaccurate."  According to the article, Niro plans to depose Troll Tracker in Illinois Computer Research, LLC v. Fish & Richardson, No. 07 C 5081 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.) -- click here to read more about the case in the Blog's archives.

Another note on anonymous blogging and commenting, Rob LaGatta at LexBlog addressed the Troll Tracker situation and my anonymous blogging post last week with an important point, click here for Rob's post.  Anonymous blogging and commenting is a relatively small part of legal blogging and most anonymous material is not problematic.  It is easy to get side-tracked by the occasional offensive anonymous content.  But the vast majority of legal blogs operate without problems with either unprofessional or anonymous content.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cement-Lock v. Gas Tech. Institute, No. 05 C 0018 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 11, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer presided over a jury trial resulting in a verdict for plaintiffs Cement-Lock LLC and Alderman Richard Mell on behalf of Cement-Lock Group (collectively "CLG") on various RICO and breach of fiduciary duty claims.  The jury awarded CLG $15M in damages.  The jury also returned a verdict for defendants on CLG's trademark infringement and Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act claims.  Click here for Judge Pallmeyer's Order entering the verdict and here for the jury instructions (Count IX is the trademark infringement count and Count XI is the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act count).

This was a dispute over the control and use of Cement–Lock technology (the “Technology”) which decontaminated certain waste products and used the decontaminated waste as a beneficial cement additive. CLG asserted various IP claims, including Lanham Act unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and trademark infringement. CLG alleged that defendants permitted defendant Gas Technology Institute (“GTI”) to secure funding for Technology-related activities, despite defendants’ knowledge that GTI had no license to use the Technology and kept knowledge of the funding from CLG. GTI also allegedly claimed to own and have developed the Technology.

For more about this case and the verdict, check out:

• The Blog's archives; and
  
  
• The Chicago Sun-Times.
  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Illinois Computer Research, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 07 C 5081 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer is presiding over this case, which began as a standard case of a patent holding company, Illinois Computer Research (“ICR”) suing a large defendant, in this case Google, for patent infringement. The complaint was a standard three page notice pleading complaint alleging that Google infringed ICR’s patents based upon its Book Search functionality – click here for the original complaint. But the case quickly morphed into a dispute between a law firm, Fish & Richardson (“Fish”), and its former partner, the inventor and former owner of the patents in suit Scott Harris. ICR amended its complaint adding Fish and turning it in to a speaking complaint alleging that Fish forced Harris to resign because of the suit against Google and seeking a declaratory judgment that Harris, not Fish, owned the patent in suit – click here for the amended complaint. 

Fish answered the amended complaint – click here for the answer – and filed speaking counterclaims alleging that Harris breached his partnership contract and fiduciary duties, and seeking a declaratory judgment that Fish owned the patents – click here for the counterclaims. Harris responded with his own speaking counterclaims alleging tortious interference and defamation – click here for Harris’s counterclaims and click here for Fish’s answer. Shortly after Fish’s second answer, Google was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice, but the case regarding Harris and Fish continued.

Fish filed a motion for expedited discovery, which the Court granted in court, without an opinion detailing the discovery allowed. Fish also filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking to dismiss plaintiffs’ tortious interference and defamation claims. That motion has been briefed, but not decided yet. And last week, Fish filed a motion to amend its counterclaims and third-party complaint naming six additional entities – click here for the motion.  The motion does not identify the new parties specifically except to say that some are unnamed Doe defendants and that they are all related or believed to be related to Harris’s and ICR’s law firm Niro Scavone. Fish appears to be making a Propat-style argument that some or all of the additional defendants have or had an interest in the patent in suit and, therefore, are necessary parties. I will cover these opinions as they come out, but in light of all of the coverage this case has been getting – for example, see this recent Troll Tracker post and this case timeline at Joe Mullin’s The Prior Art Blog which Mullin promises to update periodically – I thought readers would be interested in some detailed background of the case. More to come as the Court issues opinions.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Cement-Lock v. Gas Tech. Institute, No. 05 C 0018, 2007 WL 3374401 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer granted in part defendants’ summary judgment motion. This is a dispute over the control and use of Cement –Lock technology (the “Technology”) which decontaminated certain waste products and used the decontaminated waste as a beneficial cement additive. Plaintiffs Cement-Lock LLC and Richard Mell, a Chicago Alderman, brought this derivative action on behalf of the Cement-Lock Group (“CLG”) which owns the Technology. Plaintiffs asserted various IP claims, including Lanham Act unfair competition, deceptive trade practices and trademark infringement. This opinion focused primarily on plaintiff’s state law claims, including alleged breach of fiduciary duties. So, I will not address most of the opinion, but I will discuss the most IP-related breach of fiduciary duty allegations. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants permitted defendant Gas Technology Institute (“GTI”) to secure funding for Technology-related activities, despite defendants’ knowledge that GTI had no license to use the Technology and kept knowledge of the funding from CLG. GTI also allegedly claimed to own and have developed the Technology. The Court held that there was no written license between CLG and GTI regarding the Technology. But there was a question of fact as to whether GTI’s efforts to secure finding for the Technology was improper. Additionally, there was a question of fact as to whether GTI misrepresented its ownership or control over the Technology.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Discover Financial Servs. LLC v. National Union Fire Insur. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, No. 06 C 4359, 2007 WL 2893624 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 26, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer granted summary judgment that defendant National Union Fire Insurance Co. (“National Union”) did not have a duty to defend plaintiff Discover Financial Services (“Discover”) pursuant to Discover’s insurance policy (the “Policy”). Discover argued that its alleged infringement of a telephone call processing system patent was advertising injury covered by the Policy because Discover advertised various services when its customers used Discover’s phone system. But the Court held that the alleged infringement did not arise solely from advertising activities, as is required by the Policy. While Discover advertised services to callers, the main purpose of its system was conducting financial business and the underlying patent complaint against Discover alleged infringement without identifying any Discover advertising as infringing. The advertising, therefore, could not be considered the sole cause of the alleged injury.\

Practice tip: When responding to Local Rule 56.1 statements, make sure to support denials with admissible evidence. The parties in this case each made arguments that the Court disregarded because the opposing Rule 56.1 statements had not been refuted with evidence.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Everything Baseball Ltd., LLC v. Team Athletic Goods, Inc., No. 05 C 5526, 2007 WL 2608551 (N.D. of Ill. Sep. 4, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).*

Judge Pallmeyer construed the claims of plaintiff’s patent to a baseball catcher’s chest protector with flexible shoulder guards. Defendant argued that the “scope and content of the prior art” should be determined before construing the claims, citing the Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) dissent. But the Court held that it need not survey the prior art before construing the claims. And the Court noted that the quoted portion of the Phillips dissent argued that obviousness should receive de novo review, as does claim construction. The dissent was not attempting to add additional claim construction steps.

Additionally, and maybe most importantly for Cubs fans (like me) still smarting over being swept out of the playoffs this season, the Court explained in a footnote Javy Lopez’s (who wore a patented chest protector for at least one year) connection to the Tommy John surgery from which Cubs’ ace Kerry Wood has arguably never fully recovered. If Kerry Wood were still the 20 K kid he once was, maybe the Cubs would have given the Colorado Rockies a run in the NLCS, setting up a Cubs-Red Sox Series that would have been a dream for Cubs fans, baseball historians and network executives. Unfortunately, the Cubs curse (or at least lack of postseason success) lives another year and the Rockies get a chance to complete an amazing rags to riches story.

*Click here for more about this case in the Blog's archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Geisha, LLC v. Tuccillo, No. 05 C 5529, 2007 W> 2608558 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 4, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer held that the Court lacked jurisdiction over plaintiff Geisha’s declaratory judgment claim. Geisha operates a series of restaurants, each called Japonais – Japonais Chicago, Japonais New York and Japonais Las Vegas. Between the openings of Japonais Chicago and Japonais New York, defendant Roy Tuccillo (“Tuccillo”) filed an intent to use trademark application for a nearly identical Japonais mark, with the “firm intent” to open a restaurant using the mark. Geisha registered Japonais with the State of Illinois, but never federally registered the mark. Geisha sought, among other things, a declaratory judgment that Geisha owned the Japonais mark and that Tuccillo’s opening of a Japonais restaurant would infringe Geisha’s mark. The Court noted that the Seventh Circuit looks to patent law when considering whether there is an actual controversy in a trademark declaratory judgment action. The Court, therefore, relied upon the Supreme Court’s recent MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 765 (2007), decision which required that a controversy be “real and immediate,” overturning the Federal Circuit’s reasonable apprehension of suit test. The Court held that there was no “real and immediate” controversy. While Tuccillo had filed for registration of a Japonais mark nearly identical to Geisha’s and expressed his firm intent to open a Japonais restaurant, Tuccillo’s actions did not suggest that there was “imminent danger” that he would actually open a restaurant when the suit was filed. Tuccillo testified that he had generally looked at some properties to purchase for the restaurant, but he did not remember when he had done that and could not identify specific properties. Additionally, Tuccillo purchased a Chinese restaurant in 2002, but leased the space without opening a Japonais restaurant in 2003, two years before Geisha filed this suit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99 C 626 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Speculation regarding Judge Pallmeyer's delay of the Eolas v. Microsoft trial is over.  Eolas announced that it settled with Microsoft in a letter to shareholders (available from theSeattle Post-Intelligencer).  No details of the settlement were available, but Eolas told its shareholders to expect a dividend from the settlement of up to $60-$72 per share.  Here is more coverage of the settlement:*

• Vnunet.com
  
• Todd Bishop's Microsoft Blog -- discussing the letter to Eolas shareholders.
  
• Wall Street Journal (subscription required)
  
• Patent Prospector

*  As I have explained in previous posts, I will not comment on any news from this case because of my family's connection to it, but feel free to discuss the case in the comments.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Everything Baseball Ltd., LLC v. Team Athletic Goods, Inc., No 05 C 5526, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer denied defendant Team Athletic Goods, Inc.’s (“TAG”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of standing. The inventors of the patent at issue, for baseball chest protectors, assigned their rights in the patent to Everything Baseball Ltd. (“EB Ltd.”), but the correct corporate name was Everything Baseball Limited, LLC (“EBL LLC”). Plaintiffs argued that because EBL LLC was not the assignee when it filed suit, the Court should dismiss the case. But the Court held that the assignment to EB Ltd. was a clerical error and that the parties’ clear intent was to assign to plaintiff EBL LLC. The Illinois’s records show that while EBL LLC was incorporated, EB Ltd. never existed. Furthermore, some months after TAG identified the error, EBL LLC amended their assignment with the PTO. But the Court did note that the amended assignment could not create standing in this suit. The Federal Circuit case law is clear that where standing does not exist when the suit is filed, it cannot be corrected during the suit. The difference in this case was the Court’s ruling that the intent of the assignment agreement was to assign the patent in suit to EBL LLC, not EB Ltd., which did not exist.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99 C 626 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Speculation regarding Judge Pallmeyer's delay of the Eolas v. Microsoft trial is starting in the MSM and on the internet.  The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Internetnews.com both have pieces reporting that Eolas and Microsoft are working toward settlement.  Both stories quote a Microsoft spokesperson as saying, "[Microsoft is] in active discussions with Eolas Technologies regarding a possible settlement ."

As I said in my previous posts, I will not comment on any news from this case because of my family's connection to it, but feel free to discuss the case in the comments.

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

Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99 C 626, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Jul. 30, 2007) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Late yesterday Judge Pallmeyer entered a minute order striking the Eolas v. Microsoft trial scheduled for this week and setting a status conference for August 30.  As I said in my previous post, I will not comment on any news from this case because of my family's connection to it, but feel free to discuss the order in the comments.

And thank you to all of you who were interested in guest blogging the trial.  I will get in touch if the trial is rescheduled.  If anyone else is interested email me.

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

Eolas Tech. Inc.v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99 C 626 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).

The second Eolas v. Microsoft trial starts Monday, July 30.  The first trial, held before Judge Zagel, was about as close to a media frenzy as patent cases get.  I would love to live blog some or all of the trial.  But I cannot do it because my wife, Laura Donoghue, is a member of Microsoft's trial team.  However, if one of the Blog's readers wants to guest blog about the trial, send me an email and we can work something out.  If I do not get a guest blogger for the trial, I will post links to news coverage of the case without any commentary, for obvious reasons.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Blog previously discussed Judge Pallmeyer's letter seeking information about the Northern District's history on behalf of the Northern District's Historical Association.  The Historical Association has now taken the next step, developing a website that includes lots of interesting information.  The site includes a history of Northern District judgeships, including biographies for all current and former judges -- who knew that the first appointee to the Northern District's fourth judgeship, Judge Barnes, was a University of Michigan Law graduate and a basset hound breeder for the last years of his life, including some or all of his last two years on the bench.  If you are interested in joining the Historical Association, this page provides the necessary contact information.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Judge Pallmeyer, as the Chair of Northern District's Historical Association, sent a letter to the Chicago Association of Law Libraries seeking any historical information about the Court and significant cases before it that local firms or practitioners may have in their archives.  Here is Judge Pallmeyer's request in her own words:

We are aware that some of the local law firms themselves maintain archives that might relate to our court's history.  Might your firm maintain such an archive?  If you have retained materials that might be of interest to our Association, would you please contact me?  One of the members of our Association, or a legal historian who is working with us, would very much appreciate the opportunity to review them.  I can be reached at (312) 435-5636 or by e-mail CourtHistory_ILND@ilnd.uscourts.gov.

If you have something, send it on and let them know you saw the request here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks