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

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312 (N.D. Ill. Jun. 13, 2008).

The Court held that its May 22 permanent injunction against defendant eSpeed (click here for the Blog's post on the injunction) was a final judgment, which allowed for appeal to the Federal Circuit.  Anyone reading the Blog's recent posts regarding the Court's permanent injunction against eSpeed, and eSpeed's appeal of the injunction as well as plaintiff Trading Technologies' ("TT") cross-appeal, might have assumed that the Court had entered a final judgment.  eSpeed apparently did because it filed an appeal of the permanent injunction to the Federal Circuit (click here for the Blog's post on the issues on appeal).  TT filed its broader appeal shortly thereafter (which eSpeed objected to as untimely because the Court had not entered a final judgment on anything beyond the permanent injunction), but disagreed that the Court had entered a final judgment on any issue.  TT, therefore, also filed an emergency motion requesting that the Court vacate its permanent injunction, rule on the parties' cross-motions for attorney's fees (the Court now has ruled on those motions, click here for the Blog's post about that decision) and then reenter the permanent injunction along with final judgment.*

This may seem like irrelevant procedural posturing, but TT explains the appellate rules implications in its emergency motion:

The rules state that the first-filed notice of appeal is the appellant, but when both parties file an appeal on the same day, the plaintiff is deemed the appellant. F.R.A.P. 28.1. Where there is a cross-appeal, the appellant has the advantage of having higher word limits in its briefs and also files the first brief focused solely on the issues it seeks to appeal. The general rule is that a plaintiff, like TT here, has the right to be an appellant if it wants to appeal an issue.

The Court did not directly rule on TT's motion, but effectively decided it by entering this Minute Order stating that its May 22 permanent injunction was a final judgment effective May 22.  The Clerk, who subsequently entered final judgment on all issues effective May 22, and the parties -- eSpeed filed a notice of appeal of all issues rather than its initial appeal of just the injunction -- treated the final judgment as relating to all matters before the Court, which makes both parties' appeals timely.  According to TT's above analysis, because TT filed its appeal after but on the same day as eSpeed, TT will be appellant and eSpeed will be the cross-appellant.

For those concerned that the Blog might be silent about this case for months, have no fear.  The related cases continue and I will continue blogging about both the related cases and the appeal.

*  Click here for TT's emergency motion, click here for eSpeed's response, and click here for TT's reply. Also, click here for much more on this case in the Blog's archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 2008-1392 & 1393 (Fed. Cir.).*

As Judge Moran predicted, the parties have appealed this case to the Federal Circuit.* The parties’ appeals were consolidated, leaving a single appeal with a substantial number of issues. The great, new Patent Appeal Tracer* reported that plaintiff Trading Technologies (“TT”) is appealing at least the following decisions (click here to read Tracer’s post on the cross-appeals):

Claim constructions, specifically constructions of "static price axis" and "order entry region"  (click here and here and here for the Blog’s posts regarding claim construction opinions);

• Summary judgment of noninfringement of most of defendant eSpeed’s software packages, including the following titles: Dual Dynamic, eSpeedometer, and modified eSpeedometer programs (click here for the Blog’s post regarding this opinion);
  
• Partial summary judgment for TT regarding prior use (click here for the Blog’s post regarding this opinion); and
  
• Judgment as a matter of law overturning the jury’s willfulness finding (click here for the Blog’s post regarding this opinion).

And eSpeed is appealing, at least, the following decisions:

• The permanent injunction regarding certain of eSpeed’s software packages (click here for the Blog’s post regarding the Court’s permanent injunction).

* Thanks to Patent Tracer for linking to the Blog’s TT v. eSpeed coverage. Click here to read much more about this case in the Blog’s archives.

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

Nat'l. Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the U.S.A. Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc. v. Nat'l. Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the U.S.A., Inc., ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2008 WL 1839078 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2008) (St. Eve, J.).

Judge St. Eve denied defendant the National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States' (the "NSA") motion to hold non-parties Franklin D. Schlatter, Joel B. Marangella, the Provisional National Baha'i Council ("PNBC"), the Second International Baha'I Council (d/b/a Baha'is Under the Provisions of the Covenant)("SIBC"), and the Baha'i Publishers Under the Provisions of the Covenant ("BPUPC")(collectively the "Alleged Contemnors") in contempt for violating the 1966 permanent injunction against plaintiff The National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of the United States Under the Hereditary Guardianship, Inc.'s (the "NSA-UHG" or "UHG") use of the NSA's trademarks. Shortly after the injunction was entered, the NSA-UHG dissolved. NSA argued that its former officers, Schlatter and Marangella, remained bound by the injunction. But the Court held that officers or agents of an entity that are not personally named in an injunction are only bound while acting for the named entity or a subsequent entity formed to avoid the injunction. Schlatter's and Marangella's alleged contempt, therefore, is dependent on their new entity PNBC's status.

The Court held that PNBC was not in privity with NSA-UHG. NSA-UHG followed the directives of its spiritual leader, Mason Remey. PNBC, however, followed the directives of its spiritual leader Marangella, not Remey. Furthermore, Marangella specifically instructed PNBC and its members not to violate the injunction. PNBC, Schlatter and Marangella, therefore, were not in privity with NSA-UHG and not bound by the injunction.

Similarly, non-parties Jensen, SIBC and BPGPC were not in privity with NSA-UGH, even though they admitted to being successors-in-interest to Remey. Jensen disassociated themselves from the NSA-UGH and Remey several years before the injunction was issued.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 22, 2008) (Moran, Sen. J.).*

After a jury held that certain of defendants' (collectively "eSpeed") products willfuly infringed two of plaintiff Trading Technologies' (“TT”) futures trading software patents (the Court previously reversed the willfulness finding), the Court entered a permanent injunction preventing future sales of the infringing software -- a previous opinion granted summary judgment of noninfringement of eSpeed's current software and all software except that sold during a six month period shortly after TT's patents issued.  The Court looked at each of the four standard injunction elements, as required by the Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC.

Irreparable Harm

The Court held that TT would be irreparably harmed by any continued sales of infringing product because TT's successful business was built around its patented technology and, therefore, direct competitors with infringing products irreparably harmed TT.    The Court agreed with eSpeed that general claims of competition were insufficient pursuant to eBay, but the Court held that TT's direct competition assertions were supported by trial testimony.

Inadequate Remedy at Law

eSpeed argued that TT's numerous licenses proved that monetary damages could compensate TT, as the eBay district court held after remand.  but the Court distinguished eBay.  eBay was premised upon a combination of plaintiff MercExchange's:

• willingness to license;
  
• choice not to practice the patent;
  
• failure to seek preliminary injuctive relief; and
  
• consistent, clear statements that it desired monetary damages.

In contrast, TT manufactured a patented product and only licensed as an alternative to litigation.  And the Court acknowledged TT's concern that providing monetary damages after trial without an injuction would force a compulsory license on TT.

Balance of Hardships

The Court held that TT would be more harmed without an injunction than eSpeed would be harmed by an injunction.  eSpeed no longer made or sold the infringing software, so an injunction would cause eSpeed little or no harm.  Furthermore, eSpeed manufactured numerous non-infringing products.  So, the extent of any harm was further minimized.

Public Interest

eSpeed argued that the public interest weighed against granting injunctions regarding patents in reexamination.  But TT's patents had since been upheld in the reexam.  So, the only public interest factor was enforcement of TT's patent rights.

For these reasons, the Court entered a permanent injunction.  Click here to read the Permanent Injunction Order.

* Click here to read much more about this case in the Blog’s archives and click here for this opinion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)

Brian Higgins's Maryland IP Law Blog post about the progeny of In re Seagate, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007), inspired me to do follow up posts identifying Northern District cases discussing recent major IP decisions.  The first looks at cases discussing eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006).  Here they are:*

• Black & Decker Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., No. 04 C 7955, 2006 WL 3446144 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2006) (St. Eve, J.). -- Granting a permanent injunction in a case between competitors.
  
• Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 05 C 3449, 2007 WL 1017751 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2007) (Moran, J.). -- Granting a preliminary injunction in a case between competitors and holding that in eBay the Supreme Court limited the automatic presumption of irreparable harm based upon infringement.

For further analysis of post-eBay decisions, check out my post about Michael Smith's analysis (click here) and my post discussing Ray Nimmer's thoughts on the potential for compulsory licensing regimes because of eBay (click here).

*  A brief note on methodology:  this was not a thorough study and does not include cases that granted or denied injunctions without discussion.  For a more comprehensive list of decisions nationwide (updated through the end of 2007) go to the Fire of Genius.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In a recent post on the University of Houston Law Center Faculty Blog (another LexBlog site), Ray Nimmer asks whether the Supreme Court's recent eBay v. MercExchange permanent injunction decision will lead to compulsory licensing.  Nimmer discusses two alternatives when a permanent injunction is not granted after a patent infringement finding:

One response is simply to assess damages as to past infringement, leaving any future use of the patent for a voluntary agreement of the parties (a license) or a subsequent infringement suit for the subsequent infringements. That is clearly the preferable option, although it does raise limited issues of judicial economy.

A second alternative is to permit subsequent use by the defendant subject to the payment of a reasonable royalty imposed by the court. This is a form of compulsory licensing that rewards the wrongdoer, unless the remedy has been requested by the patent owner. Nevertheless, a panel of the Federal Circuit indicated that such a remedy may be appropriate. One wonders why.

Nimmer concludes that courts should not impose compulsory licensing for future infringement absent substantial public policy reasons:

The preconditions should be both an opportunity to negotiate a license and, failing a bargain, a request by both parties for the court to impose a royalty as part of the remedy for infringement. A patent creates a right to exclude and, where the patent owner prefers to exercise that right, it should not be forced into a licensing arrangement resulting from a case in which it prevailed on the infringement claim. There may be some cases in which vital public policy interests justify this result, but those cannot be grounded simply in the fact that the court denied a permanent injunction or the parties have not agreed to license terms. A remedy should not penalize the person to whom the remedy is awarded. 

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

Bryant v. Gordon, __F.Supp.2d__, 2007 WL 2440208 (N.D. Ill. August 30, 2007) (Kennelly, Jr.).*

Judge Kennelly denied defendants James Gordon’s (“Gordon”) and Mach 1’s motions for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) and entered an injunction against Gordon’s and Mach 1’s continued use of the copyrighted pictures at issue – pictures of a parachutist and a sniper used in motivational posters. Gordon and Mach 1 argued that the jury’s verdict that Gordon and Mach 1 infringed plaintiff’s copyrights was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict that defendant John Urtis (“Urtis”) – who took the infringing sniper photo – did not infringe plaintiff’s copyright. But the Court held that JMOL cannot be used to harmonize jury verdicts. Furthermore, the Court held that the infringement verdicts were supported by the facts.

Because of a threat of continued infringement, the Court granted a permanent injunction against Gordon and Mach 1. But the Court held that it could not issue the injunction against Urtis because the jury’s verdict was in Urtis’s favor. The Court did, however, caution Urtis not to aid the other defendants in violating their injunction.

* For more on this case, click here in the Blog’s archives.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Coilcraft, Inc. v. Inductor Warehouse, Inc., No. 98 C 0140, 2007 WL 2728754 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 13, 2007) (Guzman, J.).

Judge Guzman conducted a Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 de novo review of Magistrate Judge Cole’s report which recommended that the Court hold defendant in contempt for violating the Court’s permanent injunction limiting defendant’s use of plaintiff’s Coilcraft mark (click here for further discussion in the Blog’s archive). The Court adopted Judge Cole’s Report in its entirety and gave plaintiff fourteen days to submit a proposed order and proof of its attorneys' fees and costs related to this motion. The Court also held that Judge Cole was not required to hold an evidentiary hearing before issuing the Report because there were no genuine issues of material fact. The dispute was governed by the language of the Court’s injunction which was not disputed. And the only issue was whether defendant’s advertisements, the contents of which were not disputed, violated the injunction – a matter of law.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sunstar, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., No. 01 CV 736 & 5825, 2007 WL 2410069 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2007) (Guzman, J.).

Judge Guzman denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion for a new trial and Fed. R. Civ. P. 50(b) motion for judgment as a matter of law and granted plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction, among other things assigning all trademarks at issue to plaintiff and enjoining defendants from using plaintiff’s trademarks. The Court held that the jury’s verdict of a breach of contract without a damages award was not inconsistent and, therefore, did not warrant a new trial. The jury was free to find that the contract was breached and to award nominal damages. But because plaintiff did not argue for nominal damages an award of no damages was warranted. Defendants also argued that the jury’s verdict was not supported by the evidence because plaintiff’s survey was not sufficient proof actual confusion. But the Court held that plaintiff’s breach-by-infringement claim only required proof of likely confusion. The jury could have considered the survey sufficient to prove likely confusion. Furthermore, plaintiff introduced fact evidence in addition to the survey which supported the jury’s findings, including the similarity of the marks at issue and the sale of similar products using the marks in the same areas as plaintiff’s trademarked products.

Finally, the Court enjoined defendants from, among other things using plaintiff’s trademarks and required that defendants assign any interest in the marks at issue to plaintiffs. Defendants argued that the Court could not require assignment of the marks to plaintiff because plaintiff never sought transfer of the marks in its complaint. But the Court held that plaintiff was seeking equitable relief that was appropriate in light of the jury’s verdict.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Peter Zura has an excellent post at his 271 Patent Blog about the latest statistical analysis of patent litigations by Professor Paul Janicke of The University of Houston Law Center -- you can read Prof. Janicke's study here or get a copy of his related PowerPoint slides here.  Of particular note to readers of the Blog, the Northern District remains in the top five districts based upon the number of patent filings, with almost 5% of the nation’s patent cases filed here. Zura also notes that the median verdict was $4.2M, which is almost the median cost litigants pay to take a $25M+ patent case to trial ($4.5M according to the 2005 AIPLA survey).  Finally, post-eBay permanent injunctions are denied 25% of the time, as opposed to 16% pre-eBay.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Black & Decker Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., No. 04 C 7955, 2006 WL 3883919 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 7, 2006) (St. Eve, J.).

This is Judge St. Eve's permanent injunction order (numerous opinions from this case and its resulting jury trial have been analyzed in the Blog and can be found in the Blog's archives).  The injunction is notable for its thoroughness, in describing both the claims at issue and the enjoined products or classes of products.  The order even includes electrical schematics of a portion of the enjoined invention.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Black & Decker Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., No. 04 C 7955, 2006 WL 3446144 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 29, 2006) (St. Eve, J.).*

In this opinion, Judge St. Eve issued what I believe is the first permanent injunction in the Northern District pursuant to the "new" Supreme Court standard set forth in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., __ U.S. __, 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006).  The Court found irreparable harm, satisfying the first prong of the injunction standard, based on the possibility of continuing sales (although defendant stated that it had stopped producing and selling the infringing product), harm to plaintiff's reputation as an innovator in the relevant market and plaintiff's loss of market share. 

The Court held that monetary damages were not adequate to compensate for plaintiff's harmed reputation and lost market share, satisfying the second prong of the injunction standard.  Because defendant stated it had stopped producing and selling the infringing products, the Court held that the balance of hardship favored plaintiff, satisfying the third prong of the injunction standard.  And finally, because public policy favors enforcing patents, the Court held that the public interest was not disserved by a permanent injunction, meeting the final prong of the injunction standard.

Additionally, the Court refused to add defendant's new product to the permanent injunction because evidence in the record indicated that defendant had made a good-faith effort to modify the new product to avoid the plaintiff's claims.  The Court noted that the issue was best resolved by the case plaintiff had already filed in the Northern District, before another judge, claiming infringement of defendant's new product.

* This case is a bit out of order, but I could not resist getting it posted quickly.  I currently have a minor backlog (for reasons which I hope to explain soon), which I will clear out quickly.  Also, you can see previous posts on this case here and here.

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