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

Here are several stories worth checking out, but that did not warrant a separate post:

• PA Tracer's monthly patent filings report is out.  The Northern District had nine new cases filed in July.  That is reasonably busy for the deep summer, but nothing compared to the Eastern District of Texas's 25 new patent cases -- click here to read PA Tracer's post.
   
• The St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran a story recently about Judge St. Eve -- click here to read it.*  The story discusses many traits that are obvious to those who have practiced before her.  Judge St. Eve is very punctual and efficient, and she has absolute control of her courtroom, which she maintains with a civility and kindness that are impressive.  The article also speculates, using unnamed colleagues and media as sources, that Judge St. Eve will eventually be on Supreme Court short lists.  Here's hoping she stays in the Northern District a long time before getting called up to One First Street.
   
• Chicago Lawyer Magazine did a nice profile on Chicago IP lawyer Carol Genis of Bell, Boyd & Lloyd.  Click here to read it.  The article largely focuses on how Genis develops strong bonds of trust and friendship with clients.
   
• Duane Valz, Vice President & Associate General Counsel of Yahoo!’s Global Patent Strategy, is discussing approaches for patenting Internet-related ideas in a webinar on Wednesday, September 3 from 1:30 - 3:00 CT -- click here for more information.

*  Hat tip to the WSJ Law Blog for pointing out the story here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last week’s Olympic edition Blawg Review focused on the medals. Building on that, this week I discuss the elements of a world record swim. If you were watching last week, instead of blogging, you saw 20 of them in the Olympic pool; seven by Mr. Phelps.

 

Practice

Nothing is more critical than preparation. A big part of preparation is tightening your stroke and cutting out unnecessary motion. Reese Morrison, at the Law Department Management blog, discusses blunt suggestions for trimming legal bills.

 

Endless hours in the pool alone are not enough, you need a good coach. Business development coach Cordell Parvin provides an excellent three part series at his Law Consulting Blog – one, two, and three – on persistence, an important element of any Olympic training program. In an Olympic caliber display of persistence, Drug & Device Law had an exhaustive post discussing and classifying each medical device preemption case since the landmark Supreme Court decision in Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 999 (2008).

 

You also need a support network to help you get through all of the pool time. Bruce Allen, at Marketing Catalyst, teaches us how to avoid the cocktail conversation you cannot escape from at a networking event. At Copyblogger, John Morrow explains that content is no longer king in the blogosphere, you need friends. And he teaches you how to get them. At BlawgIT, Brett Trout – who is a fighter, not a swimmer – has an interesting post about how to work together as a community to thwart webjackings (the hijacking of a website). And Mediation Channel’s Diane Levin discusses the social side of blogging, and reading blogs.

 

Of course, if you do not have time to practice you will never set the record. So, you need a job, or at least some cash. On that note, Harmful Error posts the great news that loan forgiveness programs were expanded this week for legal aid lawyers, state prosecutors and public defenders. 

 

The Suit

The clothes make the man (or the woman). This year the go-to duds were Speedo’s LZR suits. Patent Librarian Michael White tells us that, no surprise, Speedo patented the LZR. IPKat expands on swimming patents, providing a broader view of Olympics-related patents.

 

Genes

As a guy who swam for a lot of years and practiced hard throughout, I can tell you not everyone has what it takes to set world records. The closest I came was getting beat by an Olympian and world record holder. Of course, you might be less impressed by my loss if you knew that at the time his Olympic medals were four or five decades old, and I was 19. At Idealawg, Stephanie West Allen discusses the traits that make entrepreneurs entrepreneurial.

                                                                     Mental Focus

One of the big stories on Phelps this week was how he thinks of nothing but not losing during a race. At Litigation & Trial, Maxwell Kennerly tells us that you have to know when you are sweating the details more than your client would want by over emphasizing proof-reading. Of course, even Kennerly agrees that some details matter. 

                                                                  Knowing the Rules 

You have to know the rules. Turn wrong or break the rules for your stroke and beating a record by ten seconds will not matter. At the Legal Juice, John Mesirow reports that kids at the Lake County Florida library are allowed to rent R-rated movies because they believe it is an unconstitutional delegation of authority for the Motion Picture Association of America’s guidelines for determining obscenity. I am sure kids from all over that area are flocking to the Lake County library because the rules are on their side, at least for now.

 

Filewrapper reports on a Federal Circuit decision holding that copyright infringement, and not just breach of contract, when the terms of an open source license governing the copyrighted material are breached. For more on this major decision in the IP world, check out: BLT; Law Pundit; and Patently-O.

 

Seattle Trademark Lawyer Mike Graham shows the consequences of not following the rules using two Western District of Washington opinions.

 

Ethan Lieb, guest blogging at Freakonomics, argues that we need to change the rules requiring unanimous juries. And the WSJ Law Blog discusses a judge and a juror who clashed over jury nullification.

The Start

A bad start is hard to recover from, especially when you are chasing the fastest time ever. Evan Schaeffer shows how to open well at trial at the Illinois Trial Practice Weblog, and he links to Trial Theatre’s opening statement quiz.

Turns

Coming off the wall in a turn is the fastest a swimmer goes during a race. So, you need good turns. IntLawGrrls discuss how to turn around the conflict between Georgia and Russia (sorry the turns section was tough).

 

Legal Literacy discusses Whole Foods’ turned around (or recalled) beef and looks behind the scenes at how it happened and Whole Foods’ impressively quick response.

 

The Finish

Do you do an extra stroke or do you glide in hard? Always a tough question, but the .01 seconds the decision costs you can mean the race and the record.

At his E.D. Texas Weblog, Michael Smith reports that while the E.D. Texas started out as a rocket docket, particularly for patents, it has now slowed down and let many other districts catch it with a time to trial of 24 – 30 months.

 

The Law and Magic Blog reminds us that we cannot always win, and that trying to rig the system to guarantee wins – he is talking about the stock market, but it holds true for the pool – is dangerous work.

 

At the IP ADR Blog, Victoria Pynchon praises several Perkins Coie attorneys who went the distance for their pro bono clients at Gitmo and earned the clients’ respect for providing them an able defense.

 

** Images provided via a Creative Commons license by A. Dawson or Andre from Flicker. **

 

Next week's Blawg Review will be at fellow LexBlog site, the Texas Appellate Law Blog.

 

Blawg Review has information about next week's host, and instructions on how to get your blawg posts reviewed in upcoming issues.

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (4)

Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., No. 06-937, 553 U.S. ___ (2008).

The Supreme Court concluded its latest review of the patent laws Monday when Justice Thomas delivered the Court's succinct, unanimous decision in Quanta v. LG.  Client obligations this week prevent me from providing a detailed analysis today.  But, no surprise, there is plenty of commentary out there already.  For more about decision, check out:

• 271 Patent Blog

• Agricultural Law

• FileWrapper

• IP Thinktank

• Patent Docs
  

• Patently-O

• WSJ Law Blog

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Winter 2008 edition of the John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law has been published and is available online by clicking here.  It includes several interesting articles, including:

• An argument for making stage directions copyrightable, Jennifer J. Maxwell, Making a Federal Case for Copyrighting Stage Directions: Einhorn v. Mergatroyd Productions, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 393 (2008); and
  
• John W. Osborne, Justice Breyer's Bicycle and the Ignored Elephant of Patent Exhaustion: An Avoidable Collision in Quanta v. LGE, 7 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 245 (2008), arguing that the Supreme Court should chart its own course regarding patent exhaustion, instead of adopting the parties' positions in Quanta v. LG (click here for more on the case in the Blog's archives):

The Federal Circuit held in LGE v. Bizcom that patent exhaustion could be disclaimed by contract.

The confusion regarding patent exhaustion evident in the Federal Circuit’s LGE v. Bizcom decision can be entirely eliminated by strict adherence to the Supreme Court’s Univis Lens decision. Univis Lens makes clear that the sale of an article embodying the essential features of a patent claim results in the exhaustion of that claim.

But patent exhaustion is reflective of the scope of patent rights granted by statute. A statutory grant of rights should not be expandable by private contract. The Supreme Court should thus reverse in Quanta v. LGE. 261 This conclusion applies equally to any type of patent claim, i.e., component, apparatus, composition, system, combination, method, or process claims. Identifying the essential features of a patent claim, i.e., the patentably distinct features, clarifies the exhaustion analysis, results in predictability, and eliminates the confusion between the doctrines of exhaustion and implied license.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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 -- click here for my post on injunctions after eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 126 S.Ct. 1837, 164 L.Ed.2d 641 (2006).  There have been a number of obviousness decisions in the Northern District since KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., __ U.S. __, 127 S.Ct. 1727 (2007).  Here they are:*

• Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 05 C 5373, 2007 WL 1549498 (N.D. Ill. May 24, 2007) (Coar, J.). -- Holding that the Court's pre-KSR analysis need not be reconsidered in light of KSR because an element was missing from the prior art, regardless of what standard was used.
  
• Herman Miller, Inc. v. Teknion Corp., No. 05 C 2761, 2007 WL 2230042 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 30, 2007) (Gettleman, J.). -- Noting that, in light of KSR, plaintiff issued a statement of non-liability and certain patents were removed from the suit.
  

• Lexion Medical, LLC v. Northgate Techs., Inc., No. 04 C 5705, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 8, 2007). -- Holding that the pre-KSR jury's decision would not have changed if given a KSR obviousness instruction.

These opinions suggest that KSR is not changing obviousness law in the Northern District much.  I suspect that is not true.  Once we have a larger sample of cases, including more where the initial analysis was not done pre-KSR, we will see more patents held invalid based upon obviousness.

*  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 complete list of post-KSR decisions nationwide, go to the Fire of Genius.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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

A couple of unrelated IP stories from Chicago, where most have been focused on snow & the primaries this week:

• The Chicago Tribune reported -- click here for the story -- that a yearly $5,000 scholarship has been established in the name of Allen J. Hoover, a patent attorney at the law firm of Wood Phillips, who was killed in Wood Phillips's offices in December 2006.  The scholarship will be given to a third-year DePaul University law student focusing on intellectual property law.  Hoover was a DePaul alum.  At least some good can come from such senseless violence.
  
• The University of Chicago Faculty Blog discussed patent exhaustion and the recent LG v. Quanta Supreme Court oral argument in this post, as part of an ongoing discussion about "New Servitudes" -- licenses that attempt to control a purchaser's rights in software, digital music, etc. (click here to read Professor Van Houweling's initial post and click here to get the current version of her New Servitudes article at SSRN).  Van Houweling's analysis of the oral argument may not be as deep (note sarcasm) as my analysis of Justice Breyer's cycling analogy, but it is quite interesting and she edges closer than most to predicting an outcome:

Justice Breyer suggested that the “doctrine that you cannot impose equitable servitudes upon chattel” might help to decide the case.  And he returned several times to a hypothetical in which a patent holder tries to enforce restrictions on a consumer’s use of patented bicycle pedals: 

“Imagine that I want to buy some bicycle pedals, so I go to the bicycle shop….The inventor has licensed somebody to make them, and he sold them to the shop.  I go and buy the pedals.  I put it in my bicycle.  I start pedaling down the road.  Now, we don’t want 19 patent inspectors chasing me….” 

Breyer apparently finds this a troubling scenario even if the pedals come with some sort express notice of the use restrictions.  He asked whether

“if … I go in the bicycle shop and I buy the pedals and then they give me … one of these pieces of paper that has all of the 42,000 words on it and there are in these 42,000 words it says, and now you are put on notice that once you put it in your bicycle and you pedal away, they’re going to get you and you’re going to be hauled into Patent Court, then--then that’s ok?”

I don’t want to read too much into the tea leaves of this oral argument transcript.  But Breyer seems to be suggesting (in part relying on the traditional rule against chattel servitudes) that consumers would be justifiably surprised to find themselves “hauled into Patent Court” for merely using things they had lawfully acquired, even where the restriction was imposed by a patent holder by means of a written notice attached to the good.  As Henry's post suggests, the problem here is not exactly lack of notice--the information is available in the “42,000 words” in Breyer’s hypothetical.  But it may not be reasonable or even desirable to expect people (at least not retail pedal purchasers) to absorb that information.  The Court expressed this same anxiety back in Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co., in which it refused to enforce a restriction printed on plates attached to record players after noting that “not one purchaser in many would read such a notice, and that not one in a much greater number, if he did read it, could understand its involved and intricate phraseology.” 

• 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)

The blogs are full of commentary about yesterday's Supreme Court patent exhaustion argument.  But no one is declaring a winner.  Instead, like my earlier post, people are focusing on trends in the Justices questions.  Here are some of the best commentaries:

• Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein has a guest post all over the blogs -- read it at Patently-O, 271 Patent Blog, and Philip Brooks' Patent Infringement Updates.
  
• Anticipate This!
  
• I/P Updates -- quoting Chief Judge Roberts:  "We've had experience with the Patent Office where it tends to grant patents a lot more liberally than we would enforce under the patent law."  Ouch.
• ScotusWiki -- This is a companion to the well-known SCOTUSblog (which does not have any commentary about the argument posted yet).  ScotusWiki does not provide any commentary, but it is a great resource for information about this case, and any other Supreme Court case.
  
• Troll Tracker -- predicting a 5-4 or 6-3 reversal of the Federal Circuit (although only "leaning" that way and only predicting a "slight" reversal) and, similar to my post, picking up on Justice Breyer's cycling theme, but without professing a love for the sport.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Tomorrow, the Supreme Court hears arguments in Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., 06-937 -- click here for a collection of the many briefs filed in the case at Patently-O.  The Court will be deciding whether parties can contract around patent exhaustion.  The patent exhaustion doctrine, also known as the first sale doctrine, holds that a royalty can only be charged once per product.  Once one link in the supply chain has paid a royalty for a patented product, or a key component, the patent is exhausted and no other link in the chain must pay a royalty for the same patent.  LG Electronics attempted to contract around patent exhaustion.

LG Electronics owned a group of patents claiming microprocessors used in personal computers.  They licensed the patents to Intel, but expressly excluded from the license any Intel customer that combined a licensed Intel microprocessor with non-Intel components.  As part of the license, Intel sent letters to its customers warning of this license exclusion.  LG Electronics sued Intel's post-license customers that were allegedly combining the licensed Intel chips with non-Intel products.   

The district court held that Intel's license exhausted LG Electronics' downstream patent royalty rights.  But the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that when parties expressly restrict a license a court should infer that the parties also negotiated a more limited royalty to reflect the limited rights given in the license.  As a result, patent exhaustion should not apply to restricted licenses.  Quanta argues that the Federal Circuit's decision contradicts a long history of both Federal Circuit and Supreme Court precedent requiring that patent licenses cannot be restricted to one link in the supply chain.

This is another case that has major implications for the business of patent law.  If the Supreme Court overturns the Federal Circuit it could dramatically change the model of many patent licensing programs.  I will keep you posted both on what occurs during the argument and the Court's ultimate decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

There is a debate brewing in the patent litigation community over the correct scope of a state institution's waiver of 11th Amendment immunity when that institution asserts its patents. In Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd. v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999), the Supreme Court held that state institutions were immune from patent infringement suits. Of course, if a state institution asserts a patent claim against a party, immunity is generally waived as to that party for counterclaims. But the Federal Circuit recently held in BPMC v. California Dept. of Health (Fed. Cir. 2007), that when the California Department of Health (“Cal. DoH”) intervened as a plaintiff in a patent suit (which is considered a waiver of immunity), it is only a waiver as to that suit. So, when the original suit was dismissed because of improper venue, the waiver was rescinded. As a result, the defendant in the first case, BPMC, could not bring a declaratory judgment suit that mirrored the original suit because of the Cal. DoH’s 11th Amendment immunity. 

The Federal Circuit’s decision has ignited substantial controversy (click here for the WSJ Law Blog’s article on the subject and click here for IP Biz’s responsive blog post) and some are predicting that this will be the next patent case that the Supreme Court takes on cert. It is an interesting issue, but not one that we see often in the Northern District, which caused me to investigate whether Chicago-area colleges are prolific patentees. None makes the top ten, like my alma mater the University of Michigan – Go Blue! But there is some substantial patenting going on at Chicago-area universities. The following chart show the number of patents assigned to the identified universities or their related entities between 1969 and 2005:

Chicago-Area University Utility Patents 1969-2005

School	Patents
U of Chicago	309
IIT	59
ISU	4
Loyola, Chicago	33
Northwestern	370
U of Illinois	552

As you can see from the chart, this issue has significant consequences for Chicago-area schools. I will keep you posted as the case develops.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Many -- myself included -- thought the Supreme Court may have had its fill of patent law.  But yesterday, the Supreme Court granted cert in  Quanta Computer Inc. v. LG Electronics Inc., 06-937, to consider whether parties can contract around patent exhaustion.  The patent exhaustion doctrine, also known as the first sale doctrine, holds that a royalty can only be charged once per product.  Once one link in the supply chain has paid a royalty for a patented product, or a key component, the patent is exhausted and no other link in the chain must pay a royalty for the same patent.  LG Electronics attempted to contract around patent exhaustion.

LG Electronics owned a group of patents claiming microprocessors used in personal computers.  They licensed the patents to Intel, but expressly excluded from the license any Intel customer that combined a licensed Intel microprocessor with non-Intel components.  As part of the license, Intel sent letters to its customers warning of this license exclusion.  LG Electronics sued Intel's post-license customers that were allegedly combining the licensed Intel chips with non-Intel products.   

The district court held that Intel's license exhausted LG Electronics' downstream patent royalty rights.  But the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that when parties expressly restrict a license a court should infer that the parties also negotiated a more limited royalty to reflect the limited rights given in the license.  As a result, patent exhaustion should not apply to restricted licenses.  Quanta argues that the Federal Circuit's decision contradicts a long history of both Federal Circuit and Supreme Court precedent requiring that patent licenses cannot be restricted to one link in the supply chain.

This is another case that has major implications for the business of patent law.  If the Supreme Court overturns the Federal Circuit it could dramatically change the model of many patent licensing programs.

For more about the Supreme Court's decision to grant cert, check out:

• Patently-O
  
• 271 Patent Blog
  
• Patent Troll Tracker
  
• FileWrapper

 

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

Arminak & Assocs., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc., No. 06-1561, Slip Op. (Fed. Cir. Sept. 12, 2007) (Holderman, C.J., sitting by designation.).*

On behalf of Chief Judge Michel and Judge Gajarsa, the Northern District’s Chief Judge Holderman affirmed C.D. California’s holding that declaratory judgment plaintiffs’ (“Arminak”) “AA Trigger” shroud design for a spray bottle did not infringe declaratory judgment defendant’s (“Calmar”) design patents covering certain design elements of shrouds. The main issue, and one of first impression, was whether the “ordinary observer” for purposes of design patent infringement should be the end-user/purchaser of spray bottles or the industrial purchaser that buys triggers or shrouds for assembly into a finished spray bottle product. The district court held that the ordinary observer was the industrial purchaser and the evidence clearly established that industrial purchasers would not be confused by similarities between Arminak’s and Calmar’s patented shrouds. Calmar argued, however, that the Supreme Court in Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511 (1871), expressly excluded experts from being ordinary observers and that, therefore, retail purchasers had to be the ordinary observer. But the Federal Circuit noted that did not sell shrouds or fully assembled spray bottles including their respective shrouds to retail purchasers. The parties sell shrouds to industrial purchasers. Industrial purchasers, therefore, are the appropriate population of ordinary observers. The ordinary observer is:

A person who is either a purchaser or, or sufficiently interested in, the item that displays the patented designs and who has the capability of making a reasonably discerning decision when observing the accused item’s design whether the accused item is substantially the same as the item claimed in the design patent.

* This is not an appeal from the Northern District, but I am covering it because Chief Judge Holderman authored the Opinion. Thanks to Dennis Crouch at Patently-O for bringing the case to my attention.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Black & Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., No. 06 C 4440, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Jul. 13, 2007) (Manning, J.).*

In the first Northern District opinion to address the Supreme Court’s MedImmune declaratory judgment standard, Judge Manning denied plaintiff Black & Decker’s (“B&D”) motion to dismiss defendant Robert Bosch Tool Corp.’s ("Bosch") declaratory judgment counterclaims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In a prior case between the parties before Judge St. Eve (numerous prior opinions are discussed in the Blog's archives), B&D asserted that two models of Bosch's Power Box radio (the "Old Power Box") infringed B&D's two patents (the "Old Patents").  Shortly before Judge St. Eve held trial in the previous case, B&D brought this suit against Bosch asserting that Bosch's new model of its Power Box radio (the "New Power Box") infringed a third patent (the "New Patent").  At about the same time, B&D sought leave to present evidence at trial before Judge St. Eve that the New Power Box infringed the Old Patents.  Judge St. Eve, however, held that B&D had not disclosed the New Power Box as an accused product and that Bosch would be prejudiced by adding it immediately before trial.  After the trial before Judge St. Eve, the jury returned a verdict that the Old Power Boxes willfully infringed certain claims of the Old Patents.

Shortly after Judge St. Eve excluded the New Power Box from her trial, B&D amended the complaint in this case to allege infringement of the Old Patents.  In response, Bosch added declaratory judgment counterclaims regarding a third set of B&D patents (the “Smith patents”) which B&D had never asserted against Bosch. Bosch argued that an actual controversy existed because of the history of litigation between the parties and B&D’s prior testimony that it placed a high value on the exclusivity its patents provided in the workplace radio marketspace. B&D countered that, despite filing two suits against Bosch, B&D had never asserted the Smith patents against Bosch, or any other party. B&D also argued that St. Eve had already dismissed similar counterclaims in the last case for lack of actual controversy. But St. Eve’s decision was based upon the Federal Circuit’s old reasonable apprehension test, which the Supreme Court’s MedImmune decision overruled. Looking at “all of the circumstances,” as required by MedImmune, the Court held that an actual controversy existed. Among other reasons, the Court noted that the wide-ranging dispute between the parties regarding the workplace radios, suggested that it was in the parties’ best interests to resolve any dispute regarding the Smith patents.

*  You can read a copy of the Minute Order here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., No. 06-1402, Slip Op. (Fed. Cir. May 9, 2007).

The Federal Circuit issued its first opinion analyzing an obviousness determination based upon the Supreme Court decision in KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. __, 2007 WL 1237837 (2007).  The Court affirmed the district court's holding that the claim was invalid based upon obviousness and explained that obviousness is not determined by "a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of a case."  You can download a copy of the Federal Circuit's decision here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Supreme Court issued opinions in both Microsoft v. AT&T and KSR v. Teleflex.  I just received the opinions, so I have not had time for analysis yet.  But you can click on the links for the opinions and I will report back Tuesday or Wednesday with more analysis.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lear Corp., No. 05 C 3449, 2007 WL 1017751 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2007) (Moran, J.).

Judge Moran granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, preventing defendant from marketing and selling its garage door opener transmitters.  Relying upon its two prior claim construction decisions (which can be found in the Blog's archives), the Court first determined that plaintiffs had proven a likelihood of success on its infringement claims.  Then the Court considered plaintiffs' irreparable harm claims.  The Court denied plaintiffs' argument that its showing of a strong likelihood of success creates a presumption of irreparable harm.  Citing eBay, Inc.  v. Merc Exchange, L.L.C., 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006), the Court held that the Supreme Court limited the automatic presumption of irreparable harm based upon infringement.  Instead, the Court determined that plaintiffs' had shown that they were irreparably harmed because defendant's sales had eroded its prices and strained its customer relations.

Because defendants entered no declarations or affidavits detailing its loss of revenue, sales or good will should a preliminary injunction be entered, the Court ruled that the balance of hardships tipped in plaintiffs' favor based upon its irreparable harm evidence.  Finally, the Court noted that there is a public interest in protecting valid patents.  Based upon these findings, the Court issued a preliminary injunction and required plaintiffs to post a $10,000,000 bond pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 (c).

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

According to this Chicago Tribune article, 'Struck By Lightning' 3 Times Over, three recent Northwestern grads Andrianna Kastanek (2005), Jessica Phillips (2006) and Katherine Shaw (2006) are headed to the Supreme Court next term.  The three will clerk for Kennedy, Alito and Stevens, respectively.  Congratulations to each and to Northwestern.  The school on the Lake will a U. of Chicago size presence on the Court next term.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Last Wednesday the Chicago IP Alliance held its second annual Chicago IP Day at Loyola.  It was, no surprise, an excellent program providing an information-packed day.  I do not have the time to summarize all of the presentations, but I will give some highlights.  George McAndrews, McAndrews, Held & Malloy, gave a very interesting presentation outlining his views on the Supreme Court's recent eBay v. MercExchange opinion requiring the use of the standard permanent injunction test to determine whether a permanent injunction should be granted after a patent infringement judgment.  Essentially, he argued that the Supreme Court's ruling contradicts the constitutional grant of a limited monopoly.  His presentation led to some spirited debate at various tables during the excellent lunch in Loyola's beautiful new conference room atop the law school.

The day's keynote presentation was by the USPTO's Deputy General Counsel and Solicitor General John Whealan.  John's presentation lived up to my advance billing.  He gave his take on the Supreme Court's recently increased interest in the patent laws.  While I cannot do all of his remarks justice, he outlined three instances in which he felt the Supreme Court was taking patent appeals.  First, circuit splits -- splits between the Federal Circuit  case law and the law of a regional circuit pre-Federal Circuit.  Second, and maybe the most obvious, splits between different Federal Circuit panels.  And third, on Cert. View of the Solicitor General ("CVSG").  CVSG is a process initiated by the Court, when they ask the Solicitor General for its view on whether the Court should grant cert.  The Solicitor General works with the relevant governmental entity, the USPTO in the case of patents, and hears arguments from each side of the case before sending the Supreme Court its recommendation.  Whealan stated that CVSG had been used once for a patent issue prior to 2000 and 17 times since then.  Once again, if you get the chance to hear Whealan speak, do not pass it up.  You always learn something and he is always an entertaining speaker.

Great job to the folks at Loyola and Kent for putting together an excellent and educational day.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I do not want the Blog to get off track, so this will be my last post for awhile on the subject, but here is a roundup of blogs discussing yesterday's argument:

Chicago's own 271 Patent Blog

SCOTUS Blog

Patently-O

Patent Baristas

I will be back at the Blog's traditional subjects tomorrow with Northern District case updates.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Following up on my post yesterday, The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin has published this story regarding today's Supreme Court argument in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.  The argument centered around whether the Federal Circuit's obviousness test should be revised (more on the KSR case from Patently-O here and here).  Of course, Justices often play devil's advocate in oral arguments, so it is dangerous to presume outcomes based upon oral argument, but it looks like it was good legal theater. 

Here are a few of the most interesting comments as reported in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin piece:

Justice Scalia "derided the test as 'gobbledygook.'''

Chief Justice Roberts:  called the current test "a confusing 'layer of Federal Circuit jargon [that is] worse than meaningless.'''

Just Souter wondered whether overturning the current obviousness test would generate a flood of law suits.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Although it is not about the Northern District, there is a great article on the front page of today's Wall Street Journal about the Supreme Court's increasing interest in patent law.  The article is here (subscription required) or you can read about it on the Journal's Law Blog here.  The Journal's Law Blog also has an interesting post here on McDonald's patent application covering methods for making sandwiches.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks