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

Jones Day v. BlockShopper.com, No. 08 C 4572, Order (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2008) (Darrah, J.).*

Judge Darrah entered the parties stipulated temporary restraining order ("TRO").  Plaintiff Jones Day sued defendants, BlockShopper.com and two individuals allegedly associated with the website, for allegedly using plaintiff’s service marks and linking to plaintiff’s website in at least two articles that discuss Chicago real estate transactions of plaintiff’s associates. Plaintiff claimed service mark infringement, Lanham Act false designation of origin, Lanham Act dilution, and state law deceptive trade practices and unfair competition and sought a TRO – click here for the Blog's earlier post on the case.

The Court entered the parties' stipulated TRO, ordering defendants not to:

1. Use reproductions or imitations of plaintiff's service mark;
    
2. Use any content from or link to plaintiff's website; or
    
3. reference plaintiff in its headlines.

Defendants were also ordered to remove any website content already on the site that would violate the TRO if written after its entry. 

As you would expect, other blogs and mainstream media have noticed the case.  At Legal Blog Watch, Robert J. Ambrogi just wrote about the dispute (click here), noting my post and discussing an article by Lynne Marek that will appear in next week's National Law Journal -- click here (subscription required).  According to the NLJ story, plaintiff asked only $10,000 to settle the case, but defendants rejected the offer, explaining:

Bending to the law firm's demands to stop coverage of the firm's lawyers would strangle the company's business model of using public records and publicly available Internet information, he said. Blockshopper, founded by former newspaper industry professionals, considers itself a next generation media outlet entitled to First Amendment protections just like any other news organization, he said.

Ambrogi sums up the issue at the heart of the dispute well:

In this age of electronically enhanced transparency, this whole dust-up reflects a sentiment I encounter time and again: "We like our public records to be public -- just not too public.

*  Click here for the Order.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (2)

Mintel Int’l. Group Ltd. v. Neergheen, No. 08 C 3939, 2008 WL 2782818 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 16, 2008) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow granted plaintiff a limited temporary restraining order (“TRO”) in this trade secret and non-compete case. After defendant gave plaintiff his notice of resignation from plaintiff’s marketing department, plaintiff began monitoring defendant’s computer use. This monitoring allegedly showed that defendant copied, emailed or printed various pieces of confidential information, including plaintiff’s client and vendor lists. Defendant then allegedly used those documents, in violation of defendant’s employment agreements, with defendant’s new employer, plaintiff’s alleged competitor.

The Court held that plaintiff had shown at least some likelihood of success regarding its trade secret misappropriation and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims based upon the alleged copying, emailing or printing of plaintiff’s client lists and other strategic documents. The Court also held that plaintiff showed a strong likelihood of success on elements of its breach of the non-compete and employment agreement claims. But the Court noted that it appeared likely that some provisions of the agreements were not enforceable.

The Court determined that plaintiff’s alleged harm would be irreparable – the use of plaintiff’s trade secret documents would result in lost sales and clients. Because plaintiff had shown a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm, the Court entered a TRO. The Court ordered defendant and his agents not to use, reference or copy any documents misappropriated from plaintiff, and to return any such documents to plaintiff. The Court also enjoined defendant from soliciting any of plaintiff’s customers or clients whom defendant had contact with during the previous twelve months. And the Court enjoined defendant from soliciting plaintiff’s employees. The Court also ordered defendant to produce forensic copies of any of his personal computers.

But the Court did not enjoin defendant from working for his new employer. The Court noted that a TRO was an extraordinary remedy. And based on the available evidence, the Court was unwilling to use a TRO to end defendant’s employment, even for a limited period.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Jones Day v. BlockShopper.com, No. 08 C 4572 (N.D. Ill.) (Darrah, J.).

Plaintiff Jones Day sued defendants, BlockShopper.com and two individuals allegedly associated with the website, for allegedly using plaintiff’s service marks and linking to plaintiff’s website in at least two articles that allegedly discuss Chicago real estate transactions of plaintiff’s associates. Plaintiff claims service mark infringement, Lanham Act false designation of origin, Lanham Act dilution, and state law deceptive trade practices and unfair competition – click here for the complaint. Plaintiff also moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) – click here for the TRO motion. In addition to the use of its service marks, plaintiff alleged that defendants used pictures of plaintiff’s associates that appear to be identical to pictures on plaintiff’s website.

A January 2007 Chicago Tribune article described defendants’ website as one that provides details surrounding Chicago-area real estate transactions using a Cook County list of home sales and internet research, noting that subjects of some posts do not like the stories:

But BlockShopper goes beyond the basic who-what-and-how-much, revealing tantalizing tidbits such as what the parties do for a living and what the sellers originally paid for the property, plus satellite maps and even photos of the property and the parties.

The TRO hearing was noticed for Tuesday, August 19. I will keep you updated as decisions are issued.

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

Little Tikes Co. v. Kid Station Toys, Ltd., No. 08 C 1935, 2008 WL 1805379 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 18, 2008) (Gottschall, J.).

Judge Gottschall denied plaintiff Little Tikes' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") to prevent defendant Kid Station Toys, Ltd. ("Kid Station") from selling Kid Station electric toys using Little Tikes' trademarks. From 2003 until February 2008, the parties had a license agreement ("Agreement") pursuant to which Kid Station sold its electric toys using the Little Tikes trademarks. In February 2008, Little Tikes canceled the Agreement pursuant to a provision allowing it to do so for, among other reasons, unsafe toys. Kids Station allegedly had a toy cellphone recalled because it was a potential choking hazard. Kids Station disputed the validity of the termination and continued selling its toys using the Little Tikes trademarks.

The Court held that Little Tikes had shown sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. Its trademarks ownership was undisputed and its success regarding the validity of its Agreement termination was "better than negligible." Additionally, in the parties' Agreement, Kids Station stipulated to Little Tikes' irreparable harm.

But the Court held that Kid Station would be irreparably harmed by a TRO because it would not be able to meet its customer obligations, which would be a serious blow to its business. And, the Court held that Kid Station's irreparable harm from a TRO outweighed Little Tikes' irreparable harm without a TRO. While Kid Station may not be able to recover its customers, Little Tikes had already approved Kid Station's existing toys and could recover royalties for any sales. The Court, therefore, denied the TRO.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Recycled Paper Greetings, Inc. v. Davis, No. 08 C 236, __ F. Supp.2d __, 2008 WL 282687 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2008) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo denied plaintiff’s, Recycled Paper Greetings (“RPG”), motion for a temporary restraining order in this trade secret misappropriation action. RPG argued that it was either part of a joint venture or, at least, a confidential relationship with defendant Kathy Davis to develop a signature line of greeting cards. RPG contends that Davis took confidential information regarding the greeting card line to a competitor. Davis countered that she had terminated her contract with RPG pursuant to the contract’s termination provision before working with RPG’s competitor and there was, therefore, no breach or misappropriation. At an initial hearing, the Court suggested that live testimony might be required to fully resolve the motion for the TRO. But both parties told the Court that their respective witnesses would not be available during the necessary time frame to testify. Because no witnesses were available, the Court denied the TRO, holding that it lacked sufficient information to determine that RPG maintained its alleged trade secrets with sufficient secrecy or the nature of the relationship between RPG and Davis.

Practice tip: If you are seeking a TRO, line up commitments from your potential witnesses to be available both flexibly and quickly. Not many judges will grant TROs if plaintiff cannot present requested witnesses.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

American Fam. Mut. Ins., Co. v. Roth, No. 05 C 3839, 2007 W LL377335 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2007) (Cole, Mag. J.).

Judge Cole recommended that plaintiff’s motion be granted in part requiring defendants to comply with the Court’s preliminary injunction and holding defendants in contempt for failing to comply with the Counts TRO and PI. The Court first explained that no injunction could be a general prohibition against using trade secrets. Rather, an injunction – whether temporary, preliminary or permanent – must include specific recitals limiting defendants’ actions or requiring that actions be performed. The Court then analyzed whether defendants’ actions or inactions violated specific provisions of the TRO and the PI issued by the Court. The Court reported that defendants had retained possession of plaintiff’s customer list and defendants failed to provide a list of their customer contacts with sufficient detail. The Court, therefore, recommended that defendants be held in contempt for failing to comply with the TRO and the PI.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 05 C 5373, 2006 WL 1141635 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 16, 2007) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar granted plaintiff Abbott's motion for a preliminary injunction, after having previously denied it a TRO.*  The PI enjoined defendant Sandoz from selling a generic version of Abbott's patented extended release antibiotic (clarithromycin, an erythromycin derivative which Abbott markets as Biaxin XL).  The Court held that Sandoz had shown a substantial likelihood of materiality and Abbott's intent to deceive the PTO  based upon Abbott's failure to disclose certain taste perversion data during prosecution.  But because Abbott abandoned the claims to which the taste perversion data was relevant of its own accord, the Court did not find the patent preliminarily unenforceable.  The Court explained its reasoning as follows:

Redemption is one of the core principles of the American ethos.  Thus in addition to being contrary to the spirit of Scribbs, Kimberly-Clark and the Code of Federal Regulation, it seems wholly inequitable to hold a patent to be invalid for fraudulent conduct in the prosecution of a claim that was withdrawn before actual prosecution had even begun.

The Court then made detailed, initial claim construction rulings and, based upon them, found a substantial likelihood of infringement.  The Court also considered Sandoz's invalidity arguments, but held that Sandoz had not proved a likelihood of success regarding its invalidity arguments.  The Court also held that the balance of hardships tipped in Abbott's favor because allowing Sandoz's generic product to remain in the market would necessarily take market share from Abbott.

In addition to its preliminary injunction stopping future product sales, the Court also required that Sandoz recall all of its existing product, so long as an adequate bond was set.

*  You can read more about the Federal Circuit decision in which the Federal Circuit overturned the Court's grant of a PI in a related case in the Blog's archives.  You can also read another take on this case at the Orange Book Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

American Fam. Mutual Insur. Co. v. Roth, No. 05 C 3839, 2007 WL 63983 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 10, 2007) (Cole, Mag. J.).

Judge Cole recommended denying defendants' motion to modify Judge Guzman's preliminary injunction for lack of jurisdiction.  Judge Guzman, following Judge Cole's recommendation, issued a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from using a list of confidential information regarding plaintiff's policy holders.  Defendants ultimately appealed the preliminary injunction and then filed a motion to clarify seeking modifications to the injunction  equivalent to what they were asking to be overturned on appeal.  After an exhaustive analysis of the procedural rules, the Court recommended denying the motion to modify for lack of jurisdiction because once defendants appealed the injunction, the district court loses jurisdiction over the appealed issues.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharm., Inc., No. 06-1101, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. 2007).

While this is not a Northern District case, it is relevant to the Blog because it is an appeal of a Northern District case and because it confirms Judge Coar's ruling (discussed here) that a preliminary injunction holding lacked preclusive effect in the related case Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 05 C 5373, 2006 WL 3718025 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2006).  In this patent dispute plaintiff, Abbott Laboratories ("Abbott"), alleged that defendant's, Andrx Pharmacueticals ("Andrx") sale of a generic form of Abbott's patented extended release antibiotic (clarithromycin, an erythromycin derivative) which Abbott markets as Biaxin XL.  The Northern District held that Abbott had established a likelihood of success on the merits of its infringement claim and that Andrx had not established a likelihood that the patent would be held invalid.  As a result of those holdings, the Northern District issued a preliminary injunction.  In its appeal, Andrx argued that Abbott was precluded from obtaining a preliminary injunction because the Federal Circuit overturned a previous Northern District preliminary injunction for Abbott against another generic antibiotic producer Teva Pharmaceuticals ("Teva").  In that case, the Federal Circuit held that Teva raised a substantial question as to the validity of the claims at issue, sufficient to call Abbott's likelihood of success on the merits into question. 

The Federal Circuit, applying Seventh Circuit law, held that preliminary injunctions would be given preclusive effect only in the "rare instances" that the injunction raised an "insuperable obstacle" to plaintiff's success on the merits.  Because the Court did not find an insuperable obstacle to Abbott's success on the merits, the denial of a preliminary injunction against Teva had no preclusive effect in this case.  As a result, the Federal Circuit upheld the Northern District's preliminary injunction.

The Federal Circuit's reasoning appears to square with Judge Coar's reasoning in the Sandoz case.  In Sandoz, the Court held that preliminary relief holdings have no preclusive effect because they are made on an incomplete record, "inherently tentative" and based upon only "an estimate of the likelihood of success."  Despite the fact that the Federal Circuit's denial of the preliminary injunction lacked preclusive effect, however, the Court ultimately refused to reach a holding inconsistent with the Federal Circuit's without a "substantial showing" on a more complete record.  So, although the Court denied the TRO, it appeared to remain open to a preliminary injunction based upon a more complete record.

You can find more on the Federal Circuit's Andrx case at Patently-O and the Patent Docs.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 05 C 5373, 2006 WL 3718025 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 15, 2006) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar denied plaintiff's, Abbott Laboratories ("Abbott"), motion for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") to prevent defendant, Sandoz, Inc. ("Sandoz"), from selling a generic version of Abbott's patented extended release antibiotic (clarithromycin, an erythromycin derivative which Abbott markets as Biaxin XL).  The Court had entered a TRO and, ultimately, a preliminary injunction preventing another party, Teva Pharmaceuticals ("Teva"), from selling a generic version of plaintiff's patented extended release antibiotic, but the Federal Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction.  The Federal Circuit held that Teva raised a substantial question as to the validity of the claims at issue, sufficient to call Abbott's likelihood of success on the merits into question. 

In the instant case, Sandoz argued that the Federal Circuit's prior ruling that there was a question regarding the validity of the claims-at-issue precluded any preliminary injunctive relief.  The Court held that rulings on preliminary relief have no preclusive effect because they are made on an incomplete record, "inherently tentative" and based upon only "an estimate of the likelihood of success."  Despite that ruling, however, the Court noted that "the practical effect of [the Federal Circuit's] holding still militates towards the denial of the TRO in the instant case."  The Court refused to reach a holding inconsistent with the Federal Circuit's without a "substantial showing" on a more complete record.  So, although the Court denied the TRO, it appears to have kept an open mind about a preliminary injunction based upon a more complete record.

*For another take on this case, check out the Orange Book Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks