Nondisclosure Arbitration Clause Does Not Include Patent Infringement Claims

The Ticketreserve, Inc. v. Viagogo, Inc., No. 08 C 502, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2009) (Kendall, J.).

Judge Kendall denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) motion in limine for improper venue and granted defendant Viagogo, Inc.’s (“Viagogo”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants agreed that venue was improper based on an arbitration clause in a nondisclosure agreement the parties requested when they explored a joint venture. Defendants agreed that the patented technology was disclosed pursuant to the nondisclosure agreement.

But because plaintiff’s international patent on the same technology as the U.S. patent, issued before the nondisclosure agreement the patent infringement claim was expressly excluded from the nondisclosure agreement and its arbitration claims.

The Court then dismissed Viagogo for lack of personal jurisdiction. Viagogo had no contract with Illinois to create personal jurisdiction. And while the viagogo.com interactive website likely created specific jurisdiction for its owner, the evidence suggested that Viagogo Ltd., which did not contest personal jurisdiction owned and operated the website, not Viagogo, Inc.


 

Co-Defendant's Answer Does Not Destroy Plaintiff's Right to Amend Complaint as to Non-Answering Defendants

The TicketRESERVE, Inc. v. Viagogo, Inc., No. 08 C 5202, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 19, 2008) (Shadur, Sen. J.).*

Judge Shadur ordered that plaintiff's amended complaint was entered without need for plaintiff's motion for leave to file the amended complaint.  While defendant Yoonew had already answered the complaint, the amendment added a party that appeared related to defendant Viagogo, which had filed a motion to dismiss instead of answering.  The Court held that plaintiff's Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)(A) absolute right to amend its complaint before it is answered was not destroyed as to a particular defendant until that defendant answers.  So, plaintiff was free to amend any claims made against Viagogo until Viagogo answered, but presumably would have to seek leave to amend should the amendments impact defendant Yoonew.

*  This case is assigned to Judge Moran, but during Judge Moran's absence from the bench Judge Shadur has taken over his docket.