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

Bone Care, Int'l v. Pen Tech Pharm., No. 08 C 1083, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 30, 2011) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow denied defendants' (collectively "Pentech") motion for summary judgment of invalidity for lack of enablement and written description. The Court also denied plaintiff Bone Care International's cross-motion for summary judgment that the patent-in-suit was enabled by its specification, in this patent case involving methods of treating hyperparathyroidism that is secondary to end-stage renal disease. The parties finished briefing their cross-motions weeks before a bench trial began, including the issues in the motion. And by the time of the opinion, the parties had filed extensive post-trial briefing -- the Court allowed briefs up to 280 pages in length. As such and in light of its coming opinion ruling on all factual issues, the Court did not provide a detailed analysis of its reasoning. Instead, it focused on one of the most common hurdles to summary judgment, the battle of the experts. The parties' experts set forth competing views of the facts and circumstances on the case. Because both parties relied upon those experts to make their cases, summary judgment was not proper.

The Court, however, did commit to resolve the issues as part of its written trial decision.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Dental Arts Lab. V. Studio 360, The Dental Lab, LLC, No. 10 CV 4535, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 23, 2010) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow denied defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) motion to dismiss this Lanham Act dispute regarding plaintiff's 360 Dental Laboratories mark. Defendant was a Nevada entity which had sold product to sixteen Illinois dentists, making up 1.2% of defendant's gross revenue, and maintained a website that used the mark and offered defendant's products for sale. Plaintiff only argued that the Court had specific, not general jurisdiction. While defendant's contacts were minimal - sixteen customers and 1.2% of revenues - they involved the alleged tortious acts at issue. The sales, therefore, were sufficient minimum contacts to create specific jurisdiction. Although the Illinois sales were allegedly de minimus, each sale was allegedly a tortious act and the Court could have had jurisdiction based upon even one of the sales. Because defendant's venue arguments mirrored its jurisdiction arguments, venue was also proper.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Viskase v. World Pac, No. 09 C 5022, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2010) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo granted defendants' motion to reconsider, ordering production of the "Merritt Memo" previously held to be privileged because it included litigation counsel. The Court held that litigation counsel, before becoming litigation counsel, was the principal conduit to opinion counsel and his opinion was sought in connection with opinion counsel's analysis. The Court, however, held that no post-filing communications were discoverable in light of In re Seagate which provided post-filing protection where a preliminary injunction was denied. 

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Hickory Farms, Inc. v. Snackmasters, Inc., No. 05 C 4541, 2007 WL 1576124 (N.D. Ill. May 29, 2007) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s decision that plaintiff’s "Beef Stick" and "Turkey Stick" marks were generic and the Court’s cancellation of the Beef Stick mark (you can read more about that opinion in the Blog’s archives). The Court denied plaintiff’s argument that it should be given more time, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to conduct a survey to show that the marks are not generic. But the Court reasoned that plaintiff was free to conduct such a survey in the fourteen months of discovery leading up to defendant’s summary judgment motion. Furthermore, in its responsive briefing plaintiff specifically stated that plaintiff would “not seek to delay the briefing of this matter with its own survey at this time.” Instead, plaintiff suggested that it would conduct a survey if the Court denied defendant’s summary judgment motion. The Court held that after these statements, plaintiff’s current request to perform a survey was almost “frivolous.”

The Court also held that plaintiff’s evidence of its advertising investment and market share had not effect on the Court’s ruling that the marks were generic. A company’s marketing and advertising expenditures cannot make a mark less generic. Additionally, the fact that there is another generic term (summer sausage) for beef sticks and turkey sticks does not mean that beef stick and turkey stick cannot also be generic.

Practice Tip:  If you think you need evidence to survive summary judgment make your Rule 56(f) motion before or with your response brief.  Do not wait for a motion for reconsideration.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link