Supplemental Jurisdiction: When Patent Disputes Become Brawls

Microthin.com, Inc. v. Siliconezone USA, LLC, No. 06 C 1522, 2006 WL 3302825 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 14, 2006) (Kendall, J.).

Judge Kendall held that plaintiff's patent claim did not give the Court supplemental jurisdiction over defendants' assault and battery, trespass, breach of contract and tortious interference counterclaims, even though the counterclaims were arguably related to plaintiff's patent infringement allegations.  The Court did, however, have diversity jurisdiction over the counterclaims.  After concluding it had jurisdiction, the Court dismissed the assault and battery counterclaims because there is no tort of assault against a corporation in Illinois.  The Court also dismissed the breach of contract claim, because plaintiff/counter-defendant was neither a party to the contract, nor an intended beneficiary. 

Defendant Siliconezone alleged that Siliconezone and plaintiff Microthin.com ("Microthin") both had booths at the March 2006 International Home and Housewares Show (the "Show").  According to Siliconezone, during the show Microthin employees repeatedly entered Siliconezone's booth and inspected Siliconezone's merchandise and prototypes.  Microthin's employees also allegedly made statements while in Siliconezone's booth and around Siliconezone's potential customers about Siliconezone's infringement of Microthin's patent rights.  These allegations formed the basis for the trespass, breach of contract and tortious interference claims. 

The allegedly breached contract was Microthin's contract with the Show for its booth space.  The contract required that Microthin not access other booths without authorization , not interfere with other vendors' legitimate activities and that Microthin be courteous to other vendors.  While Microthin may have violated each of those provisions, Siliconezone was not a party to the contract or its intended beneficiary, so Siliconezone had no breach of contract claim.

When Siliconezone's president Karyo attempted to discuss his issues regarding these actions with Microthin's founder, counter-defendant O'Malley, O'Malley allegedly bumped Karyo's chest, knocked him backward and yelled "You're ripping us off!  You're ripping off our patents."  These allegations make up the assault and battery counterclaim.  But because the claim was brought by Siliconezone, instead of by Karyo, the allegedly assaulted individual, it was dismissed.

A Trademark Claim By Any Other Name is Still a Trademark Claim

Richmond v. National Inst. of Certified Estate Planners, No. 06 C 1032, 2006 WL 2375454 (N. D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2006) (Manning, J.).

This is a trademark action regarding defendants' use of the term "certified estate planner" ("CEP").  In addition to trademark claims, plaintiff also brought claims for civil conspiracy, conversion and trespass to chattel.  Plaintiff alleged that defendants' use of the CEP mark constituted conversion and trespass to chattel.  Plaintiff also alleged that the individual defendants engaged in civil conspiracy by taking the CEP mark for the benefit of NICEP and for their own individual uses.

Judge Manning dismissed the conversion and trespass claims, noting that Illinois conversion and trespass claims typically require that the chattel exist independently (e.g., a television signal or a car), as opposed to a trademark which is solely a creation of federal statute.  The Court further noted that the conversion and trespass claims were "just a different and unnecessary restatement of [plaintiff's] federal trademark infringement claims," citing McCarthy on Trademarks. Call a trademark infringement claim whatever you want, but the Court is still going to resolve it as a trademark infringement claim.

The Court dismissed the civil conspiracy claim for lack of personal jurisdiction based upon the fiduciary shield doctrine (courts have no personal jurisdiction over a non-resident corporate official where the official's only contacts with Illinois come in the official's corporate capacity).