Polyad Co. v. Indopco Inc., No. 06 C 5732, 2008 WL 4287623 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 12, 2008) (Coar, J.).

Judge Coar granted defendant Indopco’s motion for summary judgment regarding plaintiff Polyad’s tortious interference and unjust enrichment claims.  I do not normally deal with diversity cases based solely upon state law causes of action, but one of the alleged tortious interferences in this case was Indopco’s allegedly false statements that Polyad’s products may have infringed Indopco’s patents.  But the Court held that the evidence only showed that Indopco only suggested that Polyad’s products "may" have infringed patents and suggested that the customer ask Polyad for assurances of noninfringement.  Furthermore, Indopco was actually testing Polyad’s products to determine whether they infringed.  Ultimately, Indopco’s tests were inconclusive and Indopco did not pursue a patent infringement case.  But the possibility of infringement and Indopco’s inconclusive testing were sufficient for a grant of summary judgment in Indopco’s favor.