Peerless Indus., Inc. v. Crimson AV, LLC, No. 11 C 1768, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 27, 2012) (Lefkow, J.).
Judge Lefkow granted defendants’ (collectively “Crimson”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff Peerless’s tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims in this patent infringement and related state law claims involving television mounts. The Court held that a clause in the parties’ agreement that restricted defendant Sycamore from selling “Similar Products” was “unworkably difficult” and “unfairly burdensome” because it prevented the sale of any Sycamore product that was similar to any Peerless product. Additionally, the clause gave Peerless sole discretion to determine whether a Sycamore product was similar in Peerless’s reasonable judgment. Because the relevant clause of the agreement was unenforceable, Peerless’s tortious interference claim based upon the clause could not stand.
Similarly, Peerless’s civil conspiracy claim could not survive because it was based upon the clause. The Court denied defendants’ request for their fees noting that defendants offered no justification for an award of fees based upon a “routine” pre-trial motion.