Rehco, LLC v. Spin Master, Ltd., No. 13 C 2245, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2014) (Leinenweber, J.).
Judge Leinenweber granted defendant Spin Master’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Rehco’s patent infringement claim related to a toy airplane, granted in part Spin Master’s motion to strike and granted Rehco’s motion to strike.
As an initial matter, the Court struck Spin Master’s use of Rehco’s attorney work product document because it was inadvertently produced and properly clawed back pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 502. Spin Master first used the document during a hearing. Rehco did not object at that time because lead counsel was unable to attend the hearing. But upon returning from his travels, lead counsel saw the document, identified it as work product and clawed it back. Based upon those facts, Spin Master could not use the document and must comply with FRE 502.
The Court dismissed Rehco’s patent infringement claim because Spin Master was the proper assignee of the patent. Rehco argued that rights in the patent reverted to Rehco based upon Spin Master’s breach of the parties’ agreement. But even if Spin Master had breached, Rehco only received the “sole and exclusive right . . . [to] exploit . . . .” The rights in the patent itself would not have transferred. The agreement also would not have transferred all substantial rights because at least the right to prosecute patents and assert the patents would have been retained by Spin Master.
The Court struck a portion of Rehco’s LPR 2.2 Initial Infringement Contentions. Because Rehco’s infringement charts were “detailed” identifying where each element was found in Spin Master’s accused products. Rehco also provided sufficient detail regarding means plus function claim terms. The Court, however, struck Rehco’s doctrine of equivalents arguments because the allegations were a bare recitation that the accused products “perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result” with the level of detail required by LPR 2.2(d). The Court gave Rehco twenty one days to amend its doctrine of equivalents contentions to meet the LPR 2.2(d) standards.