Scholle Corp. v. Rapak LLC, No. 13 C 3976, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 24, 2014) (Kendall, J.).
Judge Kendall ruled on numerous motions filed after the Court granted a preliminary injunction in this patent case. Of particular note, the Court held as follows:
- The Court granted defendant Rapak’s motion to construe more than five claim terms, despite Rapak’s failure to comply with the Local Patent Rules by identifying which terms were case dispositive. The Court did so despite Rapak’s deficiencies to avoid further delay in the case.
- The Court ordered Rapak to show cause why Rapak should not be held in contempt for violating the Court’s preliminary injunction by shipping enjoined smoothie valves after the date of the preliminary injunction. The Court held that the fact that no bond had been set or provided was not a reason that Rapak could delay compliance. That was especially true because Rapak did not originally raise the bond, the Court did sua sponte.
- The Court granted Rapak’s motion clarifying that the preliminary injunction only applies to the smoothie valves that were before the Court in the preliminary injunction proceedings and colorable imitations thereof. The Court, however, declined to rule upon whether Rapak’s redesigned smoothie valves were colorable imitations of the current smoothie valve.
- The Court granted Rapak’s motion to amend a counterclaim seeking a declaratory judgment that its redesigned smoothie valve did not infringe.
- The Court denied Rapak’s motion to strike Scholle’s new proposed claim constructions in its response brief. While they technically did not follow the Local Patent Rules requirements that the parties disclose and confer regarding their respective constructions, Rapak either had notice of the constructions or they were an explanation of the ordinary meaning which Scholle originally set out as the construction.