Tracking Northern District of Illinois IP Cases
Topsteptrader, LLC v. OneUp Trader, LLC, No. 17 C 4412, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 28, 2017) (Leinenweber, J.).
Judge Leinenweber denied plaintiff Topsteptrader’s motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) seeking to enjoin defendant OneUp Trader from continuing to operate its website and its business, principally because Topsteptrader did not meet its burden…
O2 Media, LLC v. Narrative Science Inc., No. 15 C 5129, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2017) (Tharp, J.).
Judge Tharp denied prevailing defendant Narrative Science’s 35 U.S.C. §285 motion to make exceptional and for attorney’s fees in this patent dispute after granting Narrative Science’s motion to dismiss which held plaintiff O2 Media’s…
Velocity Patent, LLC v. Audi of Am., Inc., No. 13 C 8418, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 11, 2014) (Darrah, J.).
Judge Darrah held that Judge Mason’s discovery report and recommendation was clearly erroneous, and ordered past damages discovery be produced going back six years before the complaint filing in this patent case. Judge …
O.A. Cargo, Inc. v. OA Cargo Chicago, No. 12 C 5763, Slip OP. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2014) (Zagel, J.).
Judge Zagel awarded damages in this Lanham Act case after he and Judge Conlon entered default judgment against the defendants.
Pursuant to its “considerable discretion” to award damages based upon a default judgment, the …
Real-Time Reporters, P.C. v. Sonntag Reporting Servs., Ltd., No. 13 C 5348, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Der-Yeghiayan, J.).
Judge Der-Yeghiayan denied plaintiff Real-Time Reporters’ (“RTR”) preliminary injunction motion in this Lanham Act matter involving RTR’s REAL-TIME REPORTERS trademark. Defendant Sontag Reporting Services (“SRS”) use of the name “Chicago-area Realtime Reporters” alleged infringed RTR’s REAL-TIME …
Dental USA, Inc. v. McClellan, No. 13 C 260, Slip OP. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 16, 2013) (Zagel, J.).
Judge Zagel granted in part plaintiff Dental USA’s motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction in this trademark and design patent infringement case. Dental USA had a trademark for DENTAL USA, as well as POWER …
Fujitsu Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc., No. 09 C 4530, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2012) (Holderman, C.J.).
Judge Holderman granted defendants (collectively “Tellabs”) summary judgment that plaintiff Fujitsu Limited was not able to seek lost profits in this patent litigation. Fujitsu, the patent holder, did not sell a covered product in the United …
Sloan Valve Co. v. Zurn Indus., Inc., No. 10 C 204, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2012) (St. Eve, J.).
Judge St. Eve granted in part plaintiff Sloan’s fee petition based upon the Court’s finding that defendant Zurn had “continually refused to produce relevant documents despite prior court intervention and a clear obligation …
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Spear, No. 10 C 6697, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2012) (Dow, J.).
Judge Dow granted summary judgment to plaintiff 7-Eleven in this contract and Lanham Act case after defendants (collectively “Vianna”) failed to respond to 7-Eleven’s Local Rule 56.1 statements of fact or submit its own supplemental statements of …
Gordon-Darby Sys., Inc. v. Applus Techs., Inc., No. 10 C 1863, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 23, 2010) (Zagel, J.).
Judge Zagel granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss its patent infringement claims regarding vehicle emissions testing with prejudice and to dismiss defendants’ noninfringement, invalidity and unenforceability claims without prejudice. After the parties engaged in some discovery, plaintiff determined that it no longer wanted to pursue its claims and gave defendants a covenant not to sue. Based upon that covenant, the parties agreed that all of their claims should be dismissed, except for defendants’ inequitable conduct claims. Defendants argued that those claims were related to its 35 U.S.C. Section § 285 claim to make the case exceptional and award defendants their attorney’s fees. Citing the Federal Circuit’s decision in Monsanto Co. v. Bayer Bioscience N.V., 514 F.3d 1229 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the Court held that, although the Federal Circuit had not squarely decided the issue, the precedent was clear that the covenant divested the Court of subject matter jurisdiction over the inequitable conduct declamatory judgment claim.
The Court, however, retained independent jurisdiction over defendants’ Section § 285 claim to make the case exceptional and award defendants their attorney’s fees. And the Court acknowledged that it could consider unenforceability as part of the exceptional case analysis, which could trigger a holding that the patents in suit were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.
…
Continue Reading Court Dismisses Case and Considers Unenforceability With Exceptional Case Motion
