Morton Grove Pharms., Inc. v. Nat’l. Pediculosis Assoc., __ F. Supp.2d __, 2007 WL 1302971 (N.D. Ill. May 3, 2007) (Bucklo, J.).
Judge Bucklo granted defendants’ motion and dismissed plaintiff’s deceptive trade practices case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendants’ sporadic contacts with Illinois did not confer general jurisdiction. Plaintiff manufactures a line of lotions and shampoo which are FDA-approved for treating lice and scabies. Defendants are a Michigan non-profit group, Ecology Center, Inc., and related individuals (collectively the “Center”), as well as the National Pediculosis Association which is not a party to the motion to dismiss.The Center mailed two newsletters related to passage of Michigan legislation to approximately 19,000 addresses of which 44 were in Illinois. 99% of the Center’s donors were from Michigan, with just .23% from Illinois (18 Illinois-based donors total). The Center’s strongest ties to Illinois consisted of two donations totaling $270,000 from an Illinois-based foundation and an interactive website which accepts donations, although none have come from Illinois. The Court held that these occasional contacts did not rise to the level of continuous and systematic, as required for general jurisdiction.
Continue Reading Defendants’ Sporadic Contacts Do Not Create Personal Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
Internet Site Alone Does Not Create Jurisdiction
Gencor Pacific, Inc. v. Nature’s Thyme, LLC, No. 07 C 167, 2007 WL 1225362 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 24, 2007) (Kocoras, J.).
Judge Kocoras granted defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)&(3) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and venue and dismissed the case. Plaintiff brought this Lanham Act false advertising and copyright infringement…
Colorado River Abstention/Deference Requires Pending State Court Action
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 06 C 5812, 2007 WL 1169704 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 17, 2007) (Norgle, J.).
Judge Norgle denied defendants’ motion to stay based upon Colorado River abstention, which the Court noted was more properly referred to as Colorado River deference since it is not…
Co-Ownership of an Asserted Copyright is an Affirmative Defense, Not Jurisdictional
Johnson v. Wright, No. 05 C 3943, 2007 WL 1079063 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 5, 2007) (Grady, J.).
Judge Grady denied defendants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss plaintiff’s amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants, record companies and related individuals, were accused of infringing plaintiff Syl Johnson’s copyright in his…
Plaintiff Moving Its Office to the Forum Not Enough to Confer Jurisdiction
GMAC Real Estate, LLC v. E.L. Cutler & Assocs., Inc., 472 F. Supp.2d 960 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2006) (Bucklo, J.).
Judge Bucklo held that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff, a franchiser of residential real estate brokerages, brought this suit alleging that defendant, a former franchisee, breached…
Unjust Enrichment Claim Sounds in Copyright Law
Vaughn v. Kelly, No. 06 C 6427, 2007 WL 804694 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2007) (Manning, J.).
Judge Manning denied plaintiff Vaughn’s motion to remand his case to state court, but gave plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint. Vaughn sued defendant R. Kelly ("Kelly") in Illinois state court alleging breach of contract, fraud…
Case Transferred to D. Minn. Because All Relevant Information and 24 of 25 Potential Witnesses Were Within D. Minn.’s Reach
Timebase Pty Ltd. v. Thomson Corp., No. 07 C 460, 2007 WL 772946 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 9, 2007) (Lindberg, Sen. J.).
Judge Lindberg transferred this patent case to the District of Minnesota because all of the relevant documents and witnesses reside within that district or its subpoena power, while the dispute has no apparent…
Non-Exclusive Sublicensee Plaintiff is Dismissed and the Case is Transferred
Adventus Ams. Inc. v. Innovative Envtl. Techs., Inc., No. 06 CV 3267, 2007 WL 704938 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2007) (Manning).
Judge Manning dismissed one plaintiff for lack of standing and transferred the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff EnviroMetal Technologies ("EnviroMetal") had an exclusive license to the patent-in-suit from the University of Waterloo in Canada. The Court held that EnviroMetal’s license was sufficiently exclusive to create standing because, among other things, it expressly gave the right to make use or sell and EnviroMetal had exclusive sublicensing rights. Plaintiff Adventus Americas ("Adventus"), however, was a non-exclusive sublicensee of EnviroMetal and the Court held it had no standing. Defendant also argued that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction, but the Court held that defendant’s sales contacts with Illinois were sufficient to create personal jurisdiction.Continue Reading Non-Exclusive Sublicensee Plaintiff is Dismissed and the Case is Transferred
Jurisdictional Discovery Compelled to Determine Whether Foreign Defendants Fall Within Federal Long-Arm Jurisdiction
Goss Int’l Am., Inc. v. Graphic Management Assocs., Inc., No. 05 C 5622, 2007 WL 161684 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 11, 2007) (Valdez, Mag. J.).
Magistrate Judge Valdez compelled certain foreign defendants (the "Swiss Defendants") to produce documents related to each Swiss Defendant’s contacts with the United States. After plaintiff filed its patent infringement claims…
Settlement Agreement Extinguishes Related Employment and Confidentiality Agreements
Junction Solutions, LLC v. MBS DEV, Inc., No. 06 C 1632, 2007 WL 114306 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2007) (Gottschall, J.).
Judge Gottschall denied defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s, Junction Solutions, trade secret and tortious interference case for lack of venue and denied plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to Cook County Circuit Court, from where defendants removed the case. Individual defendants, Jeffrey Ernest, Mitch Tucker and Kenneth Paul, were plaintiff’s employees and helped it develop it its Junction Multi-Channel Distribution Software ("JMCD Software"). Shortly after developing the JMCD Software, the individual defendants left Junction Solutions and joined its competitor MBS DEV. MBS DEV then began marketing software that competed with the JMCD Software. Junction Solutions sued MBS DEV in the District of Colorado in 2004. The parties eventually settled that case, a settlement which was also signed by the individual defendants. In 2006, MBS partnered with Iteration2 and again began planning to market a software product very similar to the JMCD Software. In response, plaintiff filed the instant suit in Cook County Circuit Court and defendants removed it to the Northern District.Continue Reading Settlement Agreement Extinguishes Related Employment and Confidentiality Agreements

