Pumponator Inc. v. Watersports, LLC, No. 11 C 3956, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. April 5, 2012) (Aspen, Sen. J.).

Judge Aspen denied the Ketz defendant’s (“Ketz”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in this Lanham Act case involving water-balloon filling devices.  The Court did not address whether

Minemyer v. R-Boc Reps., Inc., No. 7 C 1763, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 11, 2012) (Cole, Mag. J.).

Judge Cole denied defendant Grimsley’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction in this patent dispute.  As an initial matter, the motion was denied as waived.  Judge Coar denied

Caldera Pharms. Inc. v. Los Alamos Nat’l Security, LLC, No. 10 C 6347, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2012) (Bucklo, J.).

Judge Bucklo granted in part defendant Los Alamos National Security’s motion to transfer this dispute involving a patent license agreement to the District of New Mexico.  As an initial matter, the Court

New Archery Prods. Corp. v. Out RAGE, LLC, No. 11 C 7695, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2012) (Lindberg, J.).

Judge Lindberg granted defendant Out RAGE’s motion to transfer this case to the Western District of Wisconsin, and did not rule upon Out RAGE’s motion to dismiss, leaving it for the transferee court. 

SMP Logic Sys., LLC v. Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc., No. 11 C 5075, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 26, 2012) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.).

Judge Der-Yeghiayan transferred this patent case involving pharmaceutical methods to the Eastern District of New York, for the following reasons:

  • While the Court gave plaintiff SMP’s choice of forum deference, less is

Judge Darrah denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Courts are required to dismiss a complaint when plaintiff seeks in forma pauperis status along with a complaint that fails to state a claim. Plaintiff’s complaint appears to sound in patent, trademarks and copyright. But it was “devoid of any substantive allegations” and, therefore, had to be dismissed.

Continue Reading

Judge Holderman granted defendant Grote Industries’ (“Grote”) motion and transferred this patent case involving high-powered LED lights to the Southern District of Indiana. The cases sole connection to the Northern District of Illinois was that Grote sold product here, as it did in many other states. That weak connection diminished the preference for plaintiff’s choice of forum. Additionally, most of the witnesses and documents were at Grote’s facilities in the Southern District of Indiana. And while plaintiff, a UK resident, would be inconvenienced in any district, Grote would be far less inconvenienced in the Southern District of Indiana, its home district.

Continue Reading

Judge Holderman denied defendants’ motion to stay plaintiffs’ (collectively “USWAY”) trademark and copyright case involving its USWAY mark based upon the Colorado-River abstention doctrine. The Court did not have to address the ten-factor test because, as a threshold matter, the parties state and federal cases were not parallel, as required by the doctrine. The federal action — based upon USWAY’s alleged intellectual property — was unrelated to defendants’ state court suit focusing on allegations of unpaid loans, unissued shares and deceptive business practices. And as a result, the evidence required for the two cases was completely different. The state court case would turn on loan documents, billing records, proof of product defects and the written communications between the parties. The federal case turned upon evidence about the actions of each of the nine defendants related to their respective use of the marks. Finally, the cases were unrelated even though the state case could have a negative impact upon the federal case. A finding in defendants’ favor in their state court case could result in defendants being held to own USWAY’s intellectual property. But hypothetical outcomes could not be the basis of abstention.

Continue Reading

Judge Bucklo denied defendant Life+Gear’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and (3) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue in this patent dispute. While Life+Gear did not have Illinois offices, it did have an interactive website and at least one Illinois sale. Life+Gear also sold product to two distributors that sold that product in Illinois and Life+Gear was reasonably aware of those channels of sale.
Venue was proper because venue in a patent case exists wherever there is personal jurisdiction.

Continue Reading