Bodum USA, Inc. v. A Top New Casting, Inc., No. 16 C 2916, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2017) (Kennelly, J.).

Judge Kennelly denied defendant A Top’s motions for summary judgment and to exclude the testimony and survey evidence of plaintiff Bodum’s survey experts in this Lanham Act trade dress case involving French-press

Feb. 2, 2018) (Pallmeyer, J.).

Judge Pallmeyer denied plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s summary judgment decisions against plaintiff in this patent dispute involving stalk stompers — devices that attach to a tractor or combine to flatten cornstalks after they have been cut.

The Court found a handful of factual errors and that certain

Monster Energy Co. v. Peng, et al., No. 17 C 414, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2017) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow granted plaintiff Monster Energy’s motion for summary judgment, granting final judgment, a permanent injunction and attorney’s fees in this Lanham Act dispute involving defendants’ use of Monster Energy’s Claw Icon Mark and

Feit Elec. Co. v. Beacon Point Capital, LLC, No. 13 C 9339, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 22, 2017) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman, having previously granted declaratory judgment plaintiff Feit summary judgment of the unenforceability of one of defendant Beacon Point’s patents based upon collateral estoppel, denied Feit summary judgment of a subsequent motion seeking

Luxottica Group S.P.A. v. Li, No. 16 C 487 & 1227, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2017) (Shah, J.).

Judge Shah granted plaintiffs (collectively “Oakley”) summary judgment of Lanham Act trademark infringement and counterfeiting and awarded statutory damages of $60,000 in this case involving Oakley’s WAYFARER and ALHAMBRA marks.

Defendants did not dispute

Marshall Feature Recognition, LLC v. Wendy’s Int’l., Inc., No. 14 C 865, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 24, 2016 (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman denied plaintiff Marshall Feature Recognition’s (“MFR”) counsel’s motion to withdraw and awarded defendant Wendy’s attorneys fees in the amount of $148,201 in this patent dispute involving QR codes.

The Court held