LoggerHead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 12 C 9033, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2016) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah denied plaintiffs LoggerHead Tools summary judgment of patent infringement in this IP dispute involving LoggerHead’s Bionic Wrench.

As an initial matter, LoggerHead’s final infringement contentions sufficiently disclosed its infringement theory to put

LoggerHead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holding Corp., No. 12 C 9033, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2016) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah granted in part defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity in this IP case involving plaintiff LoggerHead’s Bionic Wrench. Of particular note, the Court held:

  • The Court denied summary judgment

Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corp., No. 12-CV-9033, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2016) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah granted defendant Sears’ summary judgment motion regarding Loggerhead’s fraud claims in this patent, Lanham Act and trade secret case involving the Bionic Wrench.

Of particular note, the Court held as follows:

  • Loggerhead could not

Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corp., No. 12-CV-9033, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2016) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah granted defendant Sears’ summary judgment motion regarding Lanham Act and related state law claims directed to Sears’ internet activity in this IP case involving the Bionic Wrench.

Loggerhead stipulated to dismissal of its Lanham

Loggerhead Tools, LLC v. Sears Holdings Corp., No. 12-CV-9033, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 20, 2016) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah granted defendant Sears’ summary judgment motion regarding the Lanham Act and related state law claims against it in this IP case involving the Bionic Wrench.

As to false advertising, the Court first examined defendants’

Bulgari, S.P.A. V. Zou Xiaohong, No. 15 C 5148, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2015) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted in part plaintiff Bulgari’s motion for summary judgment of trademark infringement, a permanent injunction and its attorney’s fees and costs regarding Bulgari’s BVLGARI marks used in relation to counterfeit rings.

It was undisputed

Dyson, Inc. v. SharkNinja Operating LLC, No. 14 C 779, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Nov. 17, 2015) (Darrah, J.).

Judge Darrah denied defendants’ (collectively “SharkNinja”) motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment of noninfringement in this design patent case. SharkNinja sought reconsideration arguing that the issues of whether

Foodworks USA, Inc. v. Foodworks of Arlington Heights, LLC, No. 10 C 1020, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2015) (Rowland, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge Rowland denied defendant’s motion to reconsider the Court’s prior denial in part of a motion for judgment on damages in this Lanham Act case regarding FUEGO marks.

However defendant

Foodworks USA, Inc. v. Foodworks of Arlington Heights, LLC, No. 10 C 1020, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2015) (Rowland, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge Rowland ruled upon whether it would award defendant damages for its Lanham Act infringement counterclaims regarding the FUEGO marks after dismissing plaintiff’s suit with prejudice for failure to prosecute.

Feit Elec. Co. v. Beacon Point Capital, LLC, No. 13 C 9339, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2015) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted in part declaratory judgment plaintiff Feit’s motion for summary judgment of collateral estoppel regarding defendant Beacon Capital’s ‘464 and ‘140 patents – both from the Ole Nilssen portfolio.

The Court