WorldLogic Corp. v. Chicago Logic, Inc., No. 16 C 11713, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 5, 2017) (Feinerman, J.).

Judge Feinerman construed a key claim term from each patent in suit as part of a mini-Markman proceeding in this patent dispute regarding predictive text technology.

Of particular note, the Court held as follows:

  • The

Next week, on March 15, 2017, the Federal Circuit Bar Association and the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago are hosting an Intellectual Property Law Symposium at the University Club of Chicago from 8:45am until 5:00pm.  Register here.  Speakers include Northern District of Illinois Judges Castillo, Feinerman, Holderman (Ret.), Kendall, and Pallmeyer; as

Culver Franchising Sys., Inc. v. Steak ‘n Shake Inc., No. 16 C 72, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2016) (Feinerman, J.).

Judge Feinerman granted defendant Steak ‘n Shake’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss without prejudice plaintiff Culver’s claims that Steak ‘n Shake infringed Culver’s copyrights by copying Culver’s television commercial

Rios v. Herrerias, No. 14 C 7030, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2015) (Feinerman, J.).

Judge Feinerman denied without prejudice defendant’s motion to set aside the ex parte order of default for failure to comply with Local Rule 5.3(b).

Ali v. The Final Call, Inc., No. 13 C 6883, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 19, 2015) (Feinerman, J.).

Judge Feinerman granted defendant Final Call’s motion to strike one line of plaintiff’s errata sheet and denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment of liability in this copyright dispute involving plaintiff’s portrait of Minister Louis Farrakhan,

Panoramic Stock Images, Ltd. d/b/a Panoramic Images v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No 12 C 10003, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 2, 2014) (Feinerman, J.).

Judge Feinerman granted in part plaintiff Panoramic’s partial summary judgment motion and denied defendant Wiley’s partial summary judgment motion as to Panoramic’s fraud and contributory copyright infringement claims

Judge Feinerman granted defendant BP Lubricants’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiff Simonian’s false patent marking case with prejudice. After the Federal Circuit held Simonian’s intent allegations lacking, Simonian amended its Complaint. The Court held that the amended complaint did not meet Rule 9(b) pleading standards for the following reasons:
Simonian’s allegation that a license agreement proved BP Lubricant’s knowledge of the patent’s expiration failed because the Agreement did not reference the patent’s expiration date.
General allegations that BP Lubricants understand that patents expire did not create intent. Allegations that BP Lubricants briefly litigated the patent may have been sufficient.
The fact that the term of the patent was printed on its face was also not sufficient to show intent. Allowing this allegation to create intent would render the BP Lubricants decision a “dead letter.”
While BP Lubricants allegedly revised its front labels three times after the patent’s expiration, BP Lubricants did not revise the back label containing the marking. Because the marking was never revised, the label revisions were irrelevant.
Finally, because Simonian was fully aware of the BP Lubricants decision when he prepared his amended complaint, and because he did not seek leave to replead the dismissal was made with prejudice.

Continue Reading

The patent pilot program started this month in the Northern District and across the country. The pilot program is a ten-year look at ways to handle patent cases more effectively. The main component of the pilot program is judges in pilot districts, including the Northern District, self-selecting as patent judges. Patent cases will continue to be randomly assigned to all Northern District judges. But when a non-patent judge is assigned a patent case that judge will have thirty days to order reassignment of the case. When reassignment is ordered, the case will be randomly reassigned to one of the patent judges. There will also be patent-related education and programs offered for the patent judges across the country.
One unanswered question about the pilot program remains: If a non-patent judge was assigned a patent case less than thirty days before the program kicked off on September 19, can the non-patent judge order the patent case reassigned pursuant to the pilot program? I have not seen it happen yet, but I suspect it could over the next week or two.
The Northern District issued the following list of judges who have self-selected as patent judges:
Chief Judge James F. Holderman
Judge Ruben Castillo
Judge John W. Darrah
Judge Gary S. Feinerman
Judge Virginia Kendall
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly
Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow
Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer
Judge Amy J. St. Eve
Judge James B. Zagel

Continue Reading