Tracking Northern District of Illinois IP Cases
Abbott Labs. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., No. 05 C 6561, 2007 WL 625496 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 23, 2007) (Kendall, J.).
Judge Kendall denied plaintiff’s, Abbott, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant’s, Mylan, antitrust counterclaims. Mylan alleged that two Abbott employees submitted declarations and/or testimony stating the weight and structure of certain…
Days Inns Worldwide, Inc. v. Lincoln Park Hotels, Inc., No. 06 C 2960, 2007 WL 551570 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 22, 2007) (Der-Yeghiayan, J.)
Judge Der-Yeghiayan granted plaintiff summary judgment on its trademark infringement and Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("IDTPA") claims, among others. Plaintiff owns various marks relating to its Days Inn chain (the "Days Inn Marks"). Plaintiff licensed defendants Lincoln Park Hotels, Inc. and Richard Erlich (collectively "LPH") to use the Days Inn Marks in connection with the operation of a hotel in Chicago’s Lincoln Park neighborhood. In 2005, LPH sold the hotel to defendant Gold Coast Investors ("GCI") without informing plaintiff, in violation of the parties’ license agreement. GCI continued operating the hotel using the Days Inn Marks without licensing the rights to the marks from plaintiff. As a result, plaintiff brought the instant action against defendants alleging that, among other things, GCI infringed plaintiff’s Days Inn Marks and LPH contributorily infringed plaintiff’s Days Inn Marks by selling the hotel to GCI with the knowledge that GCI intended to continue using the Days Inn Marks and without informing plaintiff of the sale or removing the Days Inn Marks from the hotel, as required in the parties’ license agreement. Continue Reading Seller is Liable for Contributory Infringement Becase Seller Knew Buyer Intended to Use the Property in an Infringing Manner
Abbott Labs. v. Andrx Pharms., Inc., No. 05 C 1490, 2007 WL 551551 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 20, 2007) (Brown, Mag. J.).*
The Court denied defendant’s motion to compel production of attorney-client privileged documents pursuant to the crime-fraud exception. Defendant argued that plaintiff’s failure to disclose full results from two studies with conflicting results (for…
Murphy v. Murphy, No. 04 C 3496, 2007 WL 551576 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2007) (Darrah, J.).
Judge Darrah granted defendants summary judgment of noninfringement of plaintiff’s copyright. Plaintiff, a documentary filmmaker, filmed several residents of Chicago Housing Authority Projects. Plaintiff copyrighted his documentary film and, in early 1998, sent it to Oprah Winfrey at Harpo Productions. He requested that Winfrey and Harpo air his documentary on the Oprah Winfrey Show and that they forward it to a list of people in the film industry, several of whom are named defendants. Winfrey never responded to plaintiff and his documentary was never aired on her show. Shortly thereafter, defendants’ animated program, “The PJs” – telling the story of several fictional characters living in an urban housing project – aired on the Fox network. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants collectively infringed his copyrighted documentary by using scenes from it, as well as unique features of several of plaintiff’s subjects to make their characters.Continue Reading Art Imitates Life: Animated Series Does Not Infringe Copyright on Documentary Film
RRK Holding Co. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., No. 04 C 3944, 2007 WL 495254 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 14, 2007) (Coar, J.).
Judge Coar denied defendant summary judgment on plaintiff’s trade secret and breach of contract (nondisclosure agreement) claims. The Court also granted defendant summary judgment on plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim holding that because it was based upon the trade secret misappropriation allegations it was preempted by the Illinois Trade Secret Act (“ITSA”). Plaintiff alleged that, pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement, it disclosed to defendant its plans for its “combination tool” which consisted of a rotary saw, also called a spiral saw, which could be converted into a plunge router. But after negotiations broke down over price, defendant allegedly disclosed the idea to its Canadian subsidiary, which then allegedly disclosed the idea to another party, Choon Nang Electrical Appliance Manufacturing Ltd. (“Choon Nang”), that obtained a British design patent on the combination tool and produced it for defendant. Continue Reading Conflicting Testimony Creates Questions of Fact in Trade Secrets Case
Why Intellectual Property Cases in the Northern District of Illinois? I expect that many people will ask that question. The answer is simple. The N.D. Ill. is and consistently has been one of the four or five most active patent courts in the country. See, e.g. Kimberly A. Moore, Forum Shopping In Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation?, 79 N.C. L. Rev. 889, 903 (2001); Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics, Tables C-2 & C-3. Continue Reading Why Intellectual Property Cases in the Northern District of Illinois?
