invalidity

Subscribe to invalidity via RSS

Judge Chang denied defendant Artsana USA f/k/a Chicco’s summary judgment motion, except for a specific limitation on willful infringement, in this patent dispute involving infant play gyms.

First, the Court held that a jury could reasonably determine that Artsana’s connectors pivotally connected to the mat. The original design was a fold of fabric with a…

Groupon Inc. v. MobGob LLC, No. 10 C 7456, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2011) (Hibbler, Sen. J.).
Judge Hibbler granted plaintiff Groupon’s motion to strike defendant MobGob’s affirmative defenses and to dismiss MobGob’s counterclaims, and denied MobGob’s motion to dismiss Groupon’s claim in this patent dispute involving online marketing systems.
MobGob’s Motion to Dismiss
Groupon pled the intent elements of its indirect infringement claims upon information and belief. And that pleading was sufficient even though intent is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) because even pursuant to Rule 9(b), intent and knowledge can be pled generally. Additionally, it was reasonable to infer from Groupon’s allegations that MobGob created or had someone create the accused system and the public nature of Groupon’s patent that MobGob had actually knowledge of its accused infringement.
Groupon’s Motions to Strike and Dismiss
First, Groupon sought to strike MobGob’s affirmative defense of invalidity. The Court initially noted that motions to strike are disfavored because they are unlikely to streamline a case or make resolving the case more efficient. But the Court still struck MobGob’s invalidity defense. MobGob’s invalidity defense did nothing more than identify the relevant statutory sections, offering not a single fact, upon information and belief or otherwise. While the Court noted there were some policy reasons for not holding affirmative defenses and counterclaims to the Twombly/Iqbal standards, the Seventh Circuit required that they be met for any pleading. The Court, therefore, struck MobGob’s invalidity defense. And for the same reason, the Court dismissed MobGob’s invalidity counterclaim because it also offered no facts. The Court also noted that it would not excuse inadequate pleading because of the Local Patent Rule 2.3(b) invalidity contentions that MobGob would be required to serve shortly after answering. The LPR 2.3(b) disclosures require significantly more detail than Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 notice pleading. So, MobGob could meet its Rule 8 obligations without providing the level of detail required by LPR 2.3(b).
The Court also struck MobGob’s affirmative defense regarding ownership of Groupon’s patent because it also lacked factual support, and because it did not accept Groupon’s facts as true, as required by an affirmative defense, instead challenging Groupon’s facts.
…
Continue Reading Local Patent Rules Do Not Trump Rule 8 Pleading Requirements

Viskase Cos., Inc. v. World Pac Int’l AG, No. 09 C 5022, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2011) (Bucklo, J.).
Judge Bucklo granted declaratory judgment plaintiff Viskase’s motion for summary judgment of invalidity and denied the remaining cross-summary judgment motions as moot in this patent dispute involving food casings that prevent the loss of weight, flavor and taste. The Court previously construed “impermeable” to mean that the casing did not allow any measurable loss of weight, flavor or moisture. Instead of addressing each of Viskase’s arguments element-by-element, declaratory judgment defendant World Pac put “all of its eggs in one basket.” The Court denied World Pac’s earlier summary judgment motion regarding infringement largely because of World Pac’s failure to test the alleged impermeability of Viskase’s accused products. World Pac, therefore, argued that because Viskase had not tested sausages covered by the prior art patent, it could not succeed.
But the Court explained that “what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.” The Court held that there was no authority requiring that a party test alleged anticipatory prior art patents to prove that they read on the asserted patent. While there was some appeal to World Pac’s argument, it was unsuccessful. An accused infringer is not required to test prior art products. Furthermore, World Pac’s own expert had conceded that the relevant claim elements of the patent-in-suit were disclosed in the prior art patent.
…
Continue Reading Accused Infringer Need Not Test Prior Art Patented Products to Prove Invalidity

Eazypower Corp. v. Jore Corp., No. 04 C 6372, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 20, 2010) (Zagel, J.).
Judge Zagel denied defendant Jore’s (“Jore”) motion for summary judgment of invalidity in this patent dispute regarding screwdrivers with flexible extension shafts. As a preliminary matter, plaintiff Eazypower repeatedly failed to comply with Local Rule 56.1 regarding statements of material fact. Despite that, the Court accepted Eazypower’s additional facts and responses to Jore’s statements of fact because Jore had sufficient opportunity to respond to them.
Jore argued that a particular screwdriver with a flexible extension shaft, the FB-19, was sold in the United States in the mid-1980s and was invalidating prior art. Eazypower did not dispute that the FB-19 taught each element of the identified patent claims. But Eazypower did dispute that the FB-19 was in fact prior art. First, Eazypower argued that Jore had not sufficiently corroborated its evidence that the FB-19 was sold in the United States in the mid-1980s. Jore’s corroborating evidence – several third parties with knowledge – was sufficient. But there was evidence conflicting with Jore’s position. An age analysis of the FB-19 packaging suggested that it had been built in the late 1970s or early 1980s, but it also showed traces of an adhesive that was not available in the mid-1980s. Additionally, Eazypower showed that relevant shipping records for the period did not show any sales or import of FB-19s. The Court, therefore, held that there was a question of material fact and denied summary judgment.
…
Continue Reading Lack of Documentation Regarding Use at the Relevant Time Prevents Summary Judgment

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Min. Orders (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).*
In addition to the willfulness decision discussed earlier today (click here for the post) and the invalidity decision that I will blog about early next week, Judge Moran also issued two minute orders deciding several of the outstanding post-trial motions. The Court denied defendant eSpeed’s motion for a new trial and its combined motion for judgment as a matter of law that: 1) the claims are invalid because of anticipation, obviousness, prior sale; and 2) because the claims have a June 9, 2000 priority date they were not infringed.
There are still several pending motions, including various motions regarding damages and interest on the jury’s award and eSpeed’s motion for an evidentiary hearing regarding inequitable conduct. I will keep you posted as those are decided.
* Click here to read much more about this case in the Blog’s archives.
…
Continue Reading Trading Technologies v. eSpeed: Minute Orders

Trading Techs. Int’l., Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2007) (Moran, Sen. J.).*
Judge Moran denied plaintiff Trading Technologies’ (“TT”) motion to preclude defendant eSpeed from arguing its prior sale defense at trial. In a previous Order, the Court struck eSpeed’s summary judgment motion regarding its prior sale defense because it was filed after a case deadline. The Court stated eSpeed could use its “full arsenal of defenses” with the jury.
Trial is set to start in this case the week of September 10. Between now and then expect to see several more opinions in this case and its related cases (there are two weighty summary judgment opinions still in my queue, as well as several other smaller opinions and orders). Additionally, I have some other obligations that week, but am planning to blog some of the trial. Stay tuned.
*You can download this opinion here and you can read much more about this case and related cases in the Blog’s archives.
…
Continue Reading Missed Deadline Prevents Invalidity SJ Motion, But Defendant May Argue it at Trial