Beckman Coulter, Inc. v. Sysmex Am., Inc., No. 18 C 6563, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 26, 2019) (Rowland, Mag. J.).

Magistrate Judge Rowland granted in part defendants’ (collectively “Sysmex”) motion to compel more definite responses regarding plaintiff Beckman Coulter’s dates of conception and reduction to practice in this patent case involving automated software

Scholle Corp. v. Rapak LLC, No. 13 C 3976, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 24, 2014) (Kendall, J.).

Judge Kendall ruled on numerous motions filed after the Court granted a preliminary injunction in this patent case.  Of particular note, the Court held as follows:

  • The Court granted defendant Rapak’s motion to construe more than

R-Boc Reps., Inc. v. Minemyer, No. 11 C 8433, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Cole, Mag. J.).

Judge Cole denied plaintiff R-Boc’s motions to amend its Final Invalidity Contentions with an allegedly new theory regarding the phrase “approximately perpendicular” based upon the Supreme Court’s Nautilus indefiniteness decision and related motion for summary judgment of invalidity

The Court also struck some, but not all, of the experts’ opinions based upon trader usage. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No. 05 C 4811, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 10, 2014) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted in part and denied in part defendants’ (collectively “CQG”) motion to strike portions of plaintiff

Rehco, LLC v. Spin Master, Ltd., No. 13 C 2245, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2014) (Leinenweber, J.).

Judge Leinenweber granted defendant Spin Master’s motion to dismiss plaintiff Rehco’s patent infringement claim related to a toy airplane, granted in part Spin Master’s motion to strike and granted Rehco’s motion to strike. 

As an

In October along with proposed revisions to the Local Patent Rules, the Northern District proposed new Local Patent Rules for Electronically Stored Information (“LPR ESI”).  The LPR ESI share many commonalities with standing ESI Orders being used in patent cases in districts across the country.  Additionally, the proposed LPR ESI is consistent with the existing

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