Manning

Subscribe to Manning via RSS

Black & Decker, Inc. v. Robert Bosch Tool Corp., No. 06 C 4440, 2007 WL 1232089 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 25, 2007) (Manning, J.).
Judge Manning granted defendant’s, Robert Bosch Tool Corp. (“Bosch”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that plaintiff’s, Black & Decker (“B&D”), patent infringement claims against Bosch’s new product regarding B&D’s previously asserted patents were barred by res judicata. In the prior case before Judge St. Eve (you can see numerous prior opinions in the Blog’s archives), B&D asserted that two models of Bosch’s Power Box radio (the “Old Power Box”) infringed B&D’s two patents (the “Old Patents”). Shortly before trial, B&D brought the instant suit against Bosch asserting that Bosch’s new model of its Power Box radio (the “New Power Box”) infringed a third patent (the “New Patent”). At about the same time, B&D sought to be able to present evidence at trial before Judge St. Eve that the New Power Box infringed the Old Patents. Judge St. Eve, however, held that B&D had not disclosed the New Power Box as an accused product and that Bosch would be prejudiced by adding it immediately before trial. In St. Eve’s case, the jury returned a verdict that the Old Power Boxes willfully infringed certain claims of the Old Patents.
…
Continue Reading Infringement Verdict on Old Product Precludes Suit on New Product

Vaughn v. Kelly, No. 06 C 6427, 2007 WL 804694 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2007) (Manning, J.).

Judge Manning denied plaintiff Vaughn’s motion to remand his case to state court, but gave plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint.  Vaughn sued defendant R. Kelly ("Kelly") in Illinois state court alleging breach of contract, fraud…

Adventus Ams. Inc. v. Innovative Envtl. Techs., Inc., No. 06 CV 3267, 2007 WL 704938 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 5, 2007) (Manning).

Judge Manning dismissed one plaintiff for lack of standing and transferred the case to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  Plaintiff EnviroMetal Technologies ("EnviroMetal") had an exclusive license to the patent-in-suit from the University of Waterloo in Canada.  The Court held that EnviroMetal’s license was sufficiently exclusive to create standing because, among other things, it expressly gave the right to make use or sell and EnviroMetal had exclusive sublicensing rights.  Plaintiff Adventus Americas ("Adventus"), however, was a non-exclusive sublicensee of EnviroMetal and the Court held it had no standing.  Defendant also argued that the Court lacked personal jurisdiction, but the Court held that defendant’s sales contacts with Illinois were sufficient to create personal jurisdiction.Continue Reading Non-Exclusive Sublicensee Plaintiff is Dismissed and the Case is Transferred

Big Dipper, Inc. v. Wells’ Dairy, Inc., No. 05 C 5395, 2006 WL 2711843 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2006) (Manning, J.).

In this trademark action, Judge Manning denied defendant’s Rule 11 motion without considering it on the merits because defendant failed to comply with Rule 11’s "safe harbor period."  Rule 11(c) requires that before filing a Rule 11 motion, the party serve the motion on its opponent and give the opponent at least 21 days to correct the issues raised in the motion.  Defendant’s Rule 11 motion was also defective because defendant combined its Rule 11 motion with its response to plaintiff’s motion to strike. As the Court noted, a Rule 11 motion must be filed as a separate, standalone motion.  Continue Reading Rule 11: You Must Follow the Procedures

Mader v. Motorola Inc., No. 92 C 8089, 1999 WL 519020 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 14, 1999) (Manning, J.).

This opinion intersects with IP only to the extent that you consider the opinion a derivative work based on its use of Beatles and Pink Floyd song titles and quotes.  But it does highlight a fun area of legal writing — the use of song lyrics in judicial opinions.  A recent law review article,  [Insert Song Lyrics Here]: The Uses and Misuses of Popular Music Lyrics in Legal Writing, by Professor Alex Long analyzes the use of music in legal writing (Bob Dylan is the most cited artist in judicial opinions, followed by Paul Simon and Bruce Springsteen). (Note: If my wife were a federal district judge, you might see a sharp increase in judicial citations to Judas Priest and KISS. Thankfully – at least for the sake of good musical taste – she is not, although she would otherwise make a great judge.)Continue Reading Rocking Out in the Northern District

Richmond v. National Inst. of Certified Estate Planners, No. 06 C 1032, 2006 WL 2375454 (N. D. Ill. Aug. 15, 2006) (Manning, J.).

This is a trademark action regarding defendants’ use of the term "certified estate planner" ("CEP").  In addition to trademark claims, plaintiff also brought claims for civil conspiracy, conversion and trespass to chattel.  Plaintiff alleged that defendants’ use of the CEP mark constituted conversion and trespass to chattel.  Plaintiff also alleged that the individual defendants engaged in civil conspiracy by taking the CEP mark for the benefit of NICEP and for their own individual uses.Continue Reading A Trademark Claim By Any Other Name is Still a Trademark Claim