On Thursday, April 18, 2019, beginning at 6:00pm, with registration open at 5:30pm and networking following the program, the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago’s (IPLAC) Young Members Committee is hosting a panel discussion hitting on the biggest emerging technologies – artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles and blockchain. Ice Miller’s Shyla Jones is moderating an impressive

Judge Darrah denied plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim. Courts are required to dismiss a complaint when plaintiff seeks in forma pauperis status along with a complaint that fails to state a claim. Plaintiff’s complaint appears to sound in patent, trademarks and copyright. But it was “devoid of any substantive allegations” and, therefore, had to be dismissed.

Continue Reading

The Northern District of Illinois and Chicago’s Federal Bar Association chapter are hosting their Ninth Annual Awards for Excellence in Pro Bono and Public Interest Service awards program this Tuesday, May 13 beginning at 3:30 pm in the James Benton Parsons Memorial Courtroom (2525) of the Dirksen United States Courthouse at 219 South Dearborn Street. The program is open to everyone and is free of charge.
The keynote speaker will be William Neukom, the President of the ABA and partner in K&L Gates. Prior to his private practice, Neukom was executive vice president of Law and Corporate Affairs for
Microsoft, where he managed Microsoft’s legal, government affairs and philanthropic
activities.
Seven “Awards for Excellence in Pro Bono and Public Interest Service” and one “Special
Recognition Award for Public Interest Service” will be presented to the following Chicago-area lawyers for their pro bono and public interest work before the Northern District:
Sara C. Arroyo and Rosa M. Tumialán, of Dykema Gossett PLLC (presented by the Judge Coar);
Anthony J. Masciopinto, of Kulwin, Masciopinto & Kulwin, LLP (presented by Judge Manning);
Myron Mackoff, of Richardson & Mackoff (presented by the Chief Judge Holderman and Magistrate Judge Valdez);
Joshua D. Lee and Amy M. Rubenstein, of Schiff Hardin LLP (presented by the
Judge Brown);
Catherine Caporusso and Margot Klein, of the Federal District Court’s Self-Help Assistance Program (presented by Judge Hibbler);
David A. Gordon, Michael B. Nadler, and Kristen R. Seeger, of Sidley Austin LLP (presented
by Magistrate Judge Schenkier);
Lisa R. Kane, of Lisa Kane & Associates, PC (presented by Chief Judge Holderman); and
Richard J. Gonzales, Clinical Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent (presented by Chief Judge Holderman).

Continue Reading

Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99 C 626 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).
Speculation regarding Judge Pallmeyer’s delay of the Eolas v. Microsoft trial is over. Eolas announced that it settled with Microsoft in a letter to shareholders (available from theSeattle Post-Intelligencer). No details of the settlement were available, but Eolas told its shareholders to expect a dividend from the settlement of up to $60-$72 per share. Here is more coverage of the settlement:*
Vnunet.com
Todd Bishop’s Microsoft Blog — discussing the letter to Eolas shareholders.
Wall Street Journal (subscription required)
* As I have explained in previous posts, I will not comment on any news from this case because of my family’s connection to it, but feel free to discuss the case in the comments.

Continue Reading

Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99 C 626 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).
Speculation regarding Judge Pallmeyer’s delay of the Eolas v. Microsoft trial is starting in the MSM and on the internet. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Internetnews.com both have pieces reporting that Eolas and Microsoft are working toward settlement. Both stories quote a Microsoft spokesperson as saying, “[Microsoft is] in active discussions with Eolas Technologies regarding a possible settlement .”
As I said in my previous posts, I will not comment on any news from this case because of my family’s connection to it, but feel free to discuss the case in the comments.

Continue Reading

Late yesterday Judge Pallmeyer entered a minute order striking the Eolas v. Microsoft trial scheduled for this week and setting a status conference for August 30. As I said in my previous post, I will not comment on any news from this case because of my family’s connection to it, but feel free to discuss the order in the comments.
And thank you to all of you who were interested in guest blogging the trial. I will get in touch if the trial is rescheduled. If anyone else is interested email me.

Continue Reading

Eolas Tech. Inc.v. Microsoft Corp., No. 99 C 626 (N.D. Ill.) (Pallmeyer, J.).
The second Eolas v. Microsoft trial starts Monday, July 30. The first trial, held before Judge Zagel, was about as close to a media frenzy as patent cases get. I would love to live blog some or all of the trial. But I cannot do it because my wife, Laura Donoghue, is a member of Microsoft’s trial team. However, if one of the Blog’s readers wants to guest blog about the trial, send me an email and we can work something out. If I do not get a guest blogger for the trial, I will post links to news coverage of the case without any commentary, for obvious reasons.

Continue Reading

The Chicago Tribune ran a story on the front page of Wednesday’s Business section about the use of trademarks in keyword internet advertising: Trademark Battlefield. The story discussed various efforts to stop internet search engines (like those offered by Google, Yahoo and Microsoft) from selling trademarked terms as search keywords. For example, the story suggested that State Farm, an insurance company, may have purchased the name of its chief competitor, Allstate, from Google. As a result, if you google “Allstate” Allstate’s websites will come up first in the search results, but in the upper right corner of the search results page, you will see a State Farm add.
The story also discussed comments from a Google trademark lawyer, Rose Hagan, during a standing-room-only panel at the International Trademark Association’s (“INTA”) meeting on Monday, which was held in Chicago. Hagan said that Google sells advertising space, not trademarks. The story also notes that Utah has passed a law which prohibited the use of a competitor’s trademarks as advertising keywords. For more on the Utah law, check out Eric Goldman’s Technology & Marketing Law Blog. The Utah law and the various lawsuits against Google, Yahoo and Microsoft on this issue are all evidence that this is a very unsettled area of trademark law. A Yahoo attorney, Laura Hauck Covington, explained that “[w]e’re all trying to find the right, reasonable balance for the owners of trademarks, consumers and advertisers.”

Continue Reading