CAO Lighting, Inc. v. Light Efficient Design, No. 16 C 482, Slip Op. (D. Idaho Oct. 11, 2017) (Nye, J.).*

Judge Nye granted defendants’ motion to sever the claims against Light Efficient Design for manufacturing LED retrofit lighting devices and Electrical Wholesale Supply (“EWS”) for distributing those devices, to transfer the claims against Light

Anuwave LLC v. Assoc. Banc-Corp. d/b/a Assoc. Bank, N.A., No. 16 C 9925, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 26, 2016) (Shadur, Sen. J.).

Judge Shadur sua sponte dismissed plaintiff Anuwave’s patent complaint for improper venue with leave to refile in defendant Associated Bank’s “home territory (which it shares with the Green Bay Packers, not

Wimo Labs, LLC v. Hub Pen Co., Inc., No. 15 C 8424, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 8, 2015) (Shadur, Sen. J.).

Judge Shadur sua sponte ordered plaintiff Wimo’s counsel to appear and discuss whether venue was proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) in this patent case.

Based upon Wimo’s complaint, the Court

Universal Beauty Prods., Inc. v. Morning Glory Prods., Inc., No. 10 C 3212, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 18, 2012) (Grady, J.).

Judge Grady denied defendant Morning Glory’s motion to transfer venue to the E.D. North Carolina in this competitionbased false patent marking case.  The parties agreed that venue was proper in

Addition & Detoxification Institute, LLC v. Rapid Drug Detox Center, No. 11 C 7992, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2012) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted in part plaintiff ADI’s motion to compel limited jurisdictional discovery in this patent case.  ADI’s requests were overly broad and the Court accepted defendant’s declarations, but the Court

Flava Works, Inc. v. Terry, No. 12 C 1884, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 11, 2012) (Coleman, J.).

Judge Coleman granted defendant’s motion to transfer this copyright and trademark infringement case to the M.D. Florida.  As an initial matter, defendant did not waive the issue of personal jurisdiction because the answer contested it.  While

Judge Bucklo denied defendant Life+Gear’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and (3) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue in this patent dispute. While Life+Gear did not have Illinois offices, it did have an interactive website and at least one Illinois sale. Life+Gear also sold product to two distributors that sold that product in Illinois and Life+Gear was reasonably aware of those channels of sale.
Venue was proper because venue in a patent case exists wherever there is personal jurisdiction.

Continue Reading