Latest Articles

Luxottica Group S.p.A. v. The Partnerships & Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule “A,” No. 18 C 2188, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 4, 2019) (Gottschall, J.). Judge Gottschall denied plaintiff Luxottica’s motion for reconsideration that defendants were not properly served as to all but one defendant in this counterfeiting case involving Oakley sunglasses. Of particular note, the Court held as follows: Luxottica’s raised three factual issues: 1) that Alibaba, who hosted defendants stores, would not likely have given defendants’ addresses, 2) Luxottica received defendants’ addresses after filing the complaint, and 3) the names on the return addresses did not match…
Rehco, LLC v. Spin Master, Ltd., No. 13 C 2245, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Oct. 28, 2019) (Blakey, J.). Judge  Blakey granted defendant Spin Master’s motion for supplemental claim construction and for summary judgment in this patent case involving remote control toy vehicles. The Court previously construed the terms, but the Federal Circuit reversed for consideration of certain claim terms. First, the Federal Circuit held that “a signal” meant one or more signals, not one signal, as the Court originally determined. The Federal Circuit also remanded for consideration of whether the parties’ dispute on appeal regarding the “predefined-speed” limitation was…
Flair Airlines, Ltd. v. Gregor LLC, No. 18 C 2023, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 25, 2019) (Guzman, J.). Judge Guzman denied plaintiff Flair Airlines’ (“Flair”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment  because of “numerous disputed facts” in this cybersquatting and related state law claims case involving a dispute over a “poorly-documented and hastily-conceived” business venture to create an airline. The Court held that even assuming that Flair could prove that its FLAIR marks were famous or distinctive and that defendants registered or used an identical or confusingly similar domain, the first two prongs of a cybersquatting…
Malibu Media, L.L.C. v. Doe, No. 18 C 450, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jun. 5, 2019) (Ellis, J.). Judge Ellis denied Doe defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) & (f) motion to dismiss and to strike plaintiff Malibu Media’s copyright infringement complaint in this BitTorrent dispute. The Court previously dismissed Malibu Media’s complaint because a defendant’s status as the IP address subscriber is not enough, without more, to create a reasonable inference that the defendant is the infringer. Malibu Media repled its complaint providing the following additional details: Doe has a bachelor’s degree in computer science with experience in internet…
NPEs stayed busy entering the fourth quarter. Frequent filers included AlexSam, Consolidated Transaction Processing, Cascades Branding, Devine Licensing, Express Mobile, Geographic Location Innovations, Guada Technologies, and Symbology. As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in particular cases, how your judge has historically handled a particular type of motion, or a particular plaintiff’s litigation history.  Finally, please let me know if you…
September patent filings increased from the summer months, as they usually do. Kids go back to school, adults wrap up summer vacations and NPEs get back to filing suits.. Frequent filers included Billingnetwork Patent, Consolidated Transaction Processing, Geographic Location Innovations, Guada Technologies, Interface IP Holdings, Internet Media Interactive, Modern Font Applications, and Symbology. As usual, I prepared the report in partnership with and using Docket Navigator and its powerful database.  Docket Navigator is a valuable resource, and the place to go if you want to keep track of new patent litigation filings or want to know what is happening in…
Varex Imaging Corp. v. Richardson Elecs., Ltd., No. 18 C 6911, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2019) (Blakey, J.). Judge Blakey denied defendant Richardson Electronics’ motion for preliminary injunction in this dispute involving x-ray tubes. Varex claimed that Richardson Electronics sale of refurbished x-ray tubes infringed its patents and irreparably harmed Varex. As an initial matter, the Court noted that both parties claimed claim construction was unnecessary and ignored the Court’s request to decide the liability issues on a complete evidentiary record. Instead, the Court was left with a conflicting record that prevented the Court from making a clear…
Varex Imaging Corp. v. Richardson Elecs., Ltd., No. 18 C 6911, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 30, 2019) (Blakey, J.). Judge Blakey denied defendant Richardson Electronics’ motion for preliminary injunction in this dispute involving x-ray tubes. Varex claimed that Richardson Electronics sale of refurbished x-ray tubes infringed its patents and irreparably harmed Varex. As an initial matter, the Court noted that both parties claimed claim construction was unnecessary and ignored the Court’s request to decide the liability issues on a complete evidentiary record. Instead, the Court was left with a conflicting record that prevented the Court from making a clear…
Varex Imaging Corp. v. Richardson Elecs., Ltd., No. 18 C 6911, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2018) (Blakey, J.). Judge Blakey denied defendant Richardson Electronics’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based upon patent exhaustion in this dispute involving x-ray tubes. Richardson Electronics alleged that plaintiff Varex’s sale of its x-ray tubes exhausted its patent rights, leaving Richardson Electronics free to refurbish them. Richardson Electronics allegedly procures used Varex’s x-ray tubes, opens them removing certain spent components and then rebuilding / refurbishing the x-ray tubes. The Court held that where Richardson Electronics’ actions sit on the spectrum…
Varex Imaging Corp. v. Richardson Elecs., Ltd., No. 18 C 6911, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 27, 2018) (Blakey, J.). Judge Blakey denied defendant Richardson Electronics’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss based upon patent exhaustion in this dispute involving x-ray tubes. Richardson Electronics alleged that plaintiff Varex’s sale of its x-ray tubes exhausted its patent rights, leaving Richardson Electronics free to refurbish them. Richardson Electronics allegedly procures used Varex’s x-ray tubes, opens them removing certain spent components and then rebuilding / refurbishing the x-ray tubes. The Court held that where Richardson Electronics’ actions sit on the spectrum…
Shure, Inc. v. ClearOne, Inc., No. 17 C 3078, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2018) (Chang, J.). Judge Chang construed the remaining claims in this patent case involving audio-conferencing equipment utilizing beam microphones. Of particular interest, the Court held as follows: The Court construed “Each of the Plurality of Combined Signals Corresponding to a Different Fixed Beam” by holding that “fixed” requires that the beams parameters remain fixed during a conference. The Court construed “Select With a Signal Selection Module One or More of the Combined Echo Cancelled Signals for Transmission to the Far End” as it did at…
Shure, Inc. v. ClearOne, Inc., No. 17 C 3078, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2018) (Chang, J.). Judge Chang construed the remaining claims in this patent case involving audio-conferencing equipment utilizing beam microphones. Of particular interest, the Court held as follows: The Court construed “Each of the Plurality of Combined Signals Corresponding to a Different Fixed Beam” by holding that “fixed” requires that the beams parameters remain fixed during a conference. The Court construed “Select With a Signal Selection Module One or More of the Combined Echo Cancelled Signals for Transmission to the Far End” as it did at…
Shure, Inc. v. ClearOne, Inc., No. 17 C 3078, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2018) (Chang, J.). Judge Chang denied declaratory judgment defendant ClearOne’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction (PI) in this patent case involving audio-conferencing equipment utilizing beam microphones. As an initial matter, the Court held that the parties were both incorrect regarding the Federal Rule that ClearOne’s motion was properly considered under. Rule 59(e) was inapplicable because the motion was filed more than twenty eight days after the PI decision. Rule 60(b) was inapplicable because a PI cannot be considered a…
Shure, Inc. v. ClearOne, Inc., No. 17 C 3078, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 25, 2018) (Chang, J.). Judge Chang denied declaratory judgment defendant ClearOne’s motion for reconsideration of the Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction (PI) in this patent case involving audio-conferencing equipment utilizing beam microphones. As an initial matter, the Court held that the parties were both incorrect regarding the Federal Rule that ClearOne’s motion was properly considered under. Rule 59(e) was inapplicable because the motion was filed more than twenty eight days after the PI decision. Rule 60(b) was inapplicable because a PI cannot be considered a…
Shure, Inc. v. ClearOne, Inc., No. 17 C 3078, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2019) (Chang, J.). Judge Chang granted declaratory judgment defendant ClearOne’s preliminary injunction and construed necessary terms of the patent, as the parties had already fully briefed claim construction, in this patent dispute related to in-ceiling beamforming microphone arrays. Of particular note, the Court held as follows: The Court held that the person of ordinary skill in the art need not necessarily have beamforming microphone array (BFMA) experience, but must have at least one year of work experience in the field of digital signal processing. Declaratory…
Shure, Inc. v. ClearOne, Inc., No. 17 C 3078, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Aug. 5, 2019) (Chang, J.). Judge Chang granted declaratory judgment defendant ClearOne’s preliminary injunction and construed necessary terms of the patent, as the parties had already fully briefed claim construction, in this patent dispute related to in-ceiling beamforming microphone arrays. Of particular note, the Court held as follows: The Court held that the person of ordinary skill in the art need not necessarily have beamforming microphone array (BFMA) experience, but must have at least one year of work experience in the field of digital signal processing. Declaratory…