R. David Donoghue

R. David Donoghue is a patent trial attorney and partner with Holland & Knight’s Intellectual Property Group in Chicago. A trusted counselor to his retail and supply chain clients, Dave routinely speaks to groups of all sizes on an array of intellectual property topics. Chicago IP Litigation was created to help businesses understand their intellectual property rights and how to drive their cases to positive resolution.

Blog Authors

Latest from R. David Donoghue

April showed a slight uptick as NPEs typically do during the beginning of the second quarter, although not a substantial increase. Frequent filers included Aperture Net, Cedar Lane Technologies, Digi Portal, Display Technologies, Internet Media Interactive, R2 Solutions, Sockeye Licensing and Transcend Shipping Systems.
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
Continue Reading APRIL 2022 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

March was the busiest month of the first quarter. Frequent filers included Cedar Lane Technologies, Digi Portal, Implicit, Internet Media Interactive, Liberty Peak Ventures, Linfo IP, mCom IP, Noblewood IP, and Recog IP.
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,
Continue Reading MARCH 2022 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

By Dinis Cheian on October 21, 2022
The following article by Dinis Cheian is an interesting analysis of patent extension calculation errors that Cheian claims to have found in the Patent Office’s software. I thought Chicago IP Blog readers would find it interesting.
The Patent Office’s software is miscalculating the expiration extensions of some patents. Typically, a patent expires twenty years after the filing of the underlying application. However, the Patent Office extends patent terms to compensate for certain delays in processing applications. This extension is known as PTA. By default, the PTA is automatically calculated by a computer program
Continue Reading Patent litigators and patent lawyers representing generic pharmaceutical companies should be on the lookout for Patent Office’s PTA calculation mistakes

February saw a slight increase over January as the NPE’s warmed into Q1. Frequent filers included Cedar Lane Technologies, Digi Portal, Internet Media Interactive, Linfo IP, M4siz, Noblewood IP, Swirlate, and Transcend Shipping Systems.
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.
Continue Reading FEBRUARY 2022 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

As usual, the NPE’s were active in January after an extended holiday break. Frequent filers included Bassfield IP, Cedar Lane Technologies, Digi Portal, Estech Systems IP, Internet Media Interactive, and Linfo IP.
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
Continue Reading JANUARY 2022 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

H-D USA, LLC v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Assocs., No. 21 C 496, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 14, 2022) (Tharp, J.).

Judge Tharp granted plaintiff Harley Davidson’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss defendant’s first counterlcaim and granted in part its motion to dismiss affirmative defenses in this trademark dispute involving HARLEY DAVIDSON marks.

Defendants’ counterclaims were a bare list of legal conclusions without any supporting facts. The Court, therefore, dismissed them. Similarly, defendants’ statute of limitations, laches, estoppel, and implied license affirmative defenses were bare recitations of the law. The Court, therefore, dismissed them. Defendants’ non-counterfeit and
Continue Reading Claims and Affirmative Defenses Must be More than Bare Bones Allegations

As usual, the NPEs slowed down as the holidays approached. Frequent filers included Bassfield IP, Cascades Branding, Cedar Lane, GreatGigz, and Recog IP.
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 have thoughts about the
Continue Reading DECEMEBR 2021 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

As usual, the NPEs slowed down as the holidays approached. Frequent filers included Bassfield IP, Cascades Branding, Cedar Lane, GreatGigz, and Recog IP.
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 have thoughts about the
Continue Reading DECEMBER 2021 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

Nulogy Corp. v. Menasha Packaging Co. LLC, No. 21 C 1164, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 10, 2022) (Rowland, J.).
Judge Rowland granted defendant Menasha’s motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens and denied defendant Deloitte’s as moot in this trade secret action involving supply chain software.
The parties Agreement had a forum selection clause mandating that Canadian law governed and that any action related to the Agreement be brought in Toronto. While Nulogy’s claims are based in trade secret, not upon the Agreement, the forum selection clause still governed. The Supreme Court requires that forum selection clauses be read
Continue Reading Trade Secret Plaintiff Cannot Avoid Forum Selection Clause by Dividing Claims

After a break, I am back at the monthly patent litigation reports starting with catching up on some of the backlog. As usual, the NPEs slowed down as the holidays approached. Frequent filers included Aperture Net, Digi Portal, and Social Positioning Input Systems.
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
Continue Reading NOVEMBER 2021 RETAIL PATENT LITIGATION REPORT

Viahart LLC v. Partnerships & Unincorporated Assocs. identified on schedule A, No. 19 C 8181, Slip Op. (N.D. I.. Apr. 4, 2022) (Alonso, J.).
Judge Alonso denied plaintiff Viahart’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion to reopen its case and to permit limited jurisdictional discovery in this Doe case involving Amazon sales related to Viahart’s BRAIN FLAKES trademark.
The Court previously granted an ex parte temporary restraining order, granted Viahart’s request for service by alternate means and expedited discovery. The Court then granted a preliminary injunction followed by a default judgment. Thereafter defendant Liyunshop appeared and filed a motion to
Continue Reading Reply Briefs are Not for “Sandbagging”

Rebel Hospitality LLC v. Rebel Hospitality LLC, No. 21-cv-05132, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 16, 2022) (Guzman, J.).
Judge Guzman granted defendant Rebel Hospitality DE’s Fed. R.Civ. P. 12(c) motion to dismiss plaintiff Rebel Hospitality IL’s trademark infringement complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction in this case about REBEL HOSPITALITY marks.
As an initial matter, Rebel Hospitality IL waived any timeliness argument by not contesting the issue in its response brief. Rebel Hospitality DE answered the complaint and included a personal jurisdiction affirmative defense, but did not file a Rule 12(b)(2) motion at that time, as it technically should have
Continue Reading Trademark Infringement Alone Does Not Create Personal Jurisdiction

Benefit Cosmetics LLC, No. 20-cv-02552, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Mar. 28, 2022) (Wood, J.).
Judge Wood denied defendant Oxygen Ocean’s motion to set aside the parties’ settlement agreement in this trademark dispute involving plaintiff Benefit Cosmetics’
This was a Doe trademark case. Oxygen Ocean engaged with the Court and then was voluntarily dismissed allegedly based upon a settlement agreement. Oxygen Ocean, however, subsequently argued that it had not entered into the agreement alleging that the agreement was negotiated by counsel who lacked authority to settle the case or bind Oxygen Oceans. But the Court held that the agreement was valid
Continue Reading Court Upholds Agreement in Face of Allegations that Defendant Did Not Enter It

Art Akiane LLC v. Art & Soulworks LLC, No. 19-cv-02952, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 16, 2021) (Chang, J.).
Judge Chang ruled on the parties’ choice of law dispute between Colorado and Illinois law in this intellectual property dispute.
Federal courts apply the forum’s choice of law rules. Illinois uses the forum’s law, unless there is a conflict with another state’s law. Illinois also uses its own law for procedural issues. The party seeking a choice of law determination has the burden of proving that there is a conflict between the laws. Where there is a conflict, Illinois follows the
Continue Reading Illinois Law Applies Over Colorado Based Upon Situs of Events

Peng v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule “A,” No. 21 C 1344, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 14, 2021) (Dow, J.).

Judge Dow converted the previously entered Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) into a Preliminary Injunction (PI) against the challenging defendants in this design patent dispute involving wireless earphone headbands.

As an initial matter, the Court noted that the Supreme Court’s eBay decision removed the presumption of irreparable harm where a plaintiff showed a likelihood of success as to proving patent infringement. But the Court also noted that removal of the presumption did not allow consideration of the
Continue Reading Irreparable Harm Shown by Likely Consumer Confusion From Sales of Likely Infringing Product

H-D U.S.A., LLC v. The Partnerships and Unincorporated Assocs. Identified on Schedule “A,” No. 21 C 3581, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Sep. 24, 2021) (Alonso, J.).

Judge Alonso granted plaintiff Harley-Davidson’s motion for preliminary injunction against defendant Amarzon-Automotive Parts (“AAP”) for allegedly selling counterfeit aftermarket chrome LED fog light projectors using Harley-Davidson’s HARLEY-DAVIDSON and DAYMAKER marks.

As an initial matter, the Court explained that the Seventh Circuit recently detailed how likely plaintiff’s success must be in Illinois Republican Party v. Pritzker, 973 F.3d 760, 762 (7th Cir. 2020):

It explained that a “possibility of success is not enough” and “[n]either
Continue Reading Preliminary Injunction Requires a “Strong Showing” of Likelihood of Success