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…

GC2 Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., No. 16 C 8794, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 29, 2019) (Kennelly, J.). Judge Kennelly ruled on plaintiff GC2’s motion for costs after its jury trial win on copyright infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims. Of particular note, the Court held as follows: Fees of the Clerk & Marshal The Court award the $400 filing fee. The Court also awarded $398 for service, billed at the Marhal’s rate of $65 per hour and $8 for one forward. The Court denied fees for pro hac vice admissions. Transcripts & Recordings The Court awarded…

GC2 Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., No. 16 C 8794, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Jul. 29, 2019) (Kennelly, J.). Judge Kennelly ruled on plaintiff GC2’s motion for costs after its jury trial win on copyright infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims. Of particular note, the Court held as follows: Fees of the Clerk & Marshal The Court award the $400 filing fee. The Court also awarded $398 for service, billed at the Marhal’s rate of $65 per hour and $8 for one forward. The Court denied fees for pro hac vice admissions. Transcripts & Recordings The Court awarded…

This is a cross-post written by my partner Anthony Fuga from Holland & Knight’s Section 101 Blog. I am cross-posting because Anthony’s post is about a Judge Durkin 101 opinion in FYF-JB, LLC v. Pet Factory, Inc., No. 19cv2608 (N.D. Ill.). I am also posting it because Anthony’s 101 analysis at the Section 101 Blog is top-notch. Anyone interested in the current state of 101 law should be reading it. FYF-JB sued Pet Factory for allegedly infringing a patent related to a tug toy that comprises: at least one gripping member; a central portion; and a noise maker designed…

This is a cross-post written by my partner Anthony Fuga from Holland & Knight’s Section 101 Blog. I am cross-posting because Anthony’s post is about a Judge Durkin 101 opinion in FYF-JB, LLC v. Pet Factory, Inc., No. 19cv2608 (N.D. Ill.). I am also posting it because Anthony’s 101 analysis at the Section 101 Blog is top-notch. Anyone interested in the current state of 101 law should be reading it. FYF-JB sued Pet Factory for allegedly infringing a patent related to a tug toy that comprises: at least one gripping member; a central portion; and a noise maker designed…

My partners Steve Jedlinski and Anthony Fuga recently wrote a valuable article about a new Federal Circuit decision dealing with functionality and exhaustion issues for design patents. It is republished below with permission. In a relatively rare opinion regarding design patents, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit weighed in recently on the requirements for design patents in its Automotive Body Parts Association v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC, No. 2018-1613 (Fed. Cir. 2019) decision. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) grants design patents to inventors with a “new, original, and ornamental design for an article of…