Chicago IP Attorney & Lawyer : R. David Donoghue : Chicago IP Litigation Blog

IP Law & Business recently named its top 50 IP lawyers under 45 years old (free registration required).  Two of those 50 are Chicagoans -- David Callahan and James Malackowski.

• David Callahan is an IP litigator and partner at Kirkland & Ellis.  As I have mentioned before, I had the opportunity to work with Callahan early in my career.  So, I can confirm that he is a top notch litigator.  Here is what IP Law & Business said about Callahan:

A political science major from the University of Chicago, David Callahan learned electronic warfare, including cryptography, as a U.S. Army Reserve captain. The military discipline has served him well. A University of Michigan Law School grad, Callahan has commanded the defense in key patent infringement wins for 3M, Amazon.com, and Gast Manufacturing in cases covering everything from one-click Internet payment systems to chewing gum additives and dental compounds. He has excelled at big-ticket defense cases involving multiple patents and parties, where his leadership and organizational skills-to say nothing of his legal marksmanship-force plaintiffs to duck.

• James Malackowski is the President, CEO and founder of  Ocean Tomo, a Chicago-based and IP-focused merchant banc.  Here is what IP Law & Business said about Malackowski:

This University of Notre Dame-trained CPA has made a name as a patent market-maker. Twenty years ago he cofounded a firm that did patent valuations. In 2003 Ocean Tomo started offering investment banking services, and it broke new ground in 2006 with the first live auction for IP. The company has conducted six so far-the most recent in April in San Francisco-that have generated $70 million in transactions, including the $15 million sale of guitarist Jimi Hendrix's catalog and the $6 million sale of patents related to digital systems media and management. The latest innovation from Malackowski? He is trying to market insurance that would lessen the cost to companies of patent troll attacks.

Congratulations to both Callahan and Malackowski.  The honor is well deserved for both men.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Judge Darrah is seeking  a law clerk to begin June 2, 2008 for an unspecified term.  Email your application to DarrahLawClerk_ILND <at> ilnd.uscourts.gov  Judge Darrah requests that you send a resume, law school transcript (but not undergraduate transcript), three reference letters and a writing sample, preferably a full document, not just an excerpt.  Also, do not call chambers about your application.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

I am a little backed up posting Blawg Reviews, but that is no reflection on the quality of the reviews.  Check out last week's Blawg Review #158 hosted by the Mommy Blawg.  And this week's Blawg Review #159 hosted by the LaBovick law firm's Whistleblower Law Blog.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Montrose Wholesale Candies & Sundries, Inc., No. 03 C 5311 & 0844, 2008 WL 954161 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2008) (Cole, Mag. J.).

Judge Cole denied plaintiff's motion for inspection and seizure of assets in its trademark counterfeiting case. The Court previously entered judgment for plaintiff – click here for more about this case in the Blog's archives. Plaintiff brought this motion seeking to identify and seize cash, checks and other financial instruments to satisfy the judgment. The Court held that the motion essentially sought a search warrant directed by plaintiff and utilizing Federal Marshals:

The reality is that the motion is tantamount to a request for a search warrant for Lorillard to enter and search the home of Ray and Sandra Hazemi and the business premises of Montrose Wholesale Candies and Sundries, Inc. (which is owned by them) and for permission to seize any cash, checks or other negotiable instruments belonging to the Hazemis and Montrose and to seize or at least copy all of their financial and accounting records. Nothing in the Motion, itself, suggests that the search and seizure will be accomplished by anyone other than Lorillard. It is not until one looks at the Proposed Order granting the motion that there is even a motion of United States Marshals. But even then, it is Lorillard, through its counsel of record, who is to carry out the search and seizure. The Marshals are merely to accompany Lorillard.

The Court held that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure did not authorize search warrants. The Court further held that the request was not like a seizure of counterfeit goods, which was authorized by 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d)(1)(A), because it sought a post-judgment search to satisfy a judgment.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Chicago Sun-Times has begun live blogging the R. Kelly trial in Cook County state court at its new blog the Kelly Chronicles.  As with the Chicago Tribune's Rezko trial blog, Rezko Gavel to Gavel, the Kelly Chronicles is not IP-related.  But regardless of the legal claims, trial blogs are a great way to get a non-legal perspective on a trial from start to finish.  Fortunately for Chicago-area litigators and litigants, the Chicago papers have begun actively live-blogging local trials which should provide a wealth of this kind of information. 

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Global Patent Holdings, LLC v. Green Bay Packers, Inc., No. 00 C 4623, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Apr. 23, 2008) (Kocoras, J.).

Judge Kocoras reassigned a related case consolidating it with this case and stayed the patent infringement cases pending a second reexamination proceeding. New defendant CDW argued that reassignment of the second case pursuant to Local Rule 40.4 was not appropriate because the first case, which was dismissed without prejudice in light of the first reexam, was filed by TechSearch LLC, instead of the current plaintiff Global Patent Holdings ("GPH"). But original plaintiff TechSearch reopened the case before moving to substitute GPH, the current assignee of the patent in suit and TechSearch's parent, as plaintiff. Because TechSearch reopened the case, the first case retained its first-filed status. The fact that TechSearch and GPH were no longer related entities when the case was reopened was not relevant.

The Court also held that the two cases were related because both accused defendants' websites of infringing the patent because they downloaded or induced others to download JPEG and other files.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. eSpeed, Inc., No. 04 C 5312, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. May 6, 2008) (Moran, Sen. J.).*

After a two-day hearing and two rounds of briefing, Judge Moran held that defendants (collectively “eSpeed”) had not met their burden of proving that plaintiff Trading Technologies (“TT”) engaged in inequitable conduct before the Patent & Trademark Office (“PTO”). The Court held that one of the TT patent's inventors engaged in commercial use between the priority dates for the patent's provisional and parent applications. But the Court held that TT was not required to disclose the commercial use to the PTO because it was not material to patentability. First, TT sought priority from its provisional application in good faith and had a reasonable belief that priority from the provisional was warranted. The reasonableness of the belief was born out when both the jury and the Court determined that the patent could claim priority from the provisional application. Because the commercial use happened before the patent's critical date (based upon the provisional application), it was not material.**

Additionally, TT did not commit inequitable conduct when it responded to the Examiner's request for, among other things, “any use of the claimed invention” with a series of brochures and presentations that described the software's features, but without identifying the inventor's commercial use. TT argued that the Examiner was seeking an explanation of all of the features of TT's software because it had identified anticipatory prior art from TT's website in a prior Office Action. The Court held that this was a reasonable reading of the Examiner's request because the Examiner accepted TT's response which did not address whether the software had been in use. Had the Examiner wanted an answer to that question, he could have asked again, instead of allowing the patent to issue.

Many readers will be wondering what is next. The Court has a few more pending motions, and a motion for reconsideration would not be surprising in this case. But for the most part, I suspect that this case is now on a fast track to the Federal Circuit, where the Court predicted it was going months ago. As always, I will keep you updated as the case develops, both in the Northern District and at the Federal Circuit.

* Click here to read much more about this case in the Blog’s archives and click here for this opinion.

** Click here and here for more on the determination of the appropriate priority date in the Blog's archives.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

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).

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Joe Mullin, an IP Law & Business reporter, has an excellent series of posts on his The Prior Art blog discussing the Harris v. Fish & Richardson case and the Patent Troll Tracker -- click here for this blog's coverage of the Harris case.  Mullin has three posts with lots of details and has promised a fourth:

1. Harris has dropped his subpoena for a deposition of Rick Frenkel, the previously anonymous creator and author of the Patent Troll Tracker -- click here for the post.  The post includes detailed analysis of each party's declaratioins and allegations about the other. 
   
   
2. Frenkel, in a declaration related to the subpoena for his deposition, stated that his Patent Troll Tracker blog will return -- click here for the post.  Unfortunately, Frenkel did not give a date for his blog's return.  While I have not always agreed with the Troll Tracker (for example, I  am not a fan of the "Troll" name), Frenkel researches and writes very well and it will be good to have his voice back as part of the blog conversation.
   
   
3. Mullin's third post is a detailed analysis of whether Frenkel is a reporter, including an analysis of Harris's arguments, through the Niro Scavone firm, that he is not -- click here for Mullin's post.  Mullin concludes that Frenkel is a reporter.  The facts that he wrote anonymously, did not reveal his sources and was advocating a position (which Harris argued meant Frenkel was not a reporter) do not mean Frenkel could not be reporting.  Mullin explains that there is a long history of both advocacy in reporting and anonymous reporting, and that reporters generally do not reveal anonymous sources.
   
   
4. Mullin promised a fourth post this week about anonymous blogging, a subject I have weighed in on several times -- click here for the Blog's anonymous blogging posts.  I will likely comment on Mullin's post once it is up.  But I think he previewed his position when he posted over the weekend that he was discontinuing moderation of comments and welcomed anonymous comments.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Chicago-Kent Professor Graeme B. Dinwoodie, an associate dean and director of the program in Intellectual Property Law, is receiving the 2008 Pattishall Medal for Teaching Excellence from the International Trademark Association ("INTA").  Professor Dinwoodie will also receive the 2008 Ladas Memorial Award for his  law review article with University of Iowa Professor Mark D. Janis, Confusion Over Use: Contextualism in Trademark Law, published last year in the Iowa Law Review. The awards will be presented May 17 at INTA’s 130th Annual Meeting in Berlin.

Congratulations on both honors Professor Dinwoodie.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The Chicago Tribune's Ameet Sachdev reported that an ongoing copyright dispute may be coming to a head at the corner of Michigan Avenue and Randolph Street in Chicago, click here for the Tribune article.  In the 1980s, Israeli artist Yaacov Agam was commissioned to create a sculpture for what would become the Stone Container building at 150 N. Michigan Avenue.*  Over time, Chicago weather faded the work and the current owner hired an expert to restore the multi-hued work to its original look.  Agam is unhappy with the restoration because he believes the colors were not restored to the exact shades he originally used.  The work is now back on display at the corner of Michigan and Randolph, and Agam is headed to Chicago this weekend to view the restored, or as he calls it "reconstructed," work.

In a previous Tribune article,** Agam's counsel admits that VARA, the Visual Artists Rights Act, did not protect Agam's position because the work was created before 1990 and because Agam no longer owns his work.  But Agam claimed to hold the copyright in the work and argued that the copyright allowed him to prevent the current owner from creating a derivative work, which Agam believed the restored or reconstructed work to be because of the changed colors.  The dispute is likely governed by the contract commissioning Agam to make the work.  Of course, it is possible, and maybe even likely, that the contract is silent or ambiguous regarding derivative works or that it was an oral contract without proof of what the parties intended.  It will be interesting to see how the dispute is resolved and, I am sure, people who work in the area will be glad that the wooden stump that stood in the work's place has been replaced by some restored version of the work.

*  Click here for a picture of the sculpture and further discussion of this dispute at the One-Way Street. 

**  Click here to read the blog's post about that article.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Autotech Techs. Ltd. Partnership v. Automationdirect.com, Inc., No. 05 C 5488 2008 WL 783301 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2008) (Cole, Mag. J.).*

Judge Cole granted in part defendant Automationdirect.com's ("ADC") motion to compel additional records from plaintiff Autotech's database. The parties agreed that an ADC expert would be allowed to develop queries which Autotech would run on its database. After a dispute regarding how to produce the results of the search, the Court ordered production of the documents, which related to records of, among other things, customer confusion. Upon review of the records, ADC demanded that Autotech supplement them with information such as the date of the communication and the identity of the Autotech employees involved. Autotech eventually supplemented the documents with an index identifying, among other things, the identity of the Autotech employee involved in each communication, but not the dates of the communications. ADC moved to compel the production of all fields in Autotech's database for each entry identified by ADC's query. But Autotech countered that it had produced all fields generated by ADC's expert's query. Had the query generated all available fields, they, presumably, would have been produced them all. Because Autotech produced the information generated by ADC's search and supplemented that production with an index, sanctions were not warranted. But the Court did order production, at ADC's expense, of the dates of each communication. The Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer to determine how to produce the dates in a useful format.

*Click here for more of this case in the Blog's archives.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 07 C 3371, 2008 WL 818346 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2008) (Manning, J.).

Judge Manning granted in part the defendants' Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss plaintiffs' RICO, Lanham Act and related state law claims. Plaintiffs alleged that the "parking defendants" – entities that allegedly register common misspellings of domain names – worked together and conspired with defendant Google to populate the misspelled domains with revenue-generating advertising related to the actual web sites' business.*

Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA")

The Court denied the Parking Defendants motion to dismiss plaintiffs' ACPA claims. While plaintiffs did not allege that the Parking Defendants were the registrants of the domains at issue, they did allege that the Parking Defendants registered, owned, and controlled the sites. Furthermore, the Court would not rule on the factual issue of whether the domains – for example, vulcangolf.com and vulcanogolf.com – were confusingly similar to plaintiffs' marks.

The Court denied Google's motion to dismiss because while Google did not register or own the domains at issue, it was sufficient that they allegedly "trafficked" in them by working in concert with the other defendants.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Since writing my May Carnival of Trust post (click here for the post), several others have commented on Web Strategy by Jeremiah's post suggesting that people do not trust bloggers.  Of course, the real point of the studies Owyang cites is that people do not trust an unspecified blogger as much as their family or other unspecified news sources.  As I said before, that should be an expected result and it shows good judgment.  But it is easy to get caught up in the survey and miss the fact that people trust "their" bloggers -- those that they have entered a conversation with, read regularly and, therefore, have developed a trust with.  Several others have picked up on Owyang's post and the surveys, with similar comments.  I am posting them in an Addendum to avoid breaking the Carnival of Trust ten post rule (although I will update that post with a link to this one).  Here are some of the commentaries:

• Kevin O'Keefe at LexBlog and Real Lawyers Have Blogs says that he must be trusted, there is no explanation for his site traffic and speaking engagements except trust -- click here for Kevin's post:

People put their butts on the line at least once a month asking me to speak in front of large groups. Just received invites to speak at the Texas Bar Annual Conference and to keynote at a Wisconsin Bar Association Conference. I don't know any of the people who invite me. They're reading my blog. If they didn't trust what I was writing, would I get an invite?

Law firms, from solo's to the largest in the country, call me for advise on blogging. The same firms subscribe to LexBlog's blog service. No other way those folks know me than my blogging.

And for the record, Kevin is wrong, he is pretty funny.  But he is correct in that the legal community would not keep reading his blog for the humor alone, it is for his insights coupled with his delivery.

• Kevin also cited Bill Ives at the Fast Foward Blog who had similar comments, arguing that blogs (as opposed to MSM sources) require more work on the part of readers to determine whether they should trust the blogger and on the part of the blogger to cultivate and earn that trust -- click here for the post:

Blogs are conversations and they do put more responsibility on the reader to judge the material than say, the New York Times, with its army of fact checkers. But even the NYT gets it wrong some times and everyone has some type of bias. Blogs are also a medium. The NYT also has many of them. Do you trust a magazine article more than television? In each case, the answer would be it depends on the person. This is not say that communication channels do not have their own properties. Naturally, seeing someone on TV gives you more information than a magazine article. Blogs are usually the voice of a single person or a group of individuals and not an editorial board. However, a blogger has to build the trust of his or her audience by being consistent and transparent as the first commenter wrote above.

• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

Welcome to the May 2008 Carnival of Trust.  For regular Blog readers, this will be a slight departure from the case analysis format you have come to expect.  But I promise you the trust-related links will still be valuable reading for IP litigators and IP litigants.  And in the spirit of the Carnival, I will now proceed to build your trust in me by following through on that promise.

The Carnival of Trust is a monthly, traveling review of ten of the last month's best posts related to various aspects of trust in the business world.  It is much like the weekly Blawg Reviews that I post links to and have hosted, but those generally contain far more than ten links.  My job this month was to pick those ten posts for you and provide an introduction to each post that makes you want to click through and read more. 

Do you trust me?  Jeremiah Owyang at Web Strategy by Jeremiah says you do not , unless you are related to me.  But the real point of Owyang's post and the studies he cites is that people do not trust an unspecified blogger as much as their family or other unspecified news sources.  That is not surprising and even shows good judgment.  As Anne Reed at the Deliberations blog points out, choosing blogs is about developing trust.  You find a few that you like and trust, trust developed by entering that blogger's conversation and developing confidence in that person's posts, and based on your trust in those blogs, you begin to find other quality blogs:

I learned the territory one or two blogs at a time, first coming to like and trust a few blogs (and bloggers) and then following their links and blogrolls to others. 

• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (4)