News & Updates From Docket Navigator

Prior Settlements with a Dozen State Attorneys General and Testimony of 30 Customers Do Not Conclusively Establish Actual Confusion

The court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment that defendant falsely designated the origin of its competing home security contracts because fact issues existed as to actual customer confusion. "⁠[Plaintiff] ADT argues that [defendant's] sales agents infringed on its trademark in the word 'ADT' by misrepresenting to ADT customers that [defendant] is affiliated with ADT. . . . ADT claims that '⁠[defendant] has entered into Assurances of Voluntary Compliance with attorneys general in over a dozen states to resolve their states' complaints about [defendant's] persistent use of false statements of affiliation with consumers' existing alarm providers.' . . . The [...]

2017-11-22T13:21:03+00:00 November 22nd, 2017|Docket Report, Trademark|

​In re Processed Egg Products Class Counsel Awarded 33% of Settlement Fund

The court granted class counsel's motion for attorney fees in connection with a settlement agreement and awarded $24,750,000. "The requested attorneys' fee represents 33% of the aggregate . . . settlement agreement and the lodestar in the present case is 0.90. . . . The Court finds notice to the class to be adequate; no class members have objected to these fees. . . . The Court finds that the requested attorney fees, representing 33% . . . and a .90 lodestar, to be fair and reasonable, and that such fees are akin to fees authorized in other similar cases [...]

2017-11-22T13:07:04+00:00 November 22nd, 2017|Antitrust, Docket Report|

​In re Processed Egg Products DPPs Settle for $75 Million

The court granted final approval over a class action settlement in the amount of $75 million because the settlement was substantively and procedurally fair. "Given that this settlement is structured to provide both monetary and nonmonetary consideration, it is difficult to determine accurately the actual total value of the proposed settlement, but it is certainly above the $75 million payment. The Court determines that the $75 million monetary relief in conjunction with the additional, valuable consideration of [the settling defendant's] agreement to cooperate with the plaintiffs at trial is reasonable both in light of the best possible recovery against [the [...]

2017-11-22T13:07:03+00:00 November 22nd, 2017|Antitrust, Docket Report|

Joint and Several Liability Under Copyright Act Precludes Anti-SLAPP Attorney Fee Recovery​

The court denied an attorney defendant's motion for attorney fees under an Anti-SLAPP fee-shifting statute because the attorney defendant did not have potential individual liability for infringement. "⁠[An attorney defendant] must show that he would have potential personal liability separate from [a law firm defendant's]. . . . [The attorney defendant] and [the law firm defendant's] potential liability was joint and several—not individual. 17 U.S.C. § 505(a) provides for recovery for copyright infringement by either: (i) actual damages and profits or (ii) statutory damages. . . . [The attorney defendant] is a partner with [the law firm defendant] and would [...]

2017-11-22T12:54:03+00:00 November 22nd, 2017|Copyright, Docket Report|

In re Micron Forecloses Waiver and Forfeiture of Venue Challenge Arguments

The magistrate judge recommended granting defendant's motion to transfer for improper venue and rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant waived its venue defense. "The Federal Circuit's decision in [In re Micron Technology, Inc., (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017)] establishes that [defendant] did not waive its venue defense under Rule 12(h)(l) and Rule 12(g)(2) because the Supreme Court's decision in [TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017)] represents an intervening change in the law. . . . Application of the forfeiture test set forth in In re Micron pursuant to Rule 1 and the Supreme [...]

2017-11-22T12:38:04+00:00 November 22nd, 2017|Docket Report, Patent|

Removal of and Damage to 9/11 Memorial Sculpture Not Actionable Under VARA​

The court granted defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's VARA violation claim based on an alleged removal of a sculpture because plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead defendant's gross negligence. "The Complaint alleges that removing [the sculpture in question] from the churchyard constitutes an actionable distortion, mutilation and modification under §§ 106A(a)(2)–(3) because [the sculpture] is a site-specific work of art. . . . The Complaint alleges--in conclusory fashion--gross negligence and damage to the 'physical and aesthetic integrity' of the artwork. The Complaint fails to plead facts showing reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s rights. The Complaint describes Defendant’s offer to return the sculpture [...]

2017-11-21T15:53:04+00:00 November 21st, 2017|Copyright, Docket Report|

Leftover Settlement Funds Allocated to Sub-De Minimis Class Members Previously Excluded From Distribution

The court granted the indirect class plaintiffs' motion for a supplemental allocation of settlement proceeds and authorized a disposition to claimants previously beneath the de minimis threshold. "After an extensive claim collection and payment program conducted by [the claims administrator], $4,130,467.30 remain in the Consumer Settlement Fund . . . . This balance results from uncashed checks distributed to members of the Consumer Subclass, which checks have been state-dated since at least July 9, 2015. All Consumer Subclass members who have failed to process their check, and collect their pro rata share of the settlement proceeds, are hereby deemed to [...]

2017-11-21T15:48:04+00:00 November 21st, 2017|Antitrust, Docket Report|

Plaintiff’s Coercive Pre-Litigation Tactics and Lack of Reasonable Basis for Asserting Personal Jurisdiction Justify Award of Attorney Fees

Following dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction, the court granted defendant's motion for attorney fees, because plaintiff did not have an objectively reasonable basis for asserting jurisdiction and plaintiff’s pre-litigation tactics suggested an abuse of process. "⁠[T]he absence of factual or legal support for plaintiff’s theories, coupled with plaintiff’s distinctly coercive pre-litigation tactics, raises an inference that plaintiff filed suit in this forum . . . because it saw defendant as easy prey, susceptible to quick settlement if threatened with litigation. . . . ⁠[P]laintiff sent defendant a cease and desist letter . . . with no geographical restriction . [...]

2017-11-21T13:44:04+00:00 November 21st, 2017|Docket Report, Trademark|

Patents for Generating Screen Displays for Interactive Applications Not Invalid Under 35 U.S.C. § 101

The court denied defendant's renewed motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that plaintiff’s patents for generating screen displays for interactive applications encompassed unpatentable subject matter because the asserted claims were not directed toward an abstract idea. "The claims of the [patents] are directed to a specific computer functionality improvement -- improving the capabilities of networks hosts and computer networks -- and are patent-eligible under step 1. . . . This method allows the computer to function more quickly by speeding the data storage process and reducing memory requirements, allowing the computer to serve more users. . . [...]

2017-11-21T13:27:04+00:00 November 21st, 2017|Docket Report, Patent|

Fact Issues Concerning Employment Status and Ownership Preclude Summary Judgment of Noninfringement

The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment that they did not infringe plaintiff's copyright in a film documentary because a dispute of fact remained regarding whether a defendant was plaintiff's employee. "⁠[An individual defendant] did not receive tax forms or benefits from Plaintiff, but she had worked for Plaintiff for several years, and she held herself out in emails and documents as Plaintiff’s assistant or as associated with his production company. The Court therefore cannot determine on summary judgment whether [an individual defendant's] contributions were done as a work made for hire. [A company defendant's] copyright registration for [the [...]

2017-11-20T15:13:03+00:00 November 20th, 2017|Copyright, Docket Report|