IP Law Daily, WORTH NOTING—Other IP law developments, (Jul 2, 2015)

A periodic roundup of other items of interest to the Intellectual Property community:

PATENT—E.D. Wis.: A motion by defendants Rockwell Automation and Rockwell Automation Technologies for judgment on the pleadings on Auvesy GmbH and Co. KG’s claim for a declaratory judgment that it is a joint owner of at least an undivided interest in certain patents entitled “Change Management Methodologies for Industrial Automation and Information Systems,” U.S. Patent Nos. 8,065,666 and 8,584,096, that neither of the defendants owns the patents, and that no product made by Auvesy infringes or could infringe any claim of the patents, was denied. The defendants’ arguments that Auvesy’s claim for declaratory judgment sounded in contract and was barred by applicable state law, and that there was no case or controversy over Auvesy’s claim for non-infringement were without merit, the federal district court in Milwaukee has decided (Auvesy GmbH and Co. KG v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., June 30, 2015, Randa, R.).

TRADEMARK—M.D. Fla.: Plaintiff Carole Baskin was entitled to a default judgment that her registration and use of DocAntle.com complied with the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), the federal district court in Tampa has ruled (Baskin v. Antle, July 1, 2015, Merryday, S.). Baskin showed both that “Doc Antle” is not a protected mark and that she has no “bad faith intent to profit from the mark,” under the meaning of the ACPA.

TRADEMARK—S.D. Fla.: Lazy Lee Products was not entitled to an award of sanctions against Lazy Lee in connection with Lazy Lee’s successful actions in seeking to stop the defendant Lazy Lee Products’ infringement upon Lazy Lee’s registered LAZY LEE mark. Lazy Lee did not act unreasonably or vexatiously in failing to contact or check with the defendant before filing a motion for a temporary restraining order because, although the defendant had complied with Lazy Lee’s request to remove the LAZY LEE mark from its website, the defendant remained silent and did not communicate that compliance to Lazy Lee even though Lazy Lee had explicitly requested that the defendant “confirm in writing” its compliance with Lazy Lee’s letter, the federal district court in Miami has reasoned (Lazy Lee, LLC v. Lazy Lee Products LLC, July 1, 2015, Goodman, J.).

COPYRIGHT—N.D. Ill.: An attempt by Robert Bosch LLC and Bosch Brake Components LLC (collectively, “Bosch”), former customers of plaintiffs Nucap Industries Inc. and Nucap US. Inc. (collectively, “Nucap”) to stay Nucap’s copyright infringement and trade secrets misappropriation action pursuant to an arbitration provision incorporated into Bosch’s purchase orders was rejected, the federal district court in Chicago has held (Nucap Industries, Inc. v. Robert Bosch LLC, July 1, 2015, Gottschall, J.). Although Bosch’s Terms and Conditions incorporated “prints and specification” into the purchase orders, Nucap’s complaint involves a different subject matter altogether: Bosch’s alleged misappropriation of Nucap’s drawings and trade secrets in violation of the confidentiality agreements the parties executed. For this reason, Nucap’s claims fell outside the scope of the arbitration clause in Bosch’s Terms and Conditions.

TRADE SECRETS—W.D. Mich.: Stryker Corporation’s petition for fees and costs relating to its largely successful motion to compel discovery in its misappropriation of trade secrets action against Christopher Ridgeway was granted in part such that Stryker was granted $14,635 in fees of the $29,825 it requested, the federal district court in Grand Rapids, Michigan, has decided. Ridgeway’s failure to produce discovery caused Stryker’s counsel to expend time in making the motion to compel, but the questions presented in that motion were neither novel nor particularly difficult. Thus, Stryker’s request that the court disregard the local Grand Rapids, Michigan, market rates, and award the rates charge by Stryker’s Chicago counsel for non compete and trade secret cases they are handling around the nation was denied (Stryker Corporation v. Ridgeway, June 30, 2015, Green, P.).

PATENT NEWS:The USPTO issued a courtesy notification yesterday, advising that its Fee Schedule was updated for the following changes, effective July 1, 2015: PCT Fees to Foreign Offices

• 1714: International search (Rospatent)—fee increase from $450 to $525

• 1716: International search (JPO)—new fee of $577

News: Patent TradeSecrets Trademark Copyright IllinoisNews FloridaNews MichiganNews WisconsinNews USPTO