Thursday, January 29, 2015

Miche Bag, LLC v. Sullivan Productions LLC

Case Name: Miche Bag, LLC v. Sullivan Productions LLC
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-10414-BAF-MKM
Date Filed: 2/1/2011
Judge: Hon. Bernard A. Friedman
Status: Closed

On February 1, 2011, Plaintiff Miche Bag, LLC filed suit against Defendant Sullivan Productions LLC. for patent infringement, trade dress infringement, and for a violation of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. The case involved design patents for handbags with interchangeable handbag covers specifically U.S. Patent Nos. D610,801; D611,705; and D613,062.

Plaintiff chiefly alleged Defendant’s products, notably the “Shelly Bag,” infringed on its patents and copied the unique and distinctive design features of Plaintiff’s trade dress. In its answer, Defendant denied infringement of Plaintiff’s patents, and also argued that Plaintiff did not possess any trade dress protection. On May 1, 2012, Judge Friedman granted the parties’ motion to stay the case to allow the both parties time to reach a settlement. On July 9, 2012, Judge Friedman signed a consent judgment filed by the parties and dismissed the case, granting Plaintiff a permanent injunction against Defendant’s selling or manufacturing of any handbags with interchangeable covers.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Reebok International Ltd.

Case Name: Warrior Sports, Inc. v. Reebok International Ltd.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-10274-PJD-VMM
Date Filed: 1/21/2011
Judge: Hon. Patrick J. Duggan
Status: Closed

On January 21, 2011, Plaintiff Warrior Sports, Inc. filed suit against Defendant Reebok International, Ltd, alleging that Defendant’s hockey glove, lacrosse glove, lacrosse head, and lacrosse shoulder pad products infringed on Plaintiff’s own patents for hockey gloves, lacrosse gloves, lacrosse stick heads, and lacrosse shoulder pads (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,122,769; 6,550,069; 6,813,780; 7,117,540; 7,318,241; RE38,216; 7,103,924 and 7,797,760).

The parties began to enter into settlement negotiations soon after Plaintiff filed the complaint. However, on August 25, 2011, Reebok answered the complaint, denying the allegations and asking for declaratory judgment of non-infringement. On October 12, 2011, Judge Duggan issued a scheduling order, setting discovery to end by April 15, 2012. On January 12, 2012, the parties agreed to voluntarily dismiss the case.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

NSK, Ltd. v. Iljin Global Co., Ltd. et al

Case Name: NSK, Ltd. v. Iljin Global Co., Ltd. et al
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-10147-SFC-MAR
Date Filed: 1/11/2011
Judge: Hon. Sean J. Cox
Status: Closed

On January 11, 2011, Plaintiff NSK, Ltd. filed suit against Defendants Injin Global Co., Ltd. and Injin USA Corporation. for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,280,096 and 6,422,758. Both patents covering rolling bearing units used in automobile suspensions. Ultimately, the case settled and on August 16, 2011 Plaintiff gave notice to voluntarily dismiss the suit.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Apotex Inc. v. Forest Laboratories, Inc.

Case Name: Apotex Inc. v. Forest Laboratories, Inc.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-10129AJT-MKM
Date Filed: 1/10/2011
Judge: Hon. Arthur J. Tarnow
Status: Closed

On January 10, 2011, Plaintiff Apotex Inc. filed suit against Defendants Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd., and H. Lundbeck A/S for declaratory judgment of non-infringement with respect to Defendants’ patents U.S. Patent Nos. 6,916,941 and 7,420,069 generally relating to the medication LEXAPRO, which treats anxiety and depression. Plaintiff brought the action in order to fulfill statutory requirements under the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA) to market a generic version of Defendants’ drug by showing their generic did not infringe on the Defendants’ patents. Plaintiff motioned for judgment on the issue on March 4, 2010. Defendants’ responded with a motion to dismiss alleging the Plaintiff failed to follow the proper procedures to bring suit under the MMA. However, before the Judge ruled on the two motions, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case on June 30, 2011.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. Holdup Suspender Co.

Case Name: Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. Holdup Suspender Co.
Docket Number: 2:11-cv-10067-PDB-MAR
Date Filed: 1/6/2011
Judge: Hon. Paul D. Borman
Status: Closed

On January 6, 2011, Plaintiff Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. filed suit against Defendant Holdup Suspender Co. for falsely advertising and marking suspender clips with an expired patent, U.S. Patent No. 4,901,408. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay the action pending federal legislation which would affect laws related to falsely marked products, however, before the court conducted a hearing on Defendant’s motions, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the case.

 

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Welcome to the Eastern District of Michigan Patent Docket Report!

Dickinson Wright PLLC is excited to launch the Eastern District of Michigan Patent Docket Report! This blog will provide you with a snapshot of intellectual property cases from the Eastern District of Michigan. Our attorneys have been gathering summaries and statuses of all the cases filed with the Eastern District of Michigan over the past several years. This is the first time all of these cases can be found in one place and categorized for easy viewing.

The Eastern District of Michigan Patent Docket Report will be updated on a weekly basis beginning with cases in 2010 and working our way up to the present. Our goal is to provide you with easy access to all of the intellectual property matters handled by the Eastern District of Michigan for your research and business needs.

The Dickinson Wright intellectual property team offers in-depth experience in all aspects of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, employment relationships and intellectual property litigation. Each of our patent lawyers has significant industry experience and technical degrees, and is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). To learn more about Dickinson Wright’s Intellectual Property practice, please click here.