Merz N. Am., Inc. v. Cytophyl, Inc. is the latest federal district court decision analyzing the meet and confer requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. As discovery issues continue to dominate the first 12 to 18 months of civil litigation (depending on the jurisdiction), litigators should review recent decisions, at least one of which denied a discovery motion for failure to adequately meet and confer. Under Rule 37(a)(1), a party moving to compel discovery must certify that it “has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make . . . discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Because neither the Rule nor the advisory notes accompanying it specify which methods of conferring are appropriate, individual courts have interpreted Rule 37’s meet and confer requirement through local rules and judicial decisions. For example, the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Texas require, “at a minimum, a personal conference, by telephone or in person, between an attorney for the movant and an attorney for the non-movant.” Further, while some courts have addressed the merits of a motion to compel despite a failure to adequately meet and confer, see,...
Author: Wendy R. Stein
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada recently issued an Order casting doubt on a litigant’s ability to obtain blanket discovery from an adversary’s prior patent litigation without a specific showing of relevance. Anyone opposing overbroad discovery requests seeking “all documents” from a prior patent litigation should read a series of decisions in the case captioned Racing Optics v. Aevoe Corporation (“Racing Optics”).
U.S. Copyright Office Seeks Public Comment and Holds Public Roundtables Concerning DMCA Safe Harbor Provisions
The United States Copyright Office recently published a notice in the Federal Register (“the Notice”) seeking public comment in connection with a study it is conducting to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor provisions contained in 17 U.S.C. § 512 (“Section 512”). Comments, due on Friday April 1, 2016, could pave the way for a Congressional amendment to the DMCA and in particular, to the safe harbors relied upon by service providers to avoid liability for copyright infringement by users.
A federal district court in the Northern District of California has recently given litigants in trademark counterfeiting cases guidance on where wrongful seizure claims under the ex parte provisions of the Lanham Act may be brought. The court ruled in United Tactical Systems, LLC v. Real Action Paintball, Inc. that wrongful seizure claims may be brought in any federal court, and not just the court that ordered the seizure. The case should be watched by accused infringers who have been the target of an ex parte seizure under the Lanham Act.
Illinois Court Refuses to Release Frozen Funds or Enlarge Bond Amount in Trademark Counterfeiting Case
A federal district court in the Northern District of Illinois has refused a request by certain defendants accused of trademark counterfeiting to release funds frozen in PayPal accounts and to increase the amount of a bond posted by the plaintiff in the case. The case highlights an uptick in challenges to financial asset restraints by defendants and nonparties in trademark counterfeiting cases and the discretion courts have in setting an appropriate bond to protect defendants in such cases.
Court Orders Nonparty Bank to Produce Documents Said to be Located Abroad in Trademark Counterfeiting Case
After more than five years of litigating access to documents requested in a subpoena directed to a nonparty foreign bank, the district court in Gucci Am. Inc. v. Weixing Li has ordered the bank to produce the documents, despite objections from the bank that production would violate Chinese law. The decision written by Judge Sullivan of the Southern District of New York, is an important decision for brand owners seeking to obtain financial documentation related to the sale of allegedly counterfeit goods.
New York Real Property Owners at Risk for Exposure to Joint and Several Liability in Connection with Trademark Counterfeiting Taking Place on Their Property
Brand owners are increasingly asserting claims against owners of real property where alleged trademark counterfeiting is taking place. Three recent actions filed in the Southern District of New York, styled Michael Kors, LLC v. Mulberry Street Properties Corp., et. al., 15-cv-5504 (S.D.N.Y.); Michael Kors, LLC v. Canal Venture, Inc. et. al., 15-cv-5788 (S.D.N.Y.); and Michael Kors, LLC v. Mid Center Equities Associates, et. al., 15-cv-5856 (S.D.N.Y.), raise the question of when property owners/lessors can be held jointly and severally liable for damages resulting from the sale of counterfeit goods on their properties.
District Courts Adopting Middle Ground in Fashioning Statutory Damages Awards in Trademark Counterfeiting Cases
Two recent opinions, one from the Northern District of Illinois and another from the Southern District of New York, offer guidance to those electing statutory damages in lieu of actual damages and profits in trademark counterfeiting cases. The takeaway for litigators is that courts appear to be taking a middle ground in statutory damages awards, awarding $1 million per mark/good combination instead of the $2 million statutory maximum.
A group of brand owners has filed another complaint against eleven Alibaba and Taobao entities for claims including direct and contributory trademark counterfeiting and violations of the RICO statute. At issue is when and to what extent a service provider can be held liable for alleged trademark counterfeiting taking place on an online platform.
A recent district court decision has held that patent eligibility arguments not raised in invalidity contentions served pursuant to local patent rules are waived. In Good Technology Corporation v. MobileIron, Inc., No. 5:12-cv-5826, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Defendant MobileIron, Inc.’s motion for judgment on the pleadings based on patent eligibility arguments that were not disclosed in either original or amended invalidity contentions.