• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
Active Filters1
679 results

Broom Designs LLC v. Zoro Tools, Inc. et al

Docket 1:22-cv-03846, Illinois Northern District Court (July 25, 2022)
Honorable Virginia M. Kendall, presiding
Patent
DivisionChicago
FlagsAO279, CUMMINGS, PATENT PROGRAM
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff Broom Designs LLC
Defendant Zoro Tools, Inc.
Defendant Newell Brands, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Broom Designs LLC v. W.W. Grainger, Inc. et al

Docket 1:22-cv-03844, Illinois Northern District Court (July 25, 2022)
Honorable John F. Kness, presiding
Patent
DivisionChicago
FlagsAO279, CUMMINGS
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff Broom Designs LLC
Defendant W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Defendant Newell Brands, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Butech, Inc. v. Braner USA, Inc.

Docket 1:22-cv-02175, Illinois Northern District Court (Apr. 26, 2022)
Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, presiding
Patent
DivisionChicago
FlagsAO279, KIM, PATENT PROGRAM, TERMED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent6269539; 6270210; 7901271, 6269539, 6270210, 7901271
Plaintiff Butech, Inc.
Defendant Braner USA, Inc.
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Fitness Anywhere LLC v. Ultimate Body Press, Inc. et al

Docket 1:19-cv-06290, Illinois Northern District Court (Sept. 20, 2019)
Honorable Gary _Feinerman, presiding
Patent
DivisionChicago
FlagsAO279, KIM, PATENT PROGRAM, TERMED
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff Fitness Anywhere LLC
Defendant Ultimate Body Press, Inc.
Defendant Frank Balentine
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

The Topps Company, Inc. v. Koko's Confectionery & Novelty, Inc.

Docket 1:16-cv-05954, New York Southern District Court (July 26, 2016)
Judge George B. Daniels, presiding, Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox
Patent
DivisionFoley Square
FlagsCLOSED, APPEAL, CASREF, ECF
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Plaintiff The Topps Company, Inc.
Defendant Koko's Confectionery & Novelty, Inc.
Defendant Koko's Confectionery & Novelty
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

USA Satellite & Cable, Inc. v. Casco Bay Holdings, LLC

Docket 1:15-cv-06331, Illinois Northern District Court (July 20, 2015)
Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly, presiding
Property Damage - Other
DivisionChicago
FlagsREOPEN, TERMED, WEISMAN
Demand$150,000
Cause28:1441 Petition for Removal- Property Damage
Case Type380 Property Damage - Other
Tags380 Property Damage, Other, 380 Property Damage, Other
Plaintiff USA Satellite & Cable, Inc.
Defendant Casco Bay Holdings, LLC
Defendant W James Mac Naughton
...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

Specialty Earth Sciences, LLC v. Carus Corporation

Docket 1:15-cv-06133, Illinois Northern District Court (July 13, 2015)
Honorable Andrea R. Wood, presiding
Contract - Other
12/09/2021
... 40, 41 (1918). Or as the late Judge Will sagely noted, the "best case can be lost and the worst case can be won none of these risks should be underestimated." Matter of Superior B...
cite Cite Docket
Analyze

No. 293 MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 10/14/2021

Document Specialty Earth Sciences, LLC v. Carus Corporation, 1:15-cv-06133, No. 293 (N.D.Ill. Oct. 14, 2021)
(DRPSF ¶ 31; PRDSF ¶ 22.) After three years, either party had the right to convert Carus’s license into a nonexclusive license; prior to that time, the exclusive license could only be terminated for cause.
) On December 5, 2012, SES notified Carus that it was exercising its right to convert Carus’s exclusive license in SES’s technology into a nonexclusive license.
Therefore, Carus asserts that none of the SR Products can be considered a Licensed Product because they use only partial encapsulation technology.
) Notably, following SES’s conversion of Carus’s license from exclusive to nonexclusive, Carus only made a few more royalty payments before they ceased altogether.
... the circumstances of the formation of the License Agreement and the parties’ course of performance as a whole, the Court concludes that the parties understood the SR Products to be Licensed Products despite the fact that none ...
Nonetheless, “‘best efforts’ agreements are not per se unenforceable under Illinois law.” Maurice Sporting Goods, Inc. v. BB Holdings, Inc., No. 15-cv-11652, 2016 WL 4439948, at *4 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 23, 2016).
In Roboserve, it recognized that a clause requiring a hotel corporation to use “reasonable endeavors” to promote the plaintiff’s minibars was “somewhat vague” but nonetheless found that it still had meaning and was enforceable.
Nonetheless, since Illinois has not abandoned the new business rule, the Seventh Circuit has continued to apply it in cases governed by Illinois law.
cite Cite Document
Analyze
+ More Snippets
1 2 3 4 5 ... >>