Anova filed suit against RJ Brands, a New Jersey company, accusing RJ of infringing on Anova’s “PRECISION” trademark and trade dress relating to Anova’s Sous Vide Precision Cooker, a constant temperature immersion circulator. This is the second lawsuit relating to the trademark and trade dress for the product brought in this district in the last six months. Anova asserts personal jurisdiction via RJ’s website, Chefman.com, which is available in Massachusetts, as well as stream of commerce theories based on the accused Chefman Precision Cooker being sold via on-line retailers such as Amazon.com, Bestbuy.com, Target.com, and Walmart.com. Anova seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, punitive damages, and attorney’s fees.
In a case that has some potentially interesting legal questions, Hallmark sued waste management and recycling company Northstar and co-defendant Square Peg Logistics, LLC, for trademark infringement and dilution for the unauthorized sale of actual Hallmark products. Hallmark owns uncontestable registrations for the HALLMARK mark and the HALLMARK mark & crown design mark. In 2012, Hallmark entered into an Enterprise Agreement with Northstar by which Northstar would pick up for destruction by recycling Hallmark products that were deemed unfit for sale. When Hallmark decided to close its Enfield, Connecticut distribution center, it had Northstar pick up millions of cards and other goods bearing the HALLMARK marks for recycling. Hallmark alleges that, instead of destructively recycling the products as required, Northstar secretly sold 73 truckloads of HALLMARK-branded products to Square Peg, for a fraction of the fair market price, and that Square Peg subsequently sold about a third of the products to third-party distributors. Hallmark initially discovered the resale of these products by Dickens, Inc., of Long Island, NY. In litigation against Dickens, Hallmark discovered that the products had come from Square Peg, who, it subsequently sued. The parties entered into a consent decree in June 2017, enjoining Square Peg from further sales of Hallmark products pending the outcome of the Dickens litigation, and gave Hallmark the right to periodically inspect Square Peg’s warehouse. After a January inspection revealed further product movement, Hallmark filed the instant suit seeking immediate destruction of the remaining 50 or so truckloads of products in Square Peg’s possession. In addition to the Lanham Act charges, Hallmark asserts breach of contract against Northstar. Hallmark seeks destruction of the infringing products, as well as injunctive and monetary relief and attorney’s fees. The case is in the Springfield division, and is before Springfield native Judge Mastroianni.
Plaintiff Cutting Edge Systems sued Cutting Edge Tecsolutions for poaching on its reputation and good name by opening a competing business utilizing substantially the same name. Both companies sell and install audiovisual and automation systems in area businesses and homes. Cutting Edge Systems has been operating under the “Cutting Edge” name since 1992, and has a registration on the mark. Tecsolutions is alleged to have been incorporated in 2013, but to have actually begun operations substantially later than its formation. Cutting Edge Systems cites a number of instances of actual confusion, including receipt of bills for Tecsolutions’ purchases, and asserts that Tecsolutions has on at least one occasion deflected criticism of its work on Yelp by saying that the customer must have confused them with a different company. Tecsolutions has twice refused to cease using the “Cutting Edge” mark. Cutting Edge Systems brings counts for trademark infringement and unfair competition under federal, state and common law, and seeks disgorgement of Tecsolutions’ profits as well as injunctive relief and attorney’s fees. The case was assigned to Judge Saris.
Judge Stearns denied Telerik’s motion to amend its answer to add counterclaims of invalidity and unenforceability due to Telerik’s lack of diligence in seeking to add these claims. Telerik obtained key documents giving rise to the proposed claims six months before seeking to amend, and provided no explanation for the delay, thus failing to establish the diligence required to show good cause under Rule 16(b).
Judge Sorokin precluded Rolling Optics from offering testimony that certain asserted claims are invalid. Defendants did not offer expert opinion that the claims were anticipated by Rowland Technologies patents or products, but sought to elicit non-expert fact testimony from a Rowland representative. The Court determined that the technology at issue (described briefly here) was too complicated for a jury to understand without expert assistance, and precluded Rolling Optics from presenting any evidence, opinions or argument to the jury on the Rowland technology. This case is in its fourth day of trial, so I expect to see more from this courtroom.
Judge Saylor granted Defendants’ motion to partially strike SiOnyx’s Fourth Amended Initial Contentions. SiOnyx had sought to reintroduce a claim that had been initially asserted but voluntarily dropped because it was undergoing inter partes review. After the IPR decision upheld the claim, only two days before defendants’ expert was to be deposed and subsequent to opening and rebuttal expert briefs, SiOnyx served the amended contentions with the claim re-added. Judge Saylor noted that there was no good cause shown to permit reinsertion of the claim into the case, and that (to the extent SiOnyx believed it needed to wait on the PTAB’s decision, it was free to seek to stay or modify the schedule. Defendants were entitled to rely on SiOnyx’s decision to withdraw the claim.
The Crane/Rolling Optics case continues rolling towards trial, with Judge Sorokin excluding proposed testimony from Rolling Optics’ technical expert. The court construed claim terms in February 2016, and the parties briefed and argued summary judgment motions based on the Court’s constructions. Rolling Optics never sought reconsideration of the construction of a particular term, “shaped posts,” which had been construed to mean “shaped as pieces fixed in an upright position,” but argued at summary judgment that this construction precluded portions that were wider than they were tall. Judge Sorokin rejected this secondary construction and noted at the time that Rolling Optics had failed to contend that the Court’s actual construction required any further discovery. In February, Rolling Optics indicated it intended to secure a supplemental expert report to address the Court’s shaped post ruling at summary judgment, but failed to seek an extension of the expert discovery period, to make the expert available for deposition, to explain how such a supplemental disclosure might impact the trial date, or identify the portion of the expert’s initial report that required amendment. Judge Sorokin ruled on February 13 that no further expert discovery would be allowed, effectively rejecting the proposed supplemental disclosure. Rolling Optics nevertheless indicated at the final pretrial conference that it intended to elicit testimony from the supplemental disclosure, which Crane promptly opposed. In addition the reasons laid forth above, Judge Sorokin noted that the supplemental declaration’s stated understanding of the construction of “shaped posts” from the summary judgment order was “so plainly wrong as to render his entire Second Supplemental Declaration inadmissible as unreliable, irrelevant, and posing too great a risk of confusion,” and the proposed testimony was excluded.