In Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. Lynch, a distributor of pay-per-view sporting events sued a Chicago bar and its owner for broadcasting the Ultimate Fighting Championship event without authorization. The complaint asserted claims under federal statutes prohibiting unauthorized interception of satellite communications (47 U.S.C. § 605) and cable communications (47 U.S.C. § 553), along with a state-law conversion claim. The court denied the motion to dismiss the federal counts, reasoning that the statutes are mutually exclusive but the complaint could reasonably be read as pleading them in the alternative given the plaintiff's lack of knowledge about the transmission method. The court granted dismissal of the conversion count, concluding that Illinois law does not permit recovery for conversion of intangible property such as broadcast rights.
This case involves cross-claims of patent infringement between Fujitsu Limited and Tellabs Operations, Inc. concerning multiple U.S. patents related to optical communication technology, including the '418, '163, '737, '681, '772, and '006 Patents. After consolidating actions from Texas and Illinois and holding a Markman hearing, the court ruled on summary judgment motions regarding indefiniteness and judicial correction while construing nineteen disputed claim terms. It denied Tellabs's motion for invalidity based on indefiniteness of the '418 Patent and granted Fujitsu's request to correct 'And' to 'A' in one claim, but granted Tellabs's motion finding the '006 Patent invalid for indefiniteness. The constructions applied the ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art, guided primarily by the intrinsic evidence of the claims, specifications, and prosecution histories.
The case involved plaintiff CustomGuide suing defendant CareerBuilder for breach of a licensing agreement and related claims after CareerBuilder allegedly sold CustomGuide's online training products to businesses despite contractual limits to consumer sales, continued accessing and distributing the materials after the agreement ended, and rebranded them as its own. CareerBuilder moved to dismiss all twelve counts, which included breach of contract, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, various state deceptive trade practices and fraud claims, misappropriation, conversion, trespass, and others. The court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing several claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim, dismissing others with prejudice as duplicative or barred, and allowing the common law fraud claim to proceed because it was sufficiently distinct from the contract claim. The core reasoning applied federal pleading standards and evaluated each count's legal sufficiency based on the alleged facts viewed in the plaintiff's favor.
This case involves consolidated patent infringement actions between Fujitsu Limited and Tellabs entities concerning multiple U.S. patents on optical networking technology, including the '006 Patent for a control system in ring-type SONET networks that handles signal failures via path switching. Tellabs moved for summary judgment of invalidity on the '006 Patent based on indefiniteness of its means-plus-function claims. The court granted the motion, ruling that all claims of the '006 Patent are invalid. The reasoning centered on the specification's failure to disclose any corresponding structure for the claimed "controlling means," such as UNEQ signal detecting sections, making the claims indefinite under patent law. Other claim construction and summary judgment issues regarding the remaining patents were addressed separately or left pending.
In McDonough v. City of Chicago, a City of Chicago Water Department plumber sued the City and several supervisors and officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that they retaliated against him for complaints about on-the-job drinking, politically influenced promotions and overtime assignments, and fraudulent "hired trucks" practices, in violation of his First Amendment and equal-protection rights; he also claimed a conspiracy, violation of the Shakman consent decree, and retaliation under the Illinois False Claims Act. The district court addressed three motions for summary judgment. It granted the City Defendants' and Tierney's motions in full and Briatta's motion in part, dismissing the federal constitutional claims, the conspiracy count, and the Shakman claim while leaving limited state-law issues unresolved. The court reasoned that many alleged adverse actions fell outside the statute of limitations, that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence showing that his speech was a substantial or motivating factor in any timely adverse actions, and that no genuine issues of material fact existed on the remaining elements of the claims.
This case involved JPMorgan Chase Bank suing PT Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper Corporation, PT Pabrick Kertas Tjiwi Kimia, and Asia Pulp and Paper Company for breaching promissory notes and guarantees related to the purchase of paper-making machines. The court granted summary judgment in favor of JPMorgan, finding the defendants liable for breach of contract and the guarantees. It awarded damages totaling over $53 million, including principal, interest, and attorneys' fees, based on the undisputed facts that payments ceased after 2000 and the guarantees were unconditional. The reasoning relied on the assignment of the notes to JPMorgan and the defendants' failure to make required payments.