James F. Holderman

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.

procedurepropertytorts & liability

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

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.

business & regulatoryprocedure

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.

free speechcivil rightslabor & employment

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.

business & regulatory

In this case, McDavid Knee Guard and Stirling Moulding Limited sued Nike USA, Inc., alleging that Nike's importation and sale of its ProCombat padded sportswear line infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,743,325, which covers a method for manufacturing flexible protective padding material. McDavid moved for a preliminary injunction to halt Nike's activities under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). The court denied the motion after construing the patent claims and reviewing evidence of two manufacturing methods used by a Taiwanese supplier, finding that McDavid had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because the processes did not infringe the asserted claims. The court also determined that McDavid failed to demonstrate irreparable harm, such as loss of market share or other injuries that could not be remedied by monetary damages.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs suing defendants for defamation over negative statements posted on websites, resulting in a default judgment and injunction requiring the defendants to remove the posts. Unable to enforce the injunction directly, the plaintiffs sought to compel the operator of one website, Xcentric Ventures, to remove the defamatory content. The court denied the motion, holding that under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, the website operator was not acting in concert with or legally identified with the defendants, so it was not bound by the injunction. There was no evidence that the operator was aiding the defendants in violating the order or that their terms of service indicated an intent to protect defamers.

proceduretorts & liability

The case involved a white male teacher and coach over age 40 with a disability who sued his school district and principal, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII, Section 1981, and Section 1983; age discrimination under the ADEA; disability discrimination under the ADA; and a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment after the district rescinded his assistant girls basketball coaching position. The plaintiff claimed the rescission was based on unfounded hearsay about racially insensitive remarks, without a hearing or explanation, and that it stigmatized him in his profession. The court granted the motion to dismiss the Title VII claim against the principal individually and all claims against him in his official capacity, but denied dismissal of the remaining claims against the district and the principal individually, finding the allegations sufficient to state claims for discrimination and deprivation of protected liberty and property interests in continued employment as a coach.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Karen Robinson suing McNeil Consumer Healthcare and its parent Johnson & Johnson for negligence in the design of and warnings on Children's Motrin after she developed toxic epidermal necrolysis, a severe reaction causing extensive injuries, following her use of the product for headaches. After a jury trial, the jury found McNeil negligent but also determined that Robinson was contributorily negligent in failing to heed warnings and continuing to take the medication despite developing symptoms. Applying Virginia law, under which contributory negligence is a complete bar to recovery, the court denied Robinson's post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law, to amend the judgment, and for a new trial, finding sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict on both negligence and contributory negligence.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

In this patent infringement case, Se-Kure Controls sued Sennco Solutions and Christopher Marszalek for allegedly infringing three patents covering components of an anti-theft system. After a separate lawsuit resulted in a ruling that one of the patents ('590 Patent) was invalid as obvious, Se-Kure moved to stay the entire proceeding pending its appeal of that invalidity determination. The court granted the motion in part, staying only the claims involving the '590 Patent while directing the litigation to proceed on the remaining two patents, reasoning that a full stay would unduly delay resolution of unrelated issues and that partial proceedings would minimize burden without significant prejudice.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

This case involves a supplemental proceeding in which One CW, LLC sought to enforce a $359,279 judgment against Cartridge World Midwest, LLC by collecting funds from Midwest's Signature Bank account and a portion of its future royalty payments from Cartridge World North America. Signature Bank claimed a prior perfected security interest in Midwest's assets based on a December 2008 UCC filing, while Midwest asserted certain statutory protections. The court held that One CW could recover the approximately $81,573 in the bank account as of the March 2009 citation date and 15% of the royalty payments received after the citation, because Signature Bank had not exercised its default rights under the security agreement and thus could not assert priority over the judgment lien; the bank was also held conditionally liable for any post-citation withdrawals it permitted. The court applied Illinois citation procedures under 735 ILCS 5/2-1402 to determine lien priority and enforcement.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryproperty

In this case, Laura Baxter filed a § 2255 motion to vacate her two-year federal prison sentence for obstructing the administration of tax laws under 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), after pleading guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that referenced a tax loss between $550,000 and $950,000. Baxter claimed her defense attorneys provided ineffective assistance by failing to retain tax experts who could challenge the government's $576,000 tax-loss figure used in her presentence report and sentencing guidelines calculation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the court granted the motion, vacated the sentence, and scheduled resentencing, concluding that the attorneys had not adequately investigated the tax-loss amount, a non-government expert would have shown the figure was erroneous for Baxter's conduct, and a lower amount would have altered her guidelines range. The original sentence had been affirmed on direct appeal.

criminal lawtaxesprocedure

The case involved a government motion under 18 U.S.C. § 2517 seeking court authorization to disclose to the Senate Ethics Committee a single recorded telephone call intercepted during a federal corruption investigation of then-Governor Rod Blagojevich; the call occurred between Roland Burris and Robert Blagojevich and concerned the appointment to the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. The district court granted the motion, permitting the government to provide the recording and transcript to the Committee members for use in their inquiry into the circumstances of Burris's appointment and seating. The court reasoned that Senate Ethics Committee members qualify as “investigative officers” under 18 U.S.C. § 2510(7) because Senate Resolution 338 and the Constitution authorize them to investigate alleged misconduct by senators, including potential violations of the federal criminal laws enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2516, and because their function is analogous to that of other congressional committees previously permitted to receive such disclosures. The interceptees consented to the release, and the government took no position on the merits of any ethics allegations.

criminal lawfederal powerprocedure

This case involved the U.S. government's ex parte application for a court order to obtain prospective, real-time cell site location information from a target cell phone to assist in an ongoing criminal investigation. The application provided specific facts showing the information's relevance but did not establish probable cause. The court denied the request, holding that the combined authority of the Pen Register Statute and the Stored Communications Act requires a showing of probable cause before authorizing disclosure of such real-time signaling data that can track a phone's general location. The opinion noted that cell phones continuously emit location-related signaling information and that the majority of courts addressing similar applications have reached the same conclusion.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

In this ERISA case, plaintiff Kimberly Walsh sued to recover long-term disability benefits she claimed were wrongfully terminated after her employer-sponsored plan initially approved them following multiple back surgeries and ongoing pain treatment. The plan defined disability for the first 24 months as inability to perform the material duties of one's regular occupation and thereafter as inability to perform any gainful occupation for which the participant was reasonably fitted. After cross-motions for summary judgment, the court denied Walsh's motion and granted the defendants' motion, holding that the plan administrator's decision to terminate benefits was not arbitrary and capricious because the medical evidence supported a finding that Walsh could perform other gainful work. The court further found that the claims procedures complied with ERISA requirements for a full and fair review, including independent medical consultations and proper notice of the denial reasons and plan provisions.

labor & employmenthealthcareprocedure

The case concerned the U.S. government's motion to disclose four redacted recordings of court-authorized wiretap communications from its corruption investigation of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich to the Illinois House Special Investigative Committee for use in impeachment proceedings. The court granted the motion under 18 U.S.C. § 2517. It reasoned that the interceptees had been given adequate notice and opportunity to file suppression motions but did not do so, their statutory and constitutional rights for any future criminal case remained fully preserved, and the government had complied with applicable legal requirements in conducting the surveillance.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Edward Bakal's lawsuit against Paul Revere Life Insurance Company alleging breach of contract under an occupational disability policy, along with a request for declaratory judgment on his rights under the policy and statutory damages under the Illinois Insurance Code. Bakal claimed he became totally disabled due to hearing issues while working as a commodities trader and that Paul Revere wrongfully denied benefits. The court denied summary judgment on the breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding Bakal's compliance with policy notice and proof-of-loss requirements and whether he satisfied the policy's definition of total disability. The court granted summary judgment to Paul Revere on the Section 155 claim, finding no evidence that the insurer acted unreasonably or in bad faith. The rulings applied Illinois insurance contract interpretation rules and federal summary judgment standards under Rule 56.

business & regulatory

The case involved plaintiff Kathleen Ryl-Kuchar, a dietary consultant employed by defendant Care Centers, Inc., who alleged that the company violated the Family and Medical Leave Act by retroactively cancelling her group health insurance after she took leave related to her pregnancy with triplets and the birth of her children in 2003. A jury found in the plaintiff's favor and awarded $31,621.08 in damages. The court denied the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding sufficient evidence that Ryl-Kuchar remained a full-time salaried employee entitled to FMLA protections and that Care Centers had not properly documented any change in her status or acted reasonably in handling the leave and insurance cancellation. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment, awarding additional prejudgment interest and liquidated damages for a total of $85,453.34.

labor & employmentfamily law

This case is a class action lawsuit under the federal WARN Act brought by former employees of Meridian Rail Corp. after the company closed its Chicago Heights plant without providing the required 60 days' notice. The Seventh Circuit had previously ruled that Meridian violated the Act by terminating employees on December 31, 2003, before the plant sale closed on January 8, 2004, and remanded the case for determination of remedies. After a bench trial, the district court decided that 32 disputed individuals who were briefly retained or immediately rehired must be included in the class for damages purposes and declined to reduce the damages award under 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(4). The court's reasoning was based on the appellate court's factual findings about the timing of the terminations and sale, along with evidence that Meridian was aware of its notice obligations but attempted to avoid them through the asset purchase agreement.

labor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure