Seattle Trademark Lawyer

As recently discussed, I’m a fan of the Stanford IP Litigation Clearinghouse. However, in working on my annual Western District Statistics post, I noticed a large discrepancy between the numbers that PACER indicates and the numbers the Clearinghouse counts. For example, the Clearinghouse states that 28 trademark cases were filed in the Western District last year. PACER puts the number at 51. The 2008 cases the Clearinghouse did not count were spread fairly evenly throughout the year, so it does not appear to be a matter of its database simply not being up-to-date. Most of the missing cases were both opened and closed in 2008, though not all fit that pattern. I can’t figure out why 23 cases show up in PACER but not the Clearinghouse, since I imagine PACER is the source of the Clearinghouse’s data. Perhaps someone from the Clearinghouse can shed some light. This is no knock against the Clearinghouse, which I view as an ambitious project that already provides a lot of value. (Among other things, it provides a docket sheet for all cases included in its database free of charge.) However, its database does not appear to be complete. Users should be aware of this apparent shortcoming. Hopefully, it will be corrected in the near future.

The Chicago IP Litigation Blog put me onto Stanford Law School’s new IP Litigation Clearinghouse. This is a neat site. While not completely built out, it lets users (registration required) quickly access IP case information, organized by type of case, forum, or law.

This eventually may put me out of business — or at least my annual “Western District Statistics” posts (which will be delayed this year, by the way, because of my out-of-state trial). Searching “trademark” cases in the Western District, for example, one can see there were 28 such suits filed last year, and that 21 remain active. You can click on a case and see its docket (though you can’t access the underlying filings). While this information clearly comes from PACER, and to date is patent-centric, Stanford organizes it well and — best of all — offers it up for free.

The IP Litigation Clearinghouse states it aims to be “a comprehensive online information source on IP litigation” and that it seeks to “enhance the quantity, quality, and art of IP analytics for the benefit of the public.”

It’s got a way to go, but this is an excellent start. I know I’ll soon return.

The Western District saw an uptick in trademark lawsuits in the first half of 2008.

From January 1 to June 30 of this year, plaintiffs filed 22 new lawsuits in the Western District that PACER recognized as being “trademark” suits. That’s up from 16 during the same period last year, though down from 30 in the first half of 2006.

Eighteen of the 22 cases were filed in Seattle. The rest were filed in Tacoma.

If I were inclined to see the glass as half empty, I’d bemoan my not blogging in David Donoghue’s neck of the woods. The Chicago IP Litigation Blog saw a whopping 68 new trademark cases filed in the first half of 2008 in the Northern District of Illinois. Not to mention the 126 new filings Ron Coleman and Marty Schwimmer got to choose from out of the Southern District of New York. As any blogger can attest, such a steady stream of new content possibilities is a fortunate thing indeed.

I suppose I should just be glad this blog isn’t called the “Spokane Trademark Lawyer.” Nothing against Spokane, but the Eastern District of Washington had no new trademark cases during the first half of this year. It had only one such case filed in the first half of 2007, and one in the first half of 2006.

On the other hand, with only a couple posts per year I’d have a lot more free time.

Last week, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts released its annual report on the “Judicial Business of the United States Courts.” There’s a lot of statistical information in there. Most is organized by judicial district, but some is broken down into both case area and judicial district. For instance, the report states 49 trademark cases were filed in the Western District in the year ending September 30, 2007. Sixty-three trademark cases were terminated in that time, and 29 were pending.

Those figures are a bit higher than my own analysis of Western District trademark cases (see here and here). My review of the federal courts’ PACER database in January showed that 28 trademark cases were filed in the Western District in the calendar year 2007, and 51 cases filed between 2005 and 2007 were closed. I did not count cases that remained pending in 2007.

The courts’ report shows the Western District dwarfs its sister district to the east when it comes to trademark activity. The Eastern District of Washington had only one trademark case filed, three terminated, and one pending in the year ending September 2007.

The Western District had 32 total trials during that time (17 jury, 15 nonjury). The median case that was disposed of in the year ending September 2007 lasted 8.1 months. The median case that was disposed of by trial lasted 19 months. (My analysis showed two trademark cases went to trial in the Western District in 2007.)

In all federal courts, 3,647 trademark cases were disposed of in the year ending September 2007. Thirty-three percent were terminated without any court action. Sixty-seven percent were terminated by court action. Fifty-five percent terminated before trial; 11% during or after pretrial; approximately 0.6% in a nonjury trial; and approximately 1% in a jury trial. As these figures indicate, less than 1.7% of all trademark filings were disposed of in a trial of any kind.

Thanks to the Trial Ad (and other) Notes for publicizing this report.

As discussed yesterday, the Western District of Washington disposed of fifty-one trademark cases in 2007. These consist of cases that PACER identified as being “trademark” matters that parties filed in 2005, 2006, and 2007, and that were listed as being closed in 2007. Here’s how they went down:

• 34 were voluntarily dismissed (presumably most often because the parties settled).
• 11 ended with a stipulated permanent injunction.
• 6 ended with a default judgment against at least one of the parties.
• 2 ended when the plaintiff accepted the defendant’s offer of judgment.
• 2 ended after trial.
• 1 was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction.

That puts us at fifty-five dispositions, four more than were filed. This is because cases with multiple defendants sometimes ended with more than one event (e.g., one defendant settled and was voluntarily dismissed, and the other defendant did not appear and lost by default judgment). I’d prefer a nice, neat number, but I guess it doesn’t work that way.

Judge Marsha Pechman was the busiest with motions for temporary restraining orders, granting one (Autodesk Inc. v. Open Design Alliance (post here)) and denying one (High-Rise Technology v. Amatuerindex.com). Judge Ricardo Martinez also denied one (Commscope Inc. of North America v. Electro Products Inc.).

Western District judges in 2007 were more likely to deny motions for preliminary injunction in trademark cases than grant them. Judges Thomas Zilly (Cascade Financial Corp. v. Issaquah Community Bank) (post here), Martinez (Rubber Stamp Management Inc. v. Kalmbach Publishing Co.), James Robart (CMSI Inc. v. Pacific Cycle Inc.), and Robert Lasnik (United Treasures Inc. v. Sarah’s Attic Inc.) each denied such motions. Judges Pechman (Varsity Gold Inc. v. Elite Fundraising LLC) and Franklin Burgess (Thermion Inc. v. Thermion Metalizing Systems Ltd.) granted one each in part and denied one in part. Judge Robart granted the only preliminary injunction outright (Jonathan Neil & Associates Inc. v. JNA Seattle Inc.) (post here). One plaintiff stipulated to a preliminary injunction (American Board of Anesthesiology Inc. v. Liao) (post here). 

The Western District didn’t dispose of a single case on summary judgment. (I didn’t count Judge Ronald Leighton’s recent grant of summary judgment for the defendants in Ormsby v. Barrett (post here) because the case remains active while defendants pursue their counterclaims.) However, Judge Martinez granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment in Rubber Stamp Management Inc. v. Kalmbach Publishing Co. (post here). Judges Zilly (Crane v. CTX Mortgage Co. LLC) and Robart (Lahoti v. Vericheck Inc.) (post here) each granted in part and denied in part summary judgment for the defendant. Judge Kelley Arnold denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Mother LLC v. LL Bean Inc. (post here).

Plaintiffs did not fare well on summary judgment: Judge Zilly denied plaintiff’s motion in Crane v. CTX Mortgage Co. LLC and Judge Robart denied plaintiff’s motion in Lahoti v. Vericheck Inc.

Of the two cases that went to trial, the plaintiff won one (Lahoti v. Vericheck Inc.) and lost one by directed verdict (Mother LLC v. LL Bean Inc.). No case went to the jury.

The biggest judgment appears to be the $900,000 the plaintiff obtained by consent judgment in Commscope Inc. of North Carolina v. Electro Products Inc. The other notable judgment was the plaintiff’s default victory to the tune of $610,579 in Dali-USA Inc. v. Domains by Proxy Inc. Most of the other judgments were in the neighborhood of $100,000 or less.

That’s enough statistics for me…. Here’s to an interesting and productive trademark docket in 2008!