Contempt is Proper Proceeding for Violation of Permanent Injunction

The Eastern District of Missouri found a patent defendant in contempt in Litecubes, LLC v. Northern Light Products, Inc., 2007 WL 892459 (E.D. Mo. 3/21/07).

 

On October 7, 2005, the jury returned a verdict for Litecubes on its patent infringement claim against Northern Light (d/b/a GlowProducts). The court accordingly entered a permanent injunction, but Northern Light started selling a similar product.

 

Litecubes moved for sanctions, providing an expert report that the new product infringed the patent and violated the permanent injunction. The court held that the proper proceeding was a contempt proceeding. Northern Light did not contest the expert report. The court held Northern Light in contempt of the injunction and imposed a fine of $5,000 per day while the infringing product is being sold.

Sanctions and Attorney Fees Denied in Arkansas Trademark Case

The Eastern District of Arkansas denied motions for sanctions and attorney fees in Mail Boxes Etc., Inc. v. PBC Services, Inc., 2007 WL 841664 (E.D. Ark. 3/15/07).

 

On February 7, 2006, Mail Boxes brought suit against the defendants for trademark infringement and breach of a noncompete agreement. The court granted a temporary restraining order, and the defendants had to cease business operations. The court also ordered the trial to be consolidated with the preliminary injunction proceedings to begin March 20, 2006.

 

The defendants were parties in a California lawsuit (Morgate) against Mail Boxes that had been ongoing for several years and involved hundreds of parties. The court agreed to let the defendants assert their Morgate claims as counterclaims in the Arkansas trademark case. Mail Boxes chose not to try Morgate in Arkansas, and it voluntarily dismissed the Arkansas claims.

 

The defendants promptly moved to execute on the bond. They also moved for attorney fees of just under $300,000 (for a case that lasted 38 days) and moved for sanctions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. After a lengthy recitation of the dispute, the court allowed the defendants to execute $19,990.51 against the bond, but denied the motions for attorney fees and sanctions.