55 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
© 2013 - 2017 Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn LTD. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions.
Not loads of lawyers, just really great ones.
Chicago Style Productions, Inc. v. Chicago Sun-Times, Inc., 313 Ill. App. 3d 45; 728 N.E.2d 1204 245 Ill. Dec. 847, 28 Media L. Rep. 1893, 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1059;; 28 Media L. Rep. 1893; 55 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1059 (1st Dist. 2000).The Firm successfully represented the Chicago Sun-Times in defeating a television production company’s claim that the newspaper misappropriated its concept for a television series. The appeal concerned the preemptive scope of the federal copyright laws in the context of alleged unfair trade practices and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint.
Imi-Tech Corp. v. Gagliani et al., 691 F.Supp. 214 (S.D. Cal. 1986).In this trade secrets and patent case, the Firm represented a start-up manufacturer of a new space-age technology known as polyimide foams. We obtained a preliminary injunction against a former employee and a sizable competitor that were attempting to go into competition with our client by misusing our client’s inventive work from disclosing our client’s trade secrets and infringing its patents.
Zenith Controls, Inc. v. Automatic Switch Co., 648 F. Supp. 1497 (N.D. Ill. 1986).In this case, the Firm’s client had been threatened with a patent infringement suit by a much larger competitor in the industry. The Firm filed a declaratory judgment action against the competitor seeking, among other things, to have its patent covering an arrangement of electrical switches used in industrial and commercial distribution systems to be invalid and unenforceable. The District Court granted our client’s motion for summary judgment that portions of the competitor’s patent invalid for obviousness.
Boden Products, Inc. v. Doric Foods Corp., 552 F.Supp. 493 (N.D. Ill. 1982).The Firm’s client, Doric Foods, owned the federally registered trademark for Florida Citrus Punch. The Firm successfully defended Doric in this lawsuit brought by a competitor alleging that the mark was generic and invalid.