Aeration Industries Int'l v. Aeromix Systems, Inc.,
Civ. No. 3-89-752 (D. Minn.).
Plaintiff sued defendant for infringing a patent involving a process for treating waste water. After a bench trial, the district court held the patent unenforceable because of the patentee's inequitable conduct. The district court also held that the case was exceptional and awarded defendant its attorneys' fees.
Kinney & Lange represented Defendant Aeromix Systems, Inc.

CNS, Inc. v. Cambridge Associates, Inc.,
Civ. No. 4-96-690 (D. Minn.).
Plaintiff, maker of BREATHE RIGHT nasal strips sued the manufacturer of a nasal dilator sold under the trademark BREATHE FIT for trademark and trade dress infringement. The parties resolved this matter before trial.
Kinney & Lange represented Plaintiff CNS, Inc.

Dane Inds., Inc. v. Ameritek Inds. LLC,

Civ. No. 03-3488, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21035 (D. Minn. 2004).

Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging infringement of two patents relating to electric vehicles for pushing shopping cars.  Both parties filed summary judgment motions.  The district court granted summary judgment, holding that neither patent was infringed by the accused products.

Kinney & Lange represented Defendant Ameritek Indus. LLC

Dane Inds., Inc. v. Ameritek Inds. LLC,

Fed. No. 04-1142 (Fed. Cir.)

Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging infringement of two patents relating to electric vehicles for pushing shopping cars.  Plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary injunction.  The district court denied Plaintiff's motion for failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of its patent infringement claims.  On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's holding.

Kinney & Lange represented Defendant Ameritek Indus. LLC

Decade Industries, Inc. d/b/a Sanus Systems v. Wood Technology, Inc.,
100 F. Supp. 2d 979 (D. Minn. 2000).
Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction was granted by the district court against defendant's continued use of a unique ornamental design for a miniature stereo system stand during the pendency of plaintiff's suit against defendant for design patent infringement.
Kinney & Lange represented Plaintiff Sanus Systems.

Decade Industries, d/b/a Sanus Systems v. Wood Technology, Inc. 145 F. Supp. 2d 1075, Civ. Nos. 99-1652 & 00-2309 (D. Minn.)

Defendant was held in contempt of a preliminary injunction order by continuing to supply the enjoined product after the effective date of the order. The District Court also found summarily that a new product offered by Defendant infringed Plaintiff's patent and was covered by the preliminary injunction order.

Kinney & Lange represented Plaintiff Sanus Systems

Empi, Inc. v. Iomed, Inc.,
38 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1001 (D. Minn.); 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9872.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction against defendant's use of an iontophoresis device that had the same shape, color and overall appearance as plaintiff's iontophoresis device.
Kinney & Lange represented Plaintiff Empi, Inc.

Farley v. Minnesota Scientific, Inc.,
Civ. No. 1:94-00478 (W.D. Mich.).
The owner and exclusive licensee of a patent for a surgical retractor clamp sued a competitor for patent infringement. Interpreting the means plus function claim language of the patent, the court granted defendant summary judgment of non-infringement.
Kinney & Lange represented Defendant Minnesota Scientific Inc.

In The Matter Of Certain Health and Beauty Aids And Identifying Marks Thereon,
Inv. No. 337-TA-369 (U.S.I.T.C.).
Redmond Products, Inc., maker of AUSSIE brand hair care products, sought to prevent a Canadian company from importing shampoo and conditioner under the trademark AUSTRALIAN NATURALS. This matter was amicably resolved by the parties.
Kinney & Lange represented Complainant Redmond Products, Inc.

Lodgenet Entertainment Corp. v. On Command Video Corp.,
Civ. No. 97-4135  (D.S.D.)
Plaintiff filed a patent infringement suit in South Dakota six hours before defendant filed a declaratory judgment action involving the same patent in the Northern District of California.  Defendant sought to dismiss the South Dakota suit for lack of personal jurisdiction or in the alternative to transfer the case to the Northern District of California where other actions between the parties were pending. The South Dakota court determined that it had jurisdiction and refused to transfer the case because the South Dakota action was "first filed" and venue was convenient.
Kinney & Lange represented Plaintiff Lodgenet Entertainment Corp.

Luigino's, Inc. v. Stouffer Corp.,
Civ. No. 5-96-133 (D. Minn.).
The owner of the mark LEAN 'N TASTY for frozen food entrees was accused of infringing and diluting Stouffer's LEAN CUISINE mark. Luigino's sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringment. The district court granted summary judgment to Luigino's, holding that Luigino's use of LEAN 'N TASTY did not infringe or dilute Stouffer's mark. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's summary judgment.
Kinney & Lange represented Plaintiff Luigino's, Inc.

Master Distributors Inc. v. Pako Corp.,
777 F. Supp. 744 (D. Minn. 1991), rev'd, 986 F.2d 219 (8th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff, claiming exclusive rights in the color blue for leader splicer tape (a kind of tape used in developing photographs) sued defendant for selling blue-colored leader splicer tape. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant, holding that the single color blue could not, as a matter of law, function as a trademark. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the rationale of the Owens-Corning case should apply in this Circuit. At the time of this decision, the Courts of Appeal differed as to whether color alone could serve as a trademark.  This decision was part of the Supreme Court's motivation for hearing Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products, 514 U.S. 159 (1995), in which it was held that color alone was trademarkable.
Kinney & Lange represented Defendant Pako Corp.

2001 TTAB LEXIS 673

Opposer Newport Electronics, Inc. filed an opposition to Applicant Newport Scientific Pty. Ltd.'s registration of the mark NEWPORT SCIENTIFIC. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board found no likelihood of confusion, despite the similarity of the marks, and dismissed the opposition.

Kinney & Lange represented Applicant Newport Scientific Pty. Ltd.

On Command Video Corp.  v. Lodgenet Entertainment Corp.,
976 F. Supp. 917 (N.D. Cal. 1997).
In a patent infringement suit involving video distribution systems, defendant filed a motion to hold plaintiff in civil contempt for violating a protective order. Defendant argued that plaintiff's filing of another lawsuit based on confidential information obtained in the patent infringement suit was barred by the protective order. The district court overruled the Magistrate Judge and held plaintiff in civil contempt.
Kinney & Lange represented Defendant Lodgenet Entertainment Corp.

On Command Video Corp.  v. Lodgenet Entertainment Corp.,
1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20192 (N.D. Cal.).
In a patent infringement suit involving video distribution systems, defendant moved for summary judgment that plaintiff was not entitled to damages for any acts occurring prior to plaintiff providing actual or constructive notice, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 287. The district court granted defendant's motion.
Kinney & Lange represented Defendant Lodgenet Entertainment Corp.

William Pordy and Carberry Corporation v. Land O'Lakes, Inc.

2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22296, Civ. No. 01 Civ. 0579 (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff sued Defendant alleging that Defendant's Fat Free Half & Half infringed its patent. After a trial on the merits, the District Court granted Defendant's motion for judgment as a matter of law notwithstanding the verdict granted and entered judgment in favor of Defendant.

Kinney & Lange represented Defendant Land O'Lakes, Inc.

2002 GENDND 235 (WIPO)

A final decision was entered transferring the contested domain name rbcdainrauscher.com to Complainant Dain Rauscher Corporation.

Kinney & Lange represented Complainant Dain Rauscher Corporation.

Redmond Products, Inc v. Amino Sabre, Inc.,
17 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1386, 1990, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18428 (C.D. Cal. 1990).
Plaintiff, maker of AUSSIE brand hair care products, sued defendants for selling products under the mark AUSSIE PRO for using a kangaroo design as a trademark on its packaging, and for using a confusingly similar overall appearance of its hair care products packaging. The district court granted a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against defendants.
Kinney & Lange represented Plaintiff Redmond Products, Inc.

Redmond Products, Inc. v. The Body Shop, Inc.,
20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1233 (D. Minn. 1991).
Plaintiff, owner of a trademark registration for the mark AUSTRALIAN HAIR SALAD for use on hair care products, sued defendant for selling hair care products under the mark HAIR SALAD. The district court granted plaintiff a preliminary injunction.
Kinney & Lange represented Plaintiff Redmond Products, Inc.

Redmond Products, Inc. v. Schenco, Inc.,
(District Court for the Northern District of California)
Plaintiff, maker of AUSSIE MOIST shampoo, THE AUSTRALIAN 3 MINUTE MIRACLE conditioner and other AUSSIE brand hair care products, sued defendant for making private label knock-offs of its products.  Defendant made "Australian Formula 3 Minute Treatment" and "Australian Formula Moisturizing Shampoo", which were packaged in tan and red packaging similar to that used by plaintiff. In addition, defendant substituted a koala bear for plainitiff's kangaroo design mark. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against defendant.
Kinney & Lange represented Plaintiff Redmond Products, Inc.

Ryko Mfg.  Co.  v. Nu-Star Inc.,
20 U.S.P.Q.2d 1872 (D. Minn. 1990), aff'd, 950 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff, owner of a patent for a keypad entry device used to access a car wash, sued defendant for patent infringement. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that the patent was invalid for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Kinney & Lange represented Defendant Nu-Star, Inc.

Snap-on, Inc. v. Ronald J. Ortiz and SPX Corp.,
Civ. No. 97-c-2138 (N.D. Ill.)
This dispute between SPX and Snap-on centered around three basic patents owned by SPX on digital waveform displays for automotive engine analyzers. The dispute originated in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois before U.S. District Court Judge John F. Grady, who decided many of the issues raised by the pleadings, including deciding all claim construction issues during over 20 days of Markman hearings on multiple patents. Eventually, the parties agreed to try all remaining issues to a mutually-selected arbitrator. The trial to the arbitrator occurred in two phases over 19 days: phase one comprised several counts arising out of SPX's hiring of the former president of Sun Electric (which was acquired by Snap-on in 1992) and phase two related to Snap-on's infringement of the three SPX patents. By agreement of the parties, the Arbitrator selected the "last final offer" of the parties that was closest to the appropriate damages award for the combined phases of the arbitration (sometimes referred to as "baseball arbitration"). Snap-on's last final offer was $3 million in its favor and SPX's last final offer was $44 million in its favor. The Arbitrator found for SPX and awarded it $44 million.
Kinney & Lange represented Defendant SPX Corp.

Snap-on, Inc. v. Ronald J. Ortiz and SPX Corp.,
1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 534 (E.D. Ill).
Plaintiff sued defendant alleging patent infringement of five patents. After two of the patents were dismissed from the case, U.S. District Court Judge John Grady held "Markman" hearings over the course of eight days to construe the patent claims of the remaining three patents. The above-cited decision is Judge Grady's Order with respect to one of the elements of one of the asserted patent claims.
Kinney & Lange represented Defendant SPX Corp.

We Care Inc. v. Ultra-Mark International Inc.,
741 F. Supp. 743 (D. Minn. 1989), rev'd, 930 F.2d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Plaintiff sued defendant for infringement of a patent covering an electrical outlet cover with slidable covers, which could be used to prevent children from being harmed by the outlets. The district court granted plaintiff a preliminary injunction, but the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the district court's decision, because the district court failed to consider whether the range of equivalents sought by the patentee would encompass the prior art.
Kinney & Lange represented Defendant Ultra-Mark Int'l Inc.

Woodroast Systems, Inc. v. Restaurants Unlimited, Inc.,
793 F. Supp. 906 (D. Minn. 1992), aff'd, 994 F.2d 844 (8th Cir. 1993).
Plaintiff owned a service mark registration for the mark WOODROAST for restaurant services. The district court granted a preliminary injunction against Defendant's use of WOODROAST and WOOD ROASTED on the menu of its restaurants in Seattle and Minneapolis.
Kinney & Lange represented Plaintiff Woodroast Systems, Inc.