Moving Men
In the present case, the Plaintiffs sued Telebrands, a provider of moving services, for allegedly failing to properly maintain a moving van. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ counterclaim failed to state a claim and were therefore dismissed. The court found that the counterclaim is unfounded and refused to consider the Plaintiffs’ request for sanctions. In the case at hand, the court ruled in favor of Telebrands.
In the first phase of the litigation, Telebrands sought to sever the liability for damages from the plaintiffs’ claims based on the defendant’s failure to maintain a proper moving van. The company claimed that the patent was invalid because it was not drafted for the purpose of moving vans. As such, the motion to sever the underlying claims was withdrawn. In the second phase, the parties agreed to the terms of settlement. The parties reached a settlement on 25 April 1995.
After the trial, Telebrands filed a motion for reargument, which the court denied. In the third phase, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court granted on 4 March 1996. After hearing the evidence, the parties entered an Order and Opinion denying the claim of the plaintiff. In the fourth phase, the patentee’s counterclaim was withdrawn. In this phase, the defendants filed a complaint in Federal District Court against Telebrands.
Telebrands v. Moving Men
The plaintiffs argued that the German Koch Reference was unenforceable because it teaches away from mortise and tenon joints. The Court ruled that Telebrands’ 4 March 1996 Order and Opinion discloses a mortise and tenon type construction. It also claimed that Telebrands had no documentation referencing its ‘900 Patent. However, the Plaintiffs successfully challenged the motion and are now pursuing summary judgment against the defendants.
The plaintiffs requested the court to dismiss the suit because the motion for summary judgment was unenforceable. The Plaintiffs also asked the court to reconsider the decision because it was denied by the defendants’ motion to amend the complaint. A third issue was whether the claims of the two companies were identical. The Plaintiffs argued that the claim was invalid, as the plaintiffs were entitled to a partial summary judgment. This was the case in which a claimant’s Motion for Dismissal was not properly defended.
The plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment was unsuccessful because the court did not consider the plaintiffs’ claims’ patentability. The plaintiffs were not aware that the ‘900 Patent violated the Little Tikes Publication. As a result, the Court found that Telebrands did not infringe on the ‘900 Patent. In the ‘900 case, the courts ruled that the ‘900 patent was not invalid.