Medisim Ltd. v. Bestmed LLC
| Decision Date | 28 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 10 Civ. 2463(SAS).,10 Civ. 2463(SAS). |
| Citation | 910 F.Supp.2d 591 |
| Parties | MEDISIM LTD., Plaintiff, v. BESTMED LLC, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Gerald Levy, Esq., Keith J. McWha, Esq., Mark H. Anania, Esq., Scott Christie, Esq., McCarter English, LLP, Newark, NJ, for Medisim Ltd.
Nicholas L. Coch, Esq., Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, New York, NY, Talivaldis Cepuritis, Esq., Joseph M. Kuo, Esq., Anita M. Cepuritis, Esq., Brian R. Michalek, Esq., Olson & Cepuritis, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for BestMed LLC.
I. INTRODUCTION
Medisim Ltd. (“Medisim”) brings this action against BestMed LLC (“BestMed”) for patent and copyright infringement, unfair competition/false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, false advertising under the Lanham Act, false advertising under New York law, deceptive acts and practices under New York law, unfair competition under New York law, and unjust enrichment. 1 BestMed has brought counterclaimsfor declaratory judgment of patent noninfringement, declaratory judgment of patent invalidity, false patent marking, and patent unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. 2
On June 29, 2012, the Court held a pre-motion conference to discuss the parties' proposed grounds for potential summary judgment motions. The Court spent considerable judicial resources to review the parties' pre-conference submissions and consider the strength of their potential motions. At the conference, I advised the parties not to move on the grounds for which there was likely a disputed issue of fact.3 BestMed ignored my advice and moved for summary judgment on all of the grounds they raised in their pre-conference letter.4 For the reasons set forth below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part. Unsurprisingly, summary judgment is denied on all of the claims that the Court advised BestMed to exclude from its summary judgment motion.
II. BACKGROUNDA. Undisputed Facts5
In November 2004, BestMed and Medisim entered into an International Distributorship Agreement (“Distribution Agreement”) for BestMed to distribute Medisim's digital, conductive forehead thermometer in the United States and Canada.6 Between the signing of the Distribution Agreement and its May 1, 2009 termination,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wolo Mfg. Corp. v. ABC Corp.
...I of the amended complaint). See, e.g. On Davis v. The Gap, Inc. , 246 F.3d 152, 158 n. 1 (2d Cir. 2001) ; Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed LLC , 910 F.Supp.2d 591, 619-20 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ; CA Inc. v. Rocket Software, Inc. , 579 F.Supp.2d 355, 364 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). Accordingly, the branch of defendan......
-
Fischer v. Stephen T. Forrest, Jr., Sandra F. Forrest, Shane R. Gebauer, & Brushy Mountain Bee Farm, Inc., 14 Civ. 1304 (PAE) (AJP)
...register the work within the requisite period of time to recover statutory damages and attorneys' fees."); Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed LLC, 910 F. Supp. 2d 591, 629 n.169 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ("[E]ven if [plaintiff] is not entitled to damages on its copyright claim, it may still be entitled to injun......
-
In re Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts & Related Subsystems ('858) Patent Litig.
...MDN 1028 at 143 (citing Back Doctors Ltd. v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. , 637 F.3d 827, 831 (7th Cir. 2011), Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed LLC , 910 F.Supp.2d 591, 620 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) ). Defendants abandoned this argument in Reply.70 On May 21, 2013, the Court denied CleanTech's motion for summ......
-
Carson Optical, Inc. v. Prym Consumer USA, Inc.
...are unavailing. A species of a common law claim for unfair competition is trade dress infringement. See Medisim Ltd. v. BestMed LLC, 910 F.Supp.2d 591, 606 (S.D.N.Y.2012). A product's trade dress is its “total image and overall appearance ... as defined by its overall composition and design......