Security Chain Company v. Quality Chain Corporation

Filing 114

OPINION & ORDER: Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims of False Patent Marketing 85 , Plaintiffs Motion to Strike Affirmative Defenses of Patent Unenforceability and Invalidity 85 and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count 'V' (False Marketing) of Amended Complaint 97 are Denied as Moot. Signed on 8/30/11 by Magistrate Judge Paul Papak. (gm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
fOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

SECURITY CHAIN COMPANY, a
division of BURNS BROS. INC., an
Oregon corporation,
Plaintiff:
CV 1O-1257-PK
OPINION AND ORDER
QUALITY CHAIN CORPORATION, an
Oregon corporation,
Defendant.
PAPAK, Judge:

Plaintiff Security Chain Company ("Security Chain") filed this action against defendant
Quality Chain Corporation ("Quality Chain") arising from a dispute over the advertising and
production of tire chains. Security Chain alleges patent inli'ingement in violation of35 U.S.C.
§§271, 281, 283-285; false advertising, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, and false
designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq.; trade dress
infringement in violation of Oregon common law; and passing olTand creating a likelihood of
confusion in violation orthe Oregon Unlawfhl Trade Practices Act, Or. Rev. Stat. 646.608.

Page 1- OPINION AND ORDER

Quality Chain asserts three counterclaims for attolJleys fees and three counterclaims for false
patent marking pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §292. Now before the court is Security Chain's motion to
dismiss Quality Chain's false patent marking counterclaims and strike Quality Chain's
affirmative defenses of patent unenforceability and invalidity. (#85.) Also before the court is
Quality Chain's motion to dismiss Security Chain's false patent marking claim. (#97.)
During oral argument held on August 30, 20 11, the parties stipulated to dismissal of
Security Chain's false patent marking claim and Quality Chain's false patent marking
counterclaims, both with prejudice. Additionally, Quality Chain stipulated to withdrawal of its
affirmative defenses of patent unenforceability and invalidity, without prejudice. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims of False Patent Marketing (#85), Plaintiffs Motion
to Strike Affirmative Defenses of Patent Unenforceability and Invalidity (#85) and DeFendant's
Motion to Dismiss Count 'V' (False Marketing) of Amended Complaint (#97) are denied as moot.

Dated this

3'fct~ of August, 2011.

-

. . __ )
( ..//

(

l

~\/.l

\\ (JJ1)( . T t{WJ(
Honorable Paul Papal(
United States Magistrate Judge

Page 2- OPINION AND ORDER