Fitch Even Client The Chamberlain Group Wins Trademark Opposition Trial

Fitch Even Client Chamberlain Defeats Motion To Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal

Fitch Even Client Chamberlain Wins Preliminary Injunction

Fitch Even Client Chamberlain Wins Award Of Attorneys' Fees

December 14, 2007

On December 14th, 2007, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruled in favor of The Chamberlain Group, Inc. in the trademark opposition trial The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Lynx Industries, Inc. Opp. No. 91160673 (TTAB). Chamberlain is the world's largest manufacture of garage door openers. In this case, Chamberlain opposed Lynx's proposed registration of the trademark "Lynx Master" for electronic garage door openers.

The TTAB ruled that the trial evidence established a likelihood of confusion between the Lynx Master mark and Chamberlain's Liftmaster® trademark. The TTAB based its finding on several factors, including the fame and strength of Chamberlain's trademark resulting from Chamberlain's extensive use and promotion of the mark; the similarity in sound, appearance and commercial impression of the marks; the use of the trademarks at issue on identical goods; and the similarity between the parties' channels of trade and customers.

Chamberlain Group, Inc. was represented in this matter by Joseph Nabor.

Back to top

June 6, 2007

In a June 6, 2007 order, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a motion by Lear Corporation to stay a preliminary injunction entered by Judge James B. Moran of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in favor of Fitch Even client, The Chamberlain Group, Inc., the nation's leading garage door opener manufacturer, and co-plaintiff Johnson Controls Interiors, LLC.

Chamberlain and JCI sued Lear for infringement relating to patented technology for controlling garage door operators under Chamberlain's U.S. Patent No. 6,154,544. Following extensive briefing and patent claim construction proceedings, the District Court granted a motion for preliminary injunction filed by Chamberlain and JCI in a March 30, 2006 opinion and order. The court entered the preliminary injunction in an April 25, 2006 order enjoining Lear from making, using or selling its accused device (although permitting Lear to continue to make deliveries for certain vehicle programs currently incorporating the accused device). As part of its order in support of the preliminary injunction, the District Court found that Chamberlain and JCI established a strong likelihood that Lear's device infringed Chamberlain's patent and that the infringement is causing irreparable harm to Chamberlain and JCI.

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in denying Lear's motion for a stay of the preliminary injunction pending appeal, found that Lear failed to meet its burden to establish either 1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, or 2) a substantial case on the merits provided that the harm factors militate in its favor.

Chamberlain is represented by Karl Fink, Rudy Kratz, Nick Peters and John Flannery.

Back to top

April 2, 2007

In a March 30, 2007 memorandum opinion and order, Judge James B. Moran of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted the joint motion of Fitch Even client, The Chamberlain Group, Inc., the nation's leading garage door opener manufacturer, and co-plaintiff Johnson Controls Interiors, LLC, for a preliminary injunction against Lear Corporation. Chamberlain and JCI sued Lear for infringement relating to patented technology for controlling garage door operators. Following extensive briefing and patent claim construction proceedings, the District Court granted Chamberlain and JCI's request for a preliminary injunction.

The District Court found a substantial likelihood that Chamberlain and JCI will prevail on their claim that Lear's technology infringes Chamberlain's U.S. Patent No. 6,154,544. As part of its ruling, the District Court also found that Lear's activities are causing irreparable harm to Chamberlain and JCI.

Chamberlain is represented by Karl Fink, Rudy Kratz, Nick Peters and John Flannery.

Back to top

March 29, 2007

In a March 29, 2007 order, Judge Susan R. Bolton of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona awarded $185,369.75 to Fitch Even client, The Chamberlain Group, Inc., the nation's leading garage door opener manufacturer. The award was in response to Chamberlain's request for attorney's fees arising out of litigation with Microchip Technology Incorporated. Microchip sued Chamberlain for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and breach of a license agreement regarding several of Chamberlain's patents protecting its remote control technology. Chamberlain denied all allegations, and further denied that there was any justiciable controversy between the parties. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a revious entry of summary judgment for Microchip, remanding the action to the district court with instructions to dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on the lack of a justiciable controversy.

Following the appeal, Chamberlain sought its attorneys' fees according to the terms of the license agreement between Chamberlain and Microchip. The District Court found that Chamberlain was entitled to a portion of its attorneys' fees as a prevailing party in the litigation. The district court ultimately awarded Chamberlain $185,369.75 in costs and fees incurred during the litigation.

Chamberlain is represented by Karl Fink, Rudy Kratz, and John Flannery.

Back to top