Security Chain Company v. Quality Chain Corporation, No. 3:2010cv01257 - Document 114 (D. Or. 2011)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
