Previous month:
October 2005
Next month:
December 2005

A Legislative Action Guide to the Wisconsin State Legislature

Becoming Influential in the State Legislative Process

By James B. Gehrke, JD
First Edition
Copyright 2005

Download a sample of the Guide

Request a complementary copy for your personal use.

The American system of government functions primarily as a result the demands placed on it by its citizens.  Whether you are acting as a concerned citizen or on behalf of a group of people with a common goal, this guide will equip you with insights and perspectives that you can use to be more effective. This guide is intended to prepare you for the task of influencing the legislative process.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. Graco Children's Prods., Inc

Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. ("Dorel") sued Graco Children's Products, Inc., ("Graco") for patent infringement, seeking a jury trial. Dorel is the exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 6,550,862 ("the '862 patent") and continuing U.S. Patent No. 6,612,649 ("the '649 patent"), both directed to a child's car seat assembly having a retractable cup holder. Graco conceded that its accused car seat embodies all of the elements of the asserted claims, except for certain aspects concerning the seat and base assembly, i.e., a base removably attached to a seat.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled for Graco and against Dorel, holding that under the district court's interpretation of the pertinent claim terms, Graco's car seat does not infringe the '862 and '649 patents. See Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. v. Graco Children's Prods., Inc., No. 03-1273 (S.D. Ind. Sept. 9, 2004) ("Summary Judgment"). Dorel timely appealed the final judgment of the district court. Because there exists a question of fact as to whether Graco's car seat infringes the patents, we vacate the district court's summary judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

Download the pdf

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Hacny Transp. v. Chu

Illinois Trade Secret Case

The judgment is affirmed to the extent that it dismisses
the counterclaim against Hecny Hong Kong and all of
Hecny U.S.’s claims based on misappropriation of trade
secrets. The decision not to issue an injunction enforcing
the covenant not to compete also is affirmed. The judgment
otherwise is vacated, and the case is remanded for decision
on the merits. Circuit Rule 36 will apply on remand.

Download the pdf

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Sorensen v. International Trade Commission

Because the Commission erred in its interpretation of one limitation of claim 1 of the ’184 patent, this court reverses the Commission’s interpretation of the relevant claim element, vacates its summary determination of noninfringement, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this action.

Download the pdf

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.

Callicrate v. Wadsworth Manufacturing, Inc.

In conclusion, because substantial evidence does not support the jury verdicts of non-infringement and invalidity of the ’553 and ’329 patents, this court reverses those verdicts. The case is remanded to the district court for a determination of damages.

Download the pdf.

Need help protecting your intellectual property? Visit Gehrke & Associates, SC to learn more about how we can help enhance and defend your intellectual property.  Thank you.