| Inadmissible
November 03, 2008
Suit Scooting
When John Keville, an intellectual property partner in Howrey in Houston, began a search for vintage scooters to help defend his client from a patent infringement suit, he went straight to the best source for that kind of information: his 10-year-old son's Little League friends. One kid helped Keville by locating a vintage skateboard-like scooter on the Internet with a steering design similar to the product made by Keville's client Dream International Ltd. That led Keville all over the Internet, and he ended up purchasing several scooters he would argue had a steering design similar to his client's, including a few on the e-Bay online auction site. Keville learned more than he ever thought he'd know about scooters after California-based scooter manufacturer Nextsport Inc. filed a suit in April in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Dream International, alleging Dream International's Street Carver scooter infringes on a patent Nextsport had obtained in 2003 for its scooters. But Keville's Hong Kong-based client filed a motion for summary judgment in August, alleging the Street Carver doesn't infringe the patent, because the Street Carver's front wheels can be steered by tilting the deck of the scooter, and the patent specifically states that tilting the deck will not steer the front wheels. Keville collected the vintage scooters to help prove that scooters with skateboard-style steering have been around for a long time -- which goes to the issue of whether Nextsport's patent is valid -- but he didn't need to bring them into court for a hearing on the summary judgment motion. On Sept. 25, U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes signed an interlocutory judgment in Nextsport Inc. v. Dream International Ltd, et al. that said the Street Carver does not infringe Nextsport's patent and found Nextsport will take nothing from Dream International. Once he's certain Nextsport won't appeal, Keville says, he plans to donate the scooter collection, which is currently in a workroom at the firm, to a children's charity. Defense attorney Thomas Wright, a partner in Gardere Wynne Sewell in Dallas, did not return a telephone call seeking comment before presstime on Oct. 30.
Heading for the Exit
Knowing he could be out of a job once a new president takes office next year, on Oct. 29 Don DeGabrielle, U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Texas, announced his resignation, effective Nov. 8. "It's time to move on," says DeGabrielle. "It's certainly a possibility that an incoming administration might want to have a different U.S. attorney in this position. Historically, when administrations have changed, that's the case." DeGabrielle says he will enter private practice at a firm in the Houston area but he can't identify the firm until he's out of office. He plans to do white-collar criminal defense and government and corporate compliance litigation. A longtime state and federal prosecutor, DeGabrielle's appointment as U.S. attorney was confirmed by the U.S. Senate in March 2006. He became an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District in 1986. His says his favorite year on the job was 2001, when he worked in South Africa as a resident legal adviser to the national director of public prosecutions.
Another Doggone Infringement Suit
On its Web site, the Red Woof Inn in Rockwall touts itself as a pet resort. But a national hotel chain wants the Red Woof Inn to change its name. On Oct. 23, Red Roof Inns Inc. and two of its subsidiaries sued the Red Woof Inn, its owner Sandy Stagnone, employee and consultant Bryan Marrin and five unnamed defendants believed to be involved in the business for allegedly infringing on the chain's trademarks. In its complaint in Red Roof Inns Inc., et al. v. Red Woof Inn, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas, the hotel chain alleges the pet boarding business infringes on the chain's registered trademarks, including its slanted roof design. On its Web site the red Woof Inn features a drawing in red of a slanted-roof doghouse with a dog inside. As alleged in the complaint, the Red Woof Inn's use of Red Roof Inn's registered trademarks and service marks "causes confusion, mistake, or deception in the minds of the public." Andrew Alexander, senior vice president and general counsel for the Columbus, Ohio-based hotel chain, says Red Roof Inns advertise as "pet-friendly" hotels. "That's a strong part of our business," Alexander says. The Red Woof Inn has tried to make it appear that it is associated with Red Roof Inns, he says. According to Alexander, changing the Red Woof Inn's name would help end the confusion. Stagnone did not return two telephone calls seeking comment before presstime Oct. 30. Marrin declines comment.
