In a Feb. 10 complaint, Frito-Lay North America Inc. alleges two companies are selling “a copycat line of tortilla chips.” The Plano-based snack manufacturer names as defendants Newport, Ark.-based Medallion Foods Inc. and St. Louis, Mo.-based Ralcorp Holdings Inc. At issue is what Frito-Lay describes as bowl-shaped chips, which it markets under the name “Tostitos Scoops” and which the defendants allegedly market under the name “Bowlz.” In its complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Sherman, Frito-Lay brings causes of action alleging trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition and dilution, patent infringement, and unjust enrichment under Texas common law. The complaint features photographs of the plaintiff’s and the defendants’ chips, as well as the chips’ packaging. Frito-Lay alleges the defendants infringed four of its patents, which are related to the production of “Scoops.” On Feb. 13, Frito-Lay also filed a motion for temporary injunction seeking relief from the alleged infringement and an expedited status conference and discovery. Baker Botts partner Tim Durst of Dallas, who represents Frito-Lay, declines comment. Sabrina Prudhomme, manager of communications at Medallion, says the company does not comment on pending ligation. Officials in the press office of Ralcorp did not return a telephone call seeking comment. T. John Ward Jr. of Longview’s Ward & Smith Law Firm , who represents Ralcorp and Medallion, did not return a call. Neither defendant has yet filed an answer in Frito-Lay North America Inc. v. Medallion Foods Inc., et al.
Rule 202 Nonsuited
Patton Boggs and Kate Moseley — a former non-equity partner in the firm who sought to depose two firm leaders and obtain certain documents — have resolved their dispute, according to lawyers for both sides. On Feb. 17, Moseley, now a partner in Alston + Bird , filed a notice of nonsuit with prejudice of the Rule 202 petition she previously had filed in Dallas’ 298th District Court; Judge Emily G. Tobolowsky dismissed the petition on Feb. 20. In her Rule 202 petition, Moseley sought oral or written depositions prior to the filing of a suit against Patton Boggs. The legal battle between Moseley and Patton Boggs had continued for months. According to the 5th Court of Appeals’ opinion in Patton Boggs LLP v. Moseley , Moseley left Patton Boggs’ Dallas office in May 2010. In December 2010, she filed a charge of discrimination against the firm with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging she was discriminated against because of her gender, paid less than her male counterparts and denied equity partner status, Dallas’ 5th Court wrote. On Jan. 7, 2011, she filed her Rule 202 petition, which Tobolowsky granted on July 7, 2011. On Dec. 29, 2011, the 5th Court conditionally granted Patton Boggs’ petition for writ of mandamus, which sought to overturn Tobolowsky’s decision. But the appeals court sided with Moseley in determining Patton Boggs could not compel arbitration of her claims pursuant to her partnership agreement. Rogge Dunn , a partner in Dallas’ Clouse Dunn who represents Moseley, and Rod Phelan , a partner in the Dallas office of Baker Botts who represents Patton Boggs, confirm the two sides resolved their differences. Phelan declines further comment. Dunn says, “The case has been settled on terms satisfactory to all parties. The terms are confidential.” [See related documents: “Patton Boggs LLP v. Moseley at the 5th Court of Appeals,” “Firm’s Mandamus Writ in Rule 202 Case Conditionally Granted,” “Firm’s Motion to Compel Arbitration of Rule 202 Petition Denied” and “ Lawyer Seeks Presuit Deposition of Two Patton Boggs Partners.”
