Print This Page      Email to a Friend

   3Laura Beth MillerChicago(312) 321-4715lmiller@brinksgilson.comlmiller@brinksgilson.comBrinks Gilson & Lionewww.brinksgilson.comwww.brinksgilson.comMiller.jpgCopyright & Trademark LawIntellectual Property LawPatent LawIP Litigation and Counseling
Laura Beth Millerlmiller@brinksgilson.com
Brinks Gilson & Lionehttp://www.brinksgilson.com
455 N Cityfront Plaza Dr Ste 3600
Chicago IL 60611-5500
Ph.(312) 321-4715 Fx.(312) 321-4299
Recommended by peers in:    Extensive Experience in:
Copyright & Trademark Law    IP Litigation and Counseling
Intellectual Property Law
Patent Law
Advisory Board Member
County:  Cook
Litigator:  Yes

Practice Description:  
Ms. Miller has litigation experience involving Internet related issues, as well as traditional areas of intellectual property including patent, trademark, trade secret and copyright law. Her non-litigation experience includes counseling clients in patent, trade secret, trademark clearance and use, copyright, antitrust and licensing matters. Her experience spans into areas of technology including chemistry, biotechnology, Internet (computer), and mechanical arts.

Also, she has extensive commercial litigation experience in the areas of contract, product liability, securities violations, RICO violations, unfair competition, antitrust and bankruptcy. As a former assistant public guardian for Cook County, she represented abused and neglected children.


Notable Cases and Results:  
2004
In the Matter of Certain Automated Mechanical Transmission Systems for Medium-Duty and Heavy-duty Trucks and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-503 (United States International Trade Commission). Subject: Complaint seeking temporary and permanent exclusion order precluding the entry and importation into, and sale or offer for sale within the United States of respondents' automated mechanical truck transmissions used in heavy-duty trucks, and components thereof. Issue: Whether software used to operate automated mechanical transmission systems and to receive signals from other drive line component systems of heavy-duty trucks, infringes various U.S. patents. Decision: Final Hearing set for September, 2004.

NeoMedia Technologies, Inc. v. Virgin Entertainment Group, Inc., et al. , No. 04 C 00021. Subject: Automatic accessing of remote electronic information through use of secure machine-readable codes. Issue: Whether defendants' in-store demonstration units, which allow customers to scan a product and preview music, video and other information about the selected item, infringes NeoMedia's patents.

2003
In the Matter of Certain Home Vacuum Packaging Machines, Inv. No. 337-TA-496 (United States International Trade Commission). Subject: Complaint seeking temporary and permanent exclusion order precluding the entry and importation of defendants' vacuum sealing machines. Issues: For purposes of the TEO, whether complainants have established the existence of a domestic industry, a likelihood of success on the question of infringement, and a sufficient showing of irreparable harm, and whether defendants have raised a substantial question as to the invalidity or unenforceability of complainants' patent. Decision: Awaiting decision from the Commission on Complainants' motion for temporary exclusion order.

Nitro Distributing, Inc. et al. v. Alticor Inc. et al. , Case No. 03-3290-CV-S. Issues: Whether defendants have engaged in anticompetitive activities in violation of sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, whether defendants have illegally interfered with plaintiffs' alleged business relationships, and whether plaintiffs' claims are subject to arbitration. Decision: Motion to dismiss or stay pending arbitration is pending.

Tilia International, Inc. v. The Rival Company, Case No. C 03-0263 SI. Subject: Patent infringement action against defendants' vacuum sealing machines and vacuum sealing bags. Issues: Summary judgment motion pending on issue of non-infringement. 2002
Charles E. Hill & Associates, Inc. v. Amazon.com et al. , Case No. 1:03-CV-0263. Issues: Whether defendants' offer to sell products over the Internet is infringing plaintiffs' patents concerning electronic catalogs. Decision: Case pending.

eSpeed, Inc. et al. v. Board of Trade of the City of Chicago et al. , No. 3:99-CV-1016-M. Subject: Patent infringement action asserted against defendants' electronic trading systems. Issues: Whether the patent was invalid based on prior art and prior invention by others, whether the patent was unenforceable based on inequitable conduct engaged in by the patentee for her knowing failure to disclose the prior art and prior invention to others, and whether defendants' systems infringed any valid claim. Decision: Case settled after summary judgment motions of invalidity, inequitable conduct and non-infringement filed by defendants.

2001
U.S. Wax & Polymer, Inc. v. Holcomb Healthcare Services Corp. , No. 3:01-0626. Subject: Declaratory judgment action filed by manufacturer against patentee seeking declaration of patent invalidity, non-infringement, and unenforceability and asserting antitrust and unfair competition claims against patentee. Issue: Whether manufacturer's action, brought in Bankruptcy Court, was an effort to circumvent the court's decisions in a related action brought by the patentee against the manufacturer's distributor and distributor's customer. Decision: The District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee removed manufacturer's action from the Bankruptcy Court and administratively closed case pending resolution of the related action brought against manufacturer's distributor and customer.

Holcomb Healthcare Services, LLC, et al. v. Nikken, Inc. et al. No. 3:99-0543. Subject: Patent infringement and false advertising asserted against defendant's magnetic therapy products and related comparative advertising. Issue 1: Whether plaintiffs' evidence of false advertising would support a judgment under Lanham Act and state law on the elements of literal falsity and materiality; also whether defendants' press releases were entitled to legal privilege under the First Amendment. Decision 1: The District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee denied defendants' motion for summary judgment relating to plaintiffs' unfair competition claims. Issue 2: Whether defendants' motion to dismiss complaint relieved defendants from obligation to timely assert counterclaims as case proceeded through fact and expert discovery. Decision 2: Defendants' failure to assert known counterclaims in pretrial materials precluded defendants from asserting counterclaims after motion to dismiss was denied.

2000
Manitowoc Foodservice Group, Inc., and Manitowoc Ice, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corporation, et al. No. 99-C-1435. Subject: Patent for a microprocessor-controlled self-cleaning ice maker. Issue: Whether complexity of the litigation and damages theories warranted bifurcation of the trial and a stay of discovery on the issues of damages and willfulness. Decision: The District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied defendants' motion to bifurcate trial and stay discovery.

Kolody v. Simon Marketing, Inc. et al. No. 97 C 0190. Subject: Copyright infringement. Issue: Whether following entry of summary judgment in defendants' favor, plaintiff introduced new evidence and evidence of fraud that would warrant reconsideration and denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment. Decision: Following an evidentiary hearing, the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied plaintiff's numerous post-judgment motions, finding they were without merit.

Yesmail, Inc. v. Mail Abuse Prevention System, LLC. No. 00 C 4245. Subject: Tortious interference with contractual relationship, business disparagement, defamation arising from Internet-related activities. Issue: Whether identifying plaintiff as a "spammer" and blocking transmission of plaintiff's email messages violated plaintiff's common law rights. Decision: The District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted a temporary restraining order preventing defendant from identifying plaintiff as a "spammer" and from interfering with plaintiff's transmission of email messages to third party internet service providers.

Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Seifert No. 1:99 CV 614. Subject: Trademark infringement, unfair competition, fraud. Issue: Personal jurisdiction. Decision: The District Court in Western District of Michigan found personal jurisdiction over the out-of-state defendant because his activities were directed at, and caused injury to, a Michigan-based company. Defendant's Internet activities also served as a basis for jurisdiction.

Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Motto Enterprise and Eric Motto, No. 1:00 CV 54. Subject: Trademark infringement, dilution, unfair competition. Issue: Whether defendants' trademark and domain name were confusingly similar to plaintiff's trademarks. Decision: Temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction entered against defendants enjoining their use of confusingly similar domain name and trademark.

Yesmail.com v. Internet Marketing Group, Brett Enright and Mark Ellis, No. 00 C 0851. Subject: Computer abuse, spamming, tortious interference with business relationships. Issue: Whether defendants' email activities and efforts to disguise their identity violated plaintiff's common law and statutory rights. Decision: Consent Judgment entered in favor of plaintiff finding defendants' efforts to conceal their identity and efforts to create the appearance that their email messages originated from plaintiff constituted violations of federal and common law.

Representing bankruptcy trustee and secured creditors in chapter 7 and chapter 11 proceedings. Representing employers in restrictive covenant and non-competition actions. Representing hospitals and business entities in a variety of tort actions in state court. Numerous other federal and state cases covering a broad range of commercial litigation issues. Involvement included depositions, court appearances, oral arguments, and presentation of witnesses at various hearings. I have continued to handle a variety of litigation issues over the years, not all of which are separately discussed in the highlights above.


Bar Admissions:  
Illinois
Illinois Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fed. Circuit
U.S. Dist. Court, E.D. Wisconsin
U.S. Dist. Court, N.D. Illinois
U.S. Dist. Court, S.D. Indiana
U.S. Dist. Court, W.D. Michigan


Law School:  The College of William and Mary, Marshall Wythe School of Law,J.D., 1985
Undergraduate School:  University of Virginia, B.A., History, 1982
Undergraduate School Honors/Involvement:  With intermediate honors

Employment History:  
Brinks Gilson & Lione, Chicago, Illinois
  April 1996-present
Assistant Public Guardian, Cook County, Illinois


Bar/Professional Association Involvement:  
American Bar Association
American Intellectual Property Law Association
Chicago Alliance For Women
Chicago Bar Association
Federal Circuit Bar Association
Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago
International Trademark Association


Published Legal Writing:  
"Copyright Law in the Digital Age" Chapt. 6, co-author, Business, Law and the Internet: Essential Guidance For You, Your Clients and Your Firm, Illinois Institute of Continuing Education (ICLE), 2002

"IP: Trademarks/Unfair Trade Practices," Chapt. 7, co-author, Business Law and the Internet: Essential Guidance For You, Your Clients and Your Firm, Illinois Institute of Continuing Education (ICLE), 2002


Legal Lectures:  
"International Transactional Study of Industrial Design/Design Patent and Trade Dress Protection," International Intellectual Property Law Symposium, St. Peter's College, Oxford University, 2003

"Multimedia, Audiovisual Arts, Cross-Border Ownership and Exploitation," International Intellectual Property Law Symposium, St. Peter's College, Oxford University, 2003

"Understanding the Changing Rules of Patent Damages," General Counsel Forum, PriceWaterhouse Coopers, 2003

"Legal Technology/Cyberlaw," Lawyer's Workshop, Illinois State Bar Association, 2001


Firm Description:  
Founded in 1917, Brinks Gilson & Lione provides intellectual property legal services worldwide. The firm is one of the largest intellectual property law firms in the country, with approximately 150 attorneys who specialize in IP litigation and all aspects of patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, Internet, unfair competition and related licensing matters.




Additional Office Locations:  
Ann Arbor, Michigan; Indianapolis, Indiana; Arlington, Virginia; Salt Lake City, Utah

1041599
Map to Office:   Click here to view map

  • Back To Search Results