This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Intellectual Property
Patent Infringement

Covves LLC v. Target Corporation, Target Brands Inc.

Published: Jun. 21, 2024 | Result Date: Jan. 12, 2024 | Filing Date: Jan. 27, 2023 |

Case number: 2:23-cv-00640-RGK-MAR Bench Decision –  Defense

Judge

R. Gary Klausner

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Stephen C. McArthur
(The McArthur Law Firm PC)

Thomas E. Dietrich
(The McArthur Law Firm PC)


Defendant

Christina N. Goodrich
(K&L Gates LLP)

Cassidy T. Young
(K&L Gates LLP)


Facts

In 2018, Covves LLC sued Target Brands, BigMouth, and nine large retailers who sold BigMouth's products alleging patent infringement of its products: the Glitter Wing Unicorn Pool Float, the Unicorn Lil Float, the Unicorn Pride Float, and the Unicorn Bev Boat. A settlement agreement including a general release, was signed in January 2020 by Covves, BigMouth, and Target Brands. Covves received a $400,000 payment from BigMouth pursuant to the agreement and also agreed to pay a 3% royalty on sales made after June 1, 2020. Around May 2020, BigMouth entered a receivership and was unable to make the additional payments. Though plaintiff tried to reopen the case, was denied, moved for reconsideration, again denied, it appealed to the Ninth Circuit which affirmed the denial. Plaintiff then sued Target Corporation and Target Brands based on infringement of the same brand of products.

Contentions

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant argued that: it never agreed to pay plaintiff any sum or guaranty BigMouth's payment; the settlement agreement encompassed any and all claims relating to the accused products even those against the parent companies; plaintiff never rescinded the agreement nor offered to return any payment it had received; plaintiff has not argued that the agreement was valid or unenforceable or that defendant has breached the agreement, and in fact, has acted as if and asserted that the agreement is still valid and in place.

Result

The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.


#142758

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390