Skilled in the Art: ED-Tex ♥ Fee Awards | Brand Battle Boils Over | Who Reps Ring?
Celebrity Chef Chloe Coscarelli is embroiled in an IP fight over her "by Chloe" chain with ESquared Hospitality, which expelled her from the partnership.
April 10, 2018 at 09:00 PM
6 minute read
|➤ Want to receive Skilled in the Art as an email? Sign up here.
Celebrity Chef Trying to Roast Former Investor
First off today, a caveat: Some of my closest friends are vegans. I can attest they rarely sue tech companies nor get embroiled in brass-knuckled IP litigation.
But one example of the latter arrived Monday in the Central District of California in the form of a 129-page trademark, publicity right and unfair competition complaint by celebrity chef Chloe Coscarelli. Her goal seems to be taking down the chain of fast-vegan restaurants founded three years ago in her name.
Coscarelli alleges that co-investor ESquared Hospitality expelled her from the partnership that owns the popular “by Chloe” chain, and is now degrading her brand by peddling low-quality food in often unsanitary conditions.
The complaint, signed by Robins Kaplan partner Michael Geibelson, mixes the sunniness of celebrity culture with brutal allegations. Geibelson refers to Coscarelli by first name throughout the complaint—“Chloe is an award-winning chef, television personality and best-selling culinary writer,” he notes. The complaint then goes on to allege that ESquared CEO James Haber “became infatuated with Chloe.”
It doesn't spell out whether this infatuation was personal or professional. It states that Haber grew furious “after months of Chloe spurning Haber's advances and refusing his proposals to license her name to mass produce food for retail sale or allow her name to be sold to international buyers.”
As for the business, Haber allegedly told Coscarelli's daughter that ESquared's business plan was to “milk” the Chloe name “till we can't.” That included rapid expansion of the “by Chloe” franchise—last week the company announced a $31 million investment in 20 worldwide locations—despite allegedly “rampant food safety problems” at existing restaurants.
The company has also substituted cheaper and artificial ingredients in her original recipes, she says. “Defendants have served, and continue to serve, poor quality food in restaurants that still bear Chloe's name, damaging Chloe's brand and reputation,” the complaint alleges.
We reached out to a lawyer who's represented ESquared, and didn't hear back. But we're pretty sure the company would refer us to the result of an arbitration between Coscarelli and ESquared last year. According to published reports, the arbitrator determined Coscarelli acted with “gross negligence” toward the franchise,including interfering with a lease and refusing to collaborate with other vegan chefs.
|
ED-Tex Learning to Love Fee Awards
Who says you can't win fee awards in the Eastern District of Texas? It's been raining Section 285 in Marshall and Tyler the last few weeks.
First, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap awarded $565,000 to Newegg against Acacia subsidiary Adjustacam LLC—albeit under duress from the Federal Circuit.
Now U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant III has awarded a whopping $7.1 million to Imperium IP Holdings in its digital photography patent litigation with Samsung.
Imperium originally won a $7 million verdict that Mazzant trebled for willful infringement. He ruled the case exceptional last fall, finding among other things that Samsung attorneys gave false testimony during trial and the company continued to infringe Imperium's patents post-judgment. Samsung argued it persuaded the jury to invalidate one of the patents Imperium was asserting.
On Thursday, Mazzant granted Imperium and its Fisch Sigler attorneys all $7.1 million in fees they were requesting, less $29,000 that the judge found to be for clerical work.
“The total is now $28,035,669, which includes the jury award, court-awarded trebled damages, prejudgment interest, taxable costs, non-taxable costs, and now attorney's fees,” said partner Bill Sigler of Fisch Sigler's Washington, D.C., office. “And this award will increase over time as a result of Samsung's sales and court-imposed interest.”
It's been a couple of years since I compiled exceptional case fee awards around the country. But as of 2016, the biggest award from any court was $7.9 million, and there had been only one published fee award from ED-Tex.
|
Who Got the Work?
Susman Godfrey and Durie Tangri are squaring off in the Central District of California over the future of the video doorbell. Susman represents SkyBell Technologies, which says it pioneered the concept of video doorbells, where a visitor's arrival triggers a video on the premise owner's smartphone. It's asserting five patents against Ring, which it dismisses as a Johnny-come-lately to the industry. “This lawsuit is the tale of two companies in the emerging video doorbell market,” is how Skybell opens its complaint.
➤ The dispute: SkyBell says co-founder Joseph Scalisi conceived the video doorbell when he was working at a small business that couldn't afford a receptionist. SkyBell raised $600,000 through a crowdfunding campaign and introduced what it calls “the video doorbell of choice for large-scale service providers” such as Honeywell and Comcast. It's asserting patents that include a doorbell system that causes a camera to exit sleep mode and send a recording to a remote device, and a doorbell chime coupled with a wireless network. Ring hasn't answered yet, but I'm betting the phrase “abstract idea” will adorn some of its pleadings. The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge James Selna.
➤ The attorneys: Partner Oleg Elkhunovich and associate Meng Xi of Los Angeles; partner Joseph Grinstein of Houston; and partner Jacob Buchdahl of New York make up Susman Godfrey's team for SkyBell. Durie Tangri's Clement Roberts, Laura Miller and Joshua Furman represent Ring.
|
A Suit About Nothing
When I wrote last week about LeBron James' threatened litigation over his barbershop interviews, I remember thinking, “This would be like Jerry Seinfeld suing someone over interviews in cars.” On Friday, I learned from my ALM colleague Colby Hamilton that there is indeed such a suit, only Seinfeld is the defendant, not the plaintiff. Check out Colby's story here.
I've got a plane to catch. Thanks for reading and see you again on Friday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
The Law Firm Disrupted: Big Law Profits Vs. Political Values
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250