Chair Designer Sits on Claims Too Long

Posted on | March 21, 2008 | No Comments

2008-1254 Studio & Partners v. KI
ED/WI 06-c-628

Plaintiff S&P appeals Judge William Griesbach’s order dismissing on summary judgment its claims related to an allegedly stolen furniture design.  In the 1990’s S&P designed a chair called "Campus" which became the subject of discussions between S&P and KI.  KI ultimately told S&P that it was not interested, but in fact used CAMPUS to design a chair and desk called "Einstein" and then "Intellect."  Two design patents were obtained by KI.

In 2006 S&P filed suit for misappropriating the design, asserting various state law claims,as well as seeking to correct inventorship under 35 U.S.C. § 256.

Judge Griesbach granted defendant summary judgment on all claims.  For 4 of the 5  state law claims, he found them barred by Italy’s 5 year statute of limitations (S&P is an Italian entity).  He rejected arguments that Italian law did not apply, and noted (1) Italy does not  have a "discovery rule" for causes of action and (2) there was no evidence of concealment by KI to support equitable tolling.

The court also entered summary judgment on the fraudulent concealment claim,
which essentially alleged that KI had a duty to disclose to S&P the
filing of the design patents.  While the Wisconsin Supreme Court
recognized such a duty in limited circumstances in Kaloti Enter. v. Kellogg Sales,
699 N.W.2d 205 (Wis. 2005), it required that the one party enter into a
transaction as a result of not being made aware by the other party of a
material fact.  Here, S&P didn’t enter into any transaction.

Lastly, the court  dismissed the §256 claim, finding that S&P did not have standing to bring it.  There was no evidence that S&P had any financial or ownership interest in the patents (assuming its employee was named as an inventor), nor could it assert any reputational interest to support standing under Chou v. Univ. of Chicago.

Comments