Summary
This federal district court order schedules a virtual hearing on the defendant's motion for reconsideration following post-trial motions in a trademark infringement dispute. The court will limit oral argument to whether the trial court's jury instruction on the acquiescence defense was erroneous and, if so, whether it constitutes reversible plain error. The order directs both parties to prepare arguments based on specified Sixth Circuit precedent regarding the application of the plain error test to jury instruction claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court’s instruction to the jury on Childress’s acquiescence defense was erroneous and, if so, whether it merely limits damages or entirely bars the trademark infringement claim.
- If the instruction was erroneous, whether the error satisfies the plain error test for reversal.
Key quotations
“The Court has carefully reviewed Childress’ motion and concludes that it would benefit from limited oral argument on the motion. Accordingly, the Court has directed its staff to work with Childress and counsel for Plaintiff/Counter‑Defendant Dassault Systemes, SA to find a mutually‑convenient time for a hearing.”
Factual background
Dassault Systemes, SA sued Keith Childress for trademark infringement. After trial, the Court gave a jury instruction on Childress's acquiescence defense. Childress now seeks reconsideration, arguing the instruction was erroneous and that any error satisfies the plain error test.
Procedural history
Defendant Keith Childress filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the order deciding the parties' 2024 post‑trial motions on January 23, 2025. The Court reviewed the motion and issued this order directing a limited hearing.
Remand instructions
The Court directs its staff to work with the parties to schedule a limited virtual hearing to discuss the identified issues.