Manus Sports Gloves, LLC v. Everlast Worldwide, Inc., 759 F. Supp. 2d 459

Manus Sports Gloves, LLC and Dr. Melone filed a case in SDNY against Everlast World Wide, Inc. (No. 10 Civ. 1230).
Plaintiffs moved by November 29 letter to obtain a pre-motion conference under Rule 12(c).
Plaintiffs seek judgment on the pleadings that Everlast deceived the public by advertising Everlast products as Melone-patented in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292(a).
Everlast argued that the pleadings do not support entitlement to Rule 12(c) relief and that intent questions require further fact development.
The court ruled against expedited resolution, finding that intent is a fact-laden issue and denying both the pre-motion conference and any partial judgment on the pleadings.
The court indicated discovery may be necessary to resolve the § 292(a) claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion for a pre-motion conference and for partial judgment on the pleadings should be granted.	Melone/Manus contend intent is proven from pleadings.	Everlast argues 12(c) is inappropriate and intent cannot be resolved on pleadings.	Denied; the court found the issue hinges on intent and should proceed to discovery.

Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 608 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (defendant may defeat §292(a) claim if lack of conscious intent is shown)
Citiline Holdings, Inc. v. iStar Fin. Inc., 701 F. Supp. 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (intent determination often requires a fact-finder)