Collagen Nutraceuticals v. Neocell Corp., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80216 (S.D. Cal. 2010)
I have to read between the lines a little to describe the procedural background. It appears that the owners of the defendant corporation (Neocell), as individual defendants, filed a summary judgment motion, presumably on the grounds that only Neocell could be held liable for trademark infringement. Collagen then asked the motion be denied to give Collagen further time to conduct discovery regarding the defendants’ positions at Neocell, and defendants’ knowledge of Plaintiff’s cease and desist letter and other infringing activities. The court granted Collagen’s motion and denied the summary judgment motion (without prejudice) to allow Collagen to do discovery. The court noted these facts could defeat summary judgment if they showed that the defendants orchestrated Neocell’s infringing activities or if they established alter ego liability. Collagen showed that the facts likely existed and could be uncovered through discovery. Finally, Collagen had only had two months to complete discovery at the time of the filing of the motion for summary judgment.