Lafayette, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, The Trustees of Purdue University of Lafayette, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Omron Corporation and Omron Healthcare Company, Limited of Japan infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,014,611 B1 (“the 611 Patent”) for “Oscillometric Noninvasive Blood…
Articles Posted in Patent Infringement
Indiana Patent Litigation: Eli Lilly and Teva Pharmaceuticals Clash Again over Alimta
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Actavis LLC of Parsippany, New Jersey; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA of North Wales, Pennsylvania; and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. of Petach Tikva, Israel infringed its rights in…
Indiana Patent Litigation: Thor Industries Sues The RV Factory Over RV Patents
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney for Plaintiff, Thor Industries, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, The RV Factory, LLC, also of Elkhart, Indiana infringed on the U.S. Patent Nos. 7,575,251, titled Travel Trailer Having Improved Turning Radius (the ‘251 patent), and 7,938,427,…
Indiana Patent Litigation: Klipsch Sues Chinese Defendant Over Allegedly Infringing Earphones
Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Klipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Shenzhen Paiaudio Electronics Co., Ltd of Guangdong, China infringed on the U.S. Patent No. D603,844 (the ‘844 patent), titled “Headphone,” and violated Klipsch headphones’ trade dress. Plaintiff…
Indiana Patent Litigation: Carmel Tech Company Binatone USA Sued Over Allegedly Infringing Baby Monitors
Indianapolis, Indiana – Uniloc, has targeted Binatone of Carmel, Indiana in its latest patent infringement suit. Uniloc has been called a “Patent Troll in Chief” by engadget.com, and justia.com reports that it is a party to at least 343 patent cases. In just October of 2017, Uniloc has filed 17…
Indiana Patent Litigation: Federal Circuit reverses District Court’s dismissal of Lifetime Industries’ Patent Infringement Suit
The Plaintiff, Lifetime Industries, Inc. (doing business as Boyd Corp.) had filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Trim-Lok, Inc infringed patent no. 6,966,590, Two-Part Seal For A Slide-Out Room, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. The Court of Appeals…
The USPTO Denies Petition filed by Neptune Generics, LLC in Challenge to Indiana-based Eli Lilly’s Patent
Petitioner, Neptune Generics, LLC had filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Offices against Eli Lilly & Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, challenging the validity of patent no. 7,772,209, Antifolate combination therapies, which has been issued by the USPTO. This patent covers intellectual property embodied in Alimta®, a…
Indiana Patent Litigation: Infringement of Patent for Furnace Cooling Pipes Alleged Against Foreign Defendants
Indiana Patent Litigation: Infringement of Patent for Furnace Cooling Pipes Alleged Against Foreign Defendants Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Amerifab, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, MELTER, S.A. a Mexican corporation; DE C.V., GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; GERDAU…
Patentability of Amended Claims in IPR the Burden of the Petitioner’s Issue, Not the Patentee
A 7-4 of the en banc decision of the Federal Circuit concludes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board improperly requires a patent owner in an inter partes review (IPR) to show that proposed amended patent claims are patentable before a motion to amend those claims will be granted, In an…
Supreme Court Provides Relief to “Exhausted” Buyers of Printer Cartridges
The US Supreme Court has good news for people that are tired of paying high prices for printer cartridges – the fine print of the “license agreement” in the boxes that prohibits you from refilling the cartridges is no longer effective. In Impression Products Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., U.S.,…