Civil Procedure

November 9, 2012

Indiana Court Transfers Warsaw Orthopedic Patent Infringement Case to California

South Bend, IN. The Northern District of Indiana has granted Defendant, NuVasive, Inc.’s request to transfer the patent infringement suit filed by Plaintiff, Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., to the Southern District of California for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and in the interest of judicial economy.

Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. owns the three patents at issue and has various license arrangements to make, import, and sell products under these patents. On August 17, 2012, Warsaw and its licensees brought suit in the Northern District of Indiana against NuVasive, Inc. alleging infringements of the three patents in the manufacture and sale of medical devices and procedures used in spinal surgery. NuVasive filed their motion for transfer on September 4, 2012, arguing that transfer to Southern District of California would be more convenient for the parties, witnesses and in the interest of justice because of the similarity to a pending patent infringement case. NuVasive is also a party to a case in California involving thirteen patents related to medical devices and procedures used in spinal surgery, which is being litigated in three phases. The first phase concluded on September 20, 2011 and phase two has begun the discovery process. Although venue is proper in both Indiana and California because NuVasive has the requisite minimum contacts to Indiana yet has established the business in California, the court ultimately determined that in the interest of justice and for the conveniences of the parties and witnesses, transfer of the instant case to California is proper. The court determined that a stronger relationship exists between the current events and the California case and that the California court is already familiar with the parties and related issues so no undue time would need to be expensed. Furthermore, evidence to Warsaw’s earlier willingness to consent to transfer in exchange for incorporation into phase two of the California case demonstrated the seemingly tenuous relationship to Indiana and carried significant weight in the court’s analysis. Also, the alleged infringement predominately occurred in California and more non-party witnesses are located in California, with none residing in Indiana. Therefore, NuVasive’s motion for transfer to the Southern District of California was granted.

Practice Tip: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 et seq., Granting transfer is solely within the discretion of the court and Federal district courts may transfer any civil action to any other district for convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice if venue is proper in both courts. Thus separate analysis of venue, convenience of witnesses and parties and interest of justice must be undertaken.

August 7, 2012

Wine & Canvas Litigation Narrowed and Clarified by Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – The Southern District of Indiana dismissed multiple claims by Plaintiff Wine & Canvas in its trademark infringement suit against YN Canvas, et al.

Wine & Canvas organizes parties where guests can take a painting class while enjoying cocktails. Anthony Scott (“Scott”), one of the founders of Wine & Canvas, sued multiple defendants. He alleged that he entered into a business venture wherein he would license the Wine & Canvas business model to Christopher Muylle (“Muylle”) and Theodore Weisser (“Weisser”) for use in San Francisco, both to operate a new Wine & Canvas location and to license others to operate under the Wine & Canvas name and business model. Instead, Scott alleged, the defendants breached that agreement, appropriated the Wine & Canvas model and proceeded without Scott as YN Canvas CA, LLC (“YN Canvas”). Defendants, in turn, alleged that they breached no agreement but instead merely parted ways, changing their business name to “Art Uncorked,” when Wine & Canvas insisted on a new agreement with additional terms that were unfavorable to the defendants.

Plaintiff Wine & Canvas Development, LLC (“Wine & Canvas”), via its attorneys, sued multiple defendants: (1) YN Canvas, a Nevada limited liability company with its principal place of business in California; (2) www.art-uncorked.com, the corporate website for Art Uncorked; (3) Weisser, an officer of YN Canvas; and (4) Muylle, an officer of YN Canvas (collectively, “defendants”). [NB: Art Uncorked was also named as a defendant but, as that was merely the new name of YN Canvas, which had already been named as a defendant, the court chose to refer to both by the one name, “YN Canvas.”]

The eleven-count complaint was originally filed in Hamilton County Circuit Court and included claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, sales of counterfeit items/services, unfair competition, declaratory judgment, civil action under the Indiana Crime Victims Act, breach of contract, fraud, permanent injunctive relief, and request for writ of attachment. It was removed to the Southern District of Indiana as its Lanham Act issues provided federal question jurisdiction. We previously blogged about that element of this case here.

The parties came to the court with several motions. After a detailed discussion on personal jurisdiction, the court held that it could exercise specific jurisdiction over both Weisser and YN Canvas and denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction as to them. The motion to dismiss the website as a defendant was granted, with the court finding that, “[b]ased on common sense and Indiana precedent, it is obvious to this Court that a website alone is not an entity capable of being sued.”

The court declined to discuss jurisdiction regarding “Art Uncorked,” finding that it was merely the new name of YN Canvas and, as such, it need not be considered separately. Any references to YN Canvas would also apply to Art Uncorked.

The court then moved to the defendants’ 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Two counts – trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)(a) and use of a counterfeit mark under 15 U.S.C. § 1116(d) – were dismissed. Each of those claims required a registered mark, which Wine & Canvas conceded it did not have. However, the court dismissed the counts without prejudice, as the registration of the marks is pending.

The court next moved to two “counts” – permanent injunction and attachment – and dismissed them summarily as inappropriate pleading. “Because these remedies are based on causes of actions in other counts within the Wine & Canvas’s complaint and are included within the Wine & Canvas’s prayer for relief,” the court held, “it is unnecessary to dedicate a separate count for each specific remedy.”

Defendants next asked the court to dismiss the claim of fraud for failure to meet the heightened standard required for pleading fraud. As no time frame or location of the alleged fraud had been included in the plaintiff’s complaint, the court dismissed the fraud claim without prejudice.

Finally, as with the “counts” for permanent injunction and attachment noted earlier, the court addressed another “count” by Wine & Canvas seeking a declaratory judgment. Ruling here on the defendants’ motion to strike, the court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) allowing a court to strike “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter” from any pleading and, again, held that the “count” was redundant, as appropriate remedies would be addressed in the adjudication of the substantive claims, and granted the defendants’ motion to strike.

Practice Tip #1: The decision to sue a website is a curious one and seems to be the modern-day equivalent of suing a book. It is notable that this has, however, happened. See, e.g., here. On the one hand, it is an attorney’s duty to pursue zealously his clients’ interests and, at times, that leads to maintaining a cause of action that is not a “sure thing.” On the other hand, the law is unambiguous that a website is neither a real person nor a legal entity capable of being sued and, thus, it would have been wiser to omit this “defendant.”

Practice Tip #2: The decision to include various remedies that a party is seeking as separate causes of action is also curious but, instead of zealous advocacy run amok, it merely seems to reflect improper drafting.
Continue reading

May 17, 2012

Southern District Lifts Stay on Patent Infringement Suit Against Google and Grants One Number Corporation’s Motion To Amend Complaint

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – The Southern District of Indiana has lifted a stay on a patent infringement case against Google and allowed the plaintiff, One Number Corp. Motion to amend its complaint. Patent attorneys for One Number Corp. of Anderson, Indiana had filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Google of Mountain View, California infringed patent no. 7,680,256 and 8,107,603, CONTACT NUMBER ENCAPSULATION SYSTEM, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The litigation was stayed while the US Patent Office re-examined the patents at issue. One Number had motioned the court to remove the stay because a substantial portion of the re-examination process has concluded. Google opposed lifting the stay because there was chance that the Federal Circuit Court would reverse the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences’ conclusions. The court concluded that the stay should be lifted and granted One Number’s motion to amend their compliant. The parties were ordered to submit a case management plan within 14 days.

Practice Tip: It is common for patent infringement litigation to be stayed when the US Patent Office is re-examining the patent, although the district court is not required to stay the litigation. Each claim of a patent is presumed to be valid and enforceable, even if the patent is being re-examined. The US Patent Office offers this FAQ sheet that explains the re-examination process.

April 17, 2012

Southern District Grants Motion to Transfer Venue for Combined Public Communications in Patent Case Over Phone Service To Jails

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis; IN – [Note – Overhauser Law Offices, LLC, publisher of this site, represented Combined Public Communications, who prevailed in this matter]

Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson of the Southern District of Indiana has granted a motion to change venue in a patent infringement suit. Patent attorneys for Securus Technologies of Dallas, Texas, had filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Combined Public Communications (“CPC”), based in Kentucky, infringed Securus’s March 1, 2011 patent no 7,899,167 for “CENTRALIZED CALL PROCESSING.” The patent claims to provide “a centralized architecture for call processing” including voice over internet protocols (VOIP).

Securus’s patent lawyers alleged in the complaint that the litigants are competitors because they each provide “specialized call-processing and billing equipment and services for correctional institutions, direct local and long distance call processing for correctional facilities,” and other technologies relating to “Inmate Management Systems.”

The court’s order transferring venue notes that T-Netix, Inc., a company that is part of the Securus corporate family, filed a patent infringement suit against CPC in the Western District of Kentucky making similar patent infringement claims. Weighing the relevant factors, the court concluded that the interests of justice and convenience to the parties and witnesses favored a transfer of venue to the Western District of Kentucky.

Practice Tip: 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) sets the standard for transfer of venue: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”

March 28, 2012

Southern District Denies Certainteed’s Motion to Dismiss Patent Infringement Suit Brought By Knauf Insulation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis; IN – The Southern District of Indiana has denied a motion to dismiss filed by CertainTeed Corporation in a patent infringement lawsuit. Knauf Insulation Limited of St. Helens, Merseyside, United Kingdom and Knauf Insulation GMBH of Shelbyville, Indiana, filed a patent infringement suit alleging that Certainteed Corporation had infringed patent 7,854,980, FORMALDEHYDE-FREE MINERAL FIBRE INSULATION PRODUCT, which was issued by the US Patent Office. We previously blogged about this case on January 16, 2012 and May 19, 2011.

Patent attorneys for Certainteed had filed the motion to dismiss arguing that Knauf did not have standing because it did not own the rights to the patent at issue and that a first-filed action by Certainteed in the District of Columbia should resolve this dispute, not the case filed with the Southern District of Indiana. The claim that Knauf did not own the patent in question was based upon Certaineed’s interpretation of an exclusive license agreement between the inventors and various divisions of Knauf. Specifically, the Knauf parties had entered a “quitclaim and assignment” agreement that was governed by the laws of the Belgium. Certainteed argued that the transfer of patent rights was not valid.

The court found no merit in Certainteed’s argument. The court found “The Quitclaim and Assignment executed [by Knauf] clearly contains what is referred to in common parlance as a ‘typo.'” The court found that the typo did not negate the parties intentions in entering the contracts. The court also declined to dismiss under the first filed rule, noting that the District of Columbia court had yet to determine whether it had jurisdiction.

Practice Tip: The case management plan had been suspended while this motion to dismiss was pending. This controversy has been slow to progress. It was first filed in February 2011 and was refilled in its current form in May 2011 so it has been nearly a year at this point. The court has quickly scheduled a conference for later this week, likely attempting to move it along.
Continue reading

March 23, 2012

Northern District Denies Motion to Strike Expert’s Survey Regarding Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Infringement Case of Dwyer Instruments v. Sensocon Inc

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, IN – Judge Theresa Springmann of the Northern District of Indiana has denied a motion to strike the report of an expert who conducted an internet survey regarding the likelihood of confusion created by a trademark infringement defendant.

In January 2009, trademark attorneys for Dwyer Instruments of Michigan City, Indiana had filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Sensocon, Inc. and Tony E. Kohl of Highland City, Florida infringed Dwyer’s federally registered trademarks that are placed on Dwyer’s pressure gauge lens covers by placing confusingly similar marks on Sensocon’s own products. The complaint also made claims of trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, counterfeiting, false designation of origin and copyright infringement.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and Sensocon filed a motion to strike the report of Dwyer’s expert who had performed a survey on the likelihood of confusing that is created by the alleged trademark infringement. The Court denied the motion to strike, applying the standards for admission of expert evidence under Federal Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny. The Court noted that similar surveys are routinely admitted into evidence in trademark infringement cases. The court quoted a Seventh Circuit case, stating “[w]hile there will be occasions when the proffered survey is so flawed as to be completely unhelpful to the trier of fact and therefore inadmissible, . . . such situations will be rare.” AHP Subsidiary Holding Co. v. Stuart Hale Co., 1 F.3d 611, 618 (7th Cir. 1993).

Practice Tip: The Court noted that Sensocon could still attack the expert’s report by calling its methods into question and asking the court to grant little weight to the report. The court also granted Sensocon permission to file a report of its own expert to rebut Dwyer’s expert.

March 5, 2012

Northern District of Indiana Consolidates Cases, Discovery in Dispute Between Elkhart RV Manufacturers, Includes Patent and Copyright Infringement Claims

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, IN – The Northern District of Indiana has issued an order consolidating related trade secret, copyright infringement and patent infringement lawsuits a dispute between RV manufacturers, Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC of Elkhart, Indiana and Forest River, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana. This order address five cases currently pending in Northern District of Indiana: 3:08-CV-490-JD-CAN, 3:09-CV-302-JD-CAN, 3:10-CV-011-JD-CAN, 3:10-CV-409-JD-CAN, and 3:11-cv-250-JD-CAN. In addition to Heartland and Forest River, Brian Brady, Catteron Partners and Thor Industries are also named in the suits.
The court found that three of the cases, 3:08-CV-490-JD-CAN, 3:09-CV-302-JD-CAN, and 3:10-CV-409-JD-CAN, involve Heartland’s acquisition of Forest River’s Master List. Since they involve similar questions, the court consolidated these three cases.
The court did not consolidate two of the cases. The court noted that 3:10-CV-011-JD-CAN is a copyright infringement case, where Forest River claims that Heartland infringed its “r.Pod” floor plan. The fifth case, 3:11-cv-250-JD-CAN, is a patent infringement case. In June. Patent lawyers for Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC of Elkhart, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit alleging Forest River, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana infringed Patent No. 7,878,545, Travel trailer having improved turning radius, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.
Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News blogged about the case here: Heartland Recreational Vehicles LLC Sues Forest River Inc. for Patent Infringement of Travel Trailer Turning Radius. The court found that the patent infringement case should not be consolidated because it would likely create confusion and make the litigation more complex.
The court, however, ordered that discovery in all five of the cases be consolidated.

Practice Tip: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), common questions of law and fact are a prerequisite to the consolidation of cases

February 23, 2012

Southern District of Indiana Grants order over Draper, Inc. Motion to Compel to MechoShade Systems, Inc in Patent Infringement Suit Over Spring Shades

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – The Southern District of Indiana has granted Draper, Inc’s of Spiceland, Indiana, motion for limited jurisdictional discovery in a patent infringement case. In November 2010, patent attorneys for Draper, Inc’s of Spiceland, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that MechoShade Systems, Inc and Joel Berman Associates, Inc. of Long Island City, New York infringed patent no. 6,164,428, Wrap spring shade operator, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

Joel Berman Associates has been dismissed from the suit at this point. MechoShade has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In response, Draper requested the Court stay ruling on the motion to dismiss and allow Draper to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Although MechoShade appropriately responded to Draper’s initial discovery requests, it refused to comply with subsequent requests. The court, in this ruling, addressed whether Draper’s requests were appropriate for the limited purpose of the personal jurisdiction inquiry. The court ordered MechoShade to produce the following: documents showing sales communications contacts in Indiana, information showing all warranty and repair work performed in Indiana, summary of presentations given in Indiana, sales lead lists. However, the court determined that MechoShade did not have to produce Commission Reports and Booking Reports, general marketing material, and access to its intranet. The court gave MechoShade until February 24, 2012 to produce the documents it ordered. Further the court ordered that all briefing on the motion to dismiss should be complete by March 24, 2012.

Practice Tip: The court has ordered that MechoShade produce a number of these items as summaries with the accuracy of the summaries to be verified by oath or declaration.
Continue reading

February 22, 2012

Chief Judge Young Affirms Magistrate’s Discovery Order Refusing Inspection of Production Facilities in Patent Infringement Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, IN – Chief Judge Richard L. Young has affirmed Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann‘s discovery ruling that denied a request to inspect production facilities by Intertape Polymer Corp. of Bradenton, Florida, in a patent infringement lawsuit case. In May 2010, patent attorneys for Berry Plastics Corporation of Evansville, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleged that Intertape infringed patent no.7,476,416, Process for preparing adhesive using planetary extruder, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The patented technology is described as “a manufacturing process for preparing an adhesive using specifically modified planetary roller extruder.” Intertape had filed a motion to compel inspection of Berry’s production facilities, to observe the facilities in use and to perform tests on the goods produced during the inspection. Berry objected, and the issue was put before Magistrate Hussmann. The Magistrate denied Intertape’s request, finding that Intertape could use less intrusive methods to uncover the information it was seeking. Specifically, the Magistrate suggested that Intertape depose a Berry representative and pointed to video and photographs that Intertape already had.

Intertape filed objections to the Magistrate’s ruling, but Chief Judge Young affirmed, concluding “The Magistrate Judge balanced the interest of both parties, and came up with a fair and logical resolution for obtaining the information Intertape seeks.”

Practice Tip: This ruling addresses a discovery dispute. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party must make a good faith attempt to resolve a discovery dispute before seeking a court order to compel.

February 16, 2012

Southern District Allows CleanTech to Amend Complaint to Add Patent to Ethanol Patent Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN –Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney of the Southern District of Indiana has allowed an additional patent to be added to a complex patent infringement suit over Ethanol byproducts. The plaintiff in this case, GS CleanTech Corporation of New York, New York had requested to amend its complaint to add infringement claim regarding patent no. 8,008,516, which has been issued by the US Patent Office, to the lawsuit. As orgininally filed, CleanTech had filed a patent infringement lawsuit alleging that twenty-two defendants had infringed patent no. 7,601,858, Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystemsTITLE.

The court describes the ‘516 patent as a continuation of the ‘858 patent and directed to the same technology. The ‘516 patent was issued by the US Patent Office on August 30, 2011. Court found that Cleantech’s motion to amend did not involve undue delay, bad faith or a dilatory motive. The court found that adding the ‘516 patent “serves the goal of furthering the efficient adjudication of the case because the ‘516 and ‘858 patents are directed to similar technology and involve similar claim terms.” Three defendants objected to the amendment of the complaint, however, the court did not find any of the objections sufficient to prevent the amendment of the complaint.

As we blogged in October 2011, Judge McKinney has already held a Markman hearing: Indiana Court issues Markman Ruling in GS Cleantech v. Big River for Ethanol Processing Patents.

Practice Tip: The litigation over the ‘858 patent has been pending for several years and involves many parties. This is a very complex case from a procedural standpoint. While the Markman ruling has already been issued, the court’s order pointed out that the discovery process has not been started.
Continue reading