Intellectual Property Law

June 21, 2024

Cancer Treatment Controversy: Eli Lilly and POINT Biopharma Sued by Purdue for Alleged Patent Infringement

Eli Lilly and Co., together with POINT Biopharma, are facing a lawsuit accusing them of willful infringement of a cancer treatment patent held by the Purdue Research Foundation. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that the defendants have infringed on patents related to radiotherapeutic drugs for prostate cancer, particularly focusing on POINT’s drug PNT2002.

The Purdue Research Foundation, along with co-plaintiffs Endocyte Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., claims that POINT’s PNT2002 infringes on U.S. Patent 10,624,970, which covers treatments targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). The plaintiffs assert that POINT’s actions have caused substantial damage and are seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Lilly’s spokesperson stated that the lawsuit lacks merit and expressed confidence in defending against the claims. The case, assigned to District Judge Richard Young and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker, is documented under Case No. 1:24-cv-01011.

June 14, 2024

Who Decides? A Critical Examination of Arbitrability in Right of Publicity Cases

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The court’s recent opinion by Justice Massa in Illinois Casualty Company (ICC) v. Thirty-Three Models addresses the key question of “Who decides?” in the context of arbitrability, focusing on whether disputes should be resolved by arbitration or through the courts based on the parties’ agreements. This case exemplifies an intellectual property law dispute centered on the right of publicity, which protects an individual’s identity from unauthorized commercial exploitation. The right of publicity grants individuals exclusive authority to license their own identity for commercial purposes, safeguarding their name, likeness, and other recognizable aspects from being used without permission for profit. By addressing the misuse of a person’s identity for commercial gain, this case shows the importance of upholding intellectual property rights to ensure individuals retain control over how their identity is used in the marketplace.

The main issue explored in this opinon is who has the authority to decide if a dispute must be resolved through arbitration. The court considered two primary questions:

Does incorporating American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules indicate a clear intent to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator.

June 7, 2024

Snapshot Showdown: Photographer’s Copyright Battle with Indiana Corporation, My Sauna World LLC

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Prince William County, Viriginia – Plaintiff Morgan Howarth has filed suit against Fishers, Indiana Defendant, My Sauna World LLC. Morgan Howarth, a professional photographer, accuses Sauna World LLC of infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq. for allegedly using his copyrighted photographs without permission or authorization.

The photograph in question is a master bathroom image that Howarth claims he created and registered with the United States Copyright Office in 2011. Despite his purported ownership and licensing rights, Howarth argues that My Sauna World LLC prominently featured the photograph on its own website as part of an online product listing, thereby infringing on Howarth’s copyright.

Central to the case is the question of whether My Sauna World LLC’s actions constitute willful copyright infringement. Howarth argues that the defendant knowingly and intentionally violated his copyright by continuing to reproduce and display the photograph even after they were notified of the alleged infringement.

May 31, 2024

Eli Lilly Settles with Totality Medispa Over False Advertising

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Eli Lilly and Company has reached a settlement with Totality Medispa, a South Carolina-based medical spa, after filing lawsuits in late 2023. The agreement requires Totality Medispa to pay a monetary amount and stop misleading consumers about selling Lilly’s popular, FDA-approved, diabetes and weight-loss treatments, tirzepatide, Mounjaro® or Zepbound®.

Eli Lilly is the only authorized supplier of FDA-approved tirzepatide medicines in the U.S. and does not provide tirzepatide’s active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) to any compounding pharmacies. Any product labeled as “tirzepatide” that is not sold by Lilly is not FDA-approved and could be dangerous.

Because Eli Lilly places patient safety at the forefront, the company has been alarmed by the dangers of Totality Medispa’s products being falsely marketed as FDA-approved tirzepatide, Mounjaro®, or Zepbound®. These counterfeit products have not been reviewed by the FDA or any global regulatory bodies, posing serious health risks to patients.

March 11, 2024

Red Hex Rivalry: Valcrum Hubcaps vs. Dexter’s Fortress

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In Cyprus, Texas, Valcrum, LLC (“Valcrum”), a company specializing in trailer and axle market products, is engaged in a legal dispute with Dexter Axle Company, LLC (“Dexter”) from Indiana over trademark and trade dress infringement regarding a hubcap design.

According to court documents, Valcrum has developed a reputation for innovative hubcaps designed for 8,000-16,000-pound trailer axles. These hubcaps are identified by their distinct features, including a “signature red hex bezel with a hexagonal outer perimeter and an inner diameter.” Valcrum claims to have begun establishing trademark and trade dress rights for this design as early as late 2018.

The dispute arises from Valcrum’s allegation that Dexter, a manufacturer and distributor of axle and trailer accessories, has copied Valcrum’s hubcap design, including the distinctive red hex bezel, to market its own product called the “Fortress” hubcap. Additionally, Valcrum contends that Dexter breached a Mutual Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) by allegedly using confidential information, such as Valcrum’s customer list, to its advantage.

March 8, 2024

Protecting Quality: Nutramax Laboratories Takes Legal Action Against Alleged Unauthorized Resale

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. (“Nutramax”) have recently begun legal proceedings against CNB Retailers, LLC, Brett Hart, and Christina Miller (“Defendants”) alleging unauthorized resale of Nutramax products. The suit involves allegations concerning trademark infringement, unfair competition, and interference with contractual agreements.

Nutramax Labs and Nutramax Vet, entities headquartered in South Carolina, are known for their development and distribution of health supplements tailored for companion animals. Court documents state that the trademarks associated with Nutramax, such as NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES and PROVIABLE, are widely recognized within the industry. Nutramax products are sold through authorized retailers which may have online or brick-and-mortar locations.

The crux of Nutramax’s grievance lies in Defendants’ purported unauthorized sales of Nutramax products, notably on Amazon.com, under the seller account name “UniversalExports.” In addition to the accused products bearing the NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES and PROVIABLE trademarks, Nutramax asserts that the products being distributed by Defendants differ materially from those authorized by Nutramax, thus failing to meet the requisite quality standards. These requirements include proper storage conditions to maintain product quality and providing customer support and knowledge about Nutramax products.

March 4, 2024

This is Garbage! Photographer Battles Circle City Broadcasting Over Alleged Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Defendant Circle City Broadcasting, LLC d/b/a WISH-TV, is being sued by Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski over alleged copyright infringement. Sadowski is a photojournalist from New Jersey, who has been published in numerous popular newspapers and magazines. While he holds the licenses to his photographs, court documents explain that Sadowski allows entities to purchase a one-time-use license for themselves.

According to the complaint, in 2019, Sadowski created and copyrighted a photograph titled “062219garbagetruck4CS,” depicting the bustling streets of New York City. In 2021, Circle City Broadcasting purportedly published Sadowski’s work on their website, without obtaining the necessary licensing. It is alleged that not only did they display the image without consent, but they also cropped out Sadowski’s copyright management information, potentially infringing upon his rights.

Despite Sadowski’s supposed attempts to resolve the matter amicably, Circle City Broadcasting purportedly failed to address the issue satisfactorily. Consequently, Sadowski pursued legal action to address the alleged willful infringement.

March 1, 2024

Precision and Clarity in Patent Claims: A Case Study of CAFC’s Ruling on U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In a recent CAFC ruling on U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658, owned by Mantissa Corporation, the court addressed the issue of claim definiteness in the context of an infringement dispute with First Financial Corporation and First Financial Bank, N.A. The case focused on interpreting terms like “transaction partner” and “OFF” within the patent claims. The district court, relying on expert testimony, found “transaction partner” indefinite, a decision challenged by Mantissa. However, the CAFC majority emphasized intrinsic evidence from the patent itself, highlighting the term’s absence in the original specification and rejecting Mantissa’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would understand it as a seller. The court declined to address the construction of “OFF” due to jurisdictional constraints. Judge Schall dissented, arguing for a broader interpretation of “transaction partner” based on the specification’s references to multiple parties involved in transactions.

Ultimately, the CAFC’s ruling highlights the importance of precision and clarity in patent claims. It emphasizes the intrinsic evidence as a primary source for claim interpretation and underscores the significance of ensuring that claim terms are adequately defined within the patent specification itself. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role that claim definiteness plays in the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Opinion

February 26, 2024

Franchise Freeze-Out: Baskin-Robbins vs. Blue Moo

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC (“Baskin-Robbins”) v. Blue Moo Ice Cream Inc. (“Blue Moo”) is a breach of contract and trademark infringement suit involving Plaintiff Baskin-Robbins/BR IP Holder, a well-known franchisor in the ice cream industry, and Defendants Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc., and Robert Holocher.

According to the complaint, Baskin-Robbins entered into franchise agreements with Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. for the operation of Baskin-Robbins franchises in the greater Indianapolis area. However, Baskin-Robbins claims the termination of the agreements ensued due to Blu Moo’s repeated failure to fulfill financial obligations to Baskin-Robbins, triggering a series of legal actions.

The crux of the case revolves around Blu Moo’s alleged unauthorized use of Baskin-Robbins’ intellectual property, including trademarks and trade dress, after the termination of franchise agreements. Baskin-Robbins claims to have given clear instructions to cease operations and de-identify the restaurants, but Blu Moo purportedly continued to operate, sparking Baskin-Robbins’ claim of irreparable harm to their brand reputation and goodwill.

February 23, 2024

USPTO’s Clarification on Human Ingenuity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently provided crucial clarification on the patentability of inventions facilitated by artificial intelligence (AI). The announcement, made on February 12th, has significant implications for intellectual property (IP) law and innovation in the rapidly evolving realm of AI technology.

The USPTO’s guidance delineates the conditions under which patents will be granted for AI-assisted inventions, emphasizing the indispensable role of human ingenuity in the innovation process. According to the new directive, patents can encompass AI-assisted inventions “for which a natural person provided a significant contribution.” This pivotal criterion underscores the agency’s commitment to fostering innovation while maintaining a balance that avoids undue restrictions on future developments.

The emergence of artificial intelligence has precipitated novel challenges in IP law, prompting inquiries into the patentability of inventions produced with AI assistance. While U.S. courts have determined that AI systems themselves cannot be patent holders for fully AI-generated inventions, the issue of human involvement in AI-assisted inventions remained unresolved until now.