Intellectual Property Law

January 12, 2018

Indiana Trademark Litigation

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Impact Networking, LLC, of Hammond, and Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Impact Solutions, LLC, of Fishers, Indiana infringed its rights on the United States Trademark registration numbers 2425077 and 2428340. Plaintiff is seeking judgment against Impact Solutions, damages, attorney fees, and costs.

Plaintiff has been in business since 1999, offering IT services. Plaintiff registered two trademarks for its brand, one protecting the word mark “Impact Networking,” and one protecting the company’s logo, which includes the company’s name. According to the complaint, Defendant is also an IT services provider, operating in the same geographic location. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s similar name causes consumer confusion and suggests an affiliation between the two companies. Although Plaintiff’s principal place of business is in Illinois, they have offices in Hammond, Indiana and Indianapolis, Indiana, and do business throughout Indiana. According to the complaint, the two companies are direct competitors in the same geographic area.

December 20, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Purdue Trustees Sue Japanese Corporation Over Blood Pressure Monitor Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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 Pressure Monitor”. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, compensatory damages, supplemental damages and interest, and such other and further relief and all remedies available at law.

The ‘611 patent describes a small blood pressure monitor to be worn around one’s wrist or other limb. The patented item includes the monitor and a pump to inflate the cuff, among other details. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been infringing the patent by offering for sale numerous infringing blood pressure monitors that Plaintiff alleges “embody the apparatuses and practice the methods covered by one or more claims of the ’611 patent.”

November 28, 2017

Indiana Trade Dress Infringement: Owner of Shoe Carnival Trademark Sues over Trade Dress and Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, SCLC, Inc. of Evansville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Marie Kettering of Trenton, New Jersey, and Lanny Tyndall of Enfield, Gansu, Canada, infringed the rights of SCLC. Plaintiff is seeking a nationwide injunction, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff owns the rights to the “Shoe Carnival” trademark, and owns and operates shoecarnival.com. The complaint alleges that the Defendants operate shoe sale websites that infringe upon the trade dress of the Shoe Carnival website, and infringe upon the Shoe Carnival trademark by displaying the registered mark on the websites. Specifically, the Defendants’ websites mimic the “look and feel” of Shoe Carnival’s website, including the layouts, placement of photos, borders, frames, colors, and overall impression. Further, Plaintiff alleges that the offending websites used the “Shoe Carnival” registered mark without permission in an effort to generate sales, which Plaintiff claims has caused consumer confusion.

Practice Tip: Although the Plaintiff alleges personal jurisdiction over the Defendants in the complaint, they do not allege any specific facts, such as infringing sales, which occurred in Indiana. This may cause issues for the Plaintiff in trying to secure personal jurisdiction over the Defendant. In a similar case in 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that an out-of-state business accused of trademark infringement did not have sufficient contacts, arising out of the accused activity, with Indiana to subject it to personal jurisdiction in the state.

November 27, 2017

New York Trademark Litigation: Indiana-Based AM General Sues Activision over Call of Duty Videogame

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, AM General LLC, of South Bend, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Activision Blizzard, Inc., and Activision Publishing, Inc., both of Santa Monica, California and Major League Gaming Corp., of New York, New York; infringed its rights for the Trademark Registrations of HUMVEE and HMMWV and the trade dress of its HUMVEE brand vehicles. Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, punitive damages, corrective advertising, attorneys’ fees and costs, and prejudgment and post judgment interest.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s series of Call of Duty videogames have consistently infringed by incorporating and allowing players to control vehicles in-game that, allegedly, infringe on Plaintiff’s real-life protected marks. In the complaint, Plaintiff points to various in-game levels that require the player to control a vehicle that allegedly copies the registered trade dress elements, and other moments in the game where the player sees or interacts with vehicles resembling Humvees. Plaintiff also notes in-game dialogue and marks written on the vehicles that mention “Humvee” specifically.

November 21, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Eli Lilly and Teva Pharmaceuticals Clash Again over Alimta

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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 United States Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ’209 patent”) for “Antifolate Combination Therapies”. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and damages including costs and attorneys’ fees.

Eli Lilly and Teva have been involved in numerous patent infringement lawsuits against each other in the past. In April, Eli Lilly sued Teva on a claim of patent infringement of the same drug involved in this case, Alimta. This new complaint is based on a filing by Defendant with the FDA “seeking approval to manufacture and sell its Pemetrexed Injection Concentrate.”

November 17, 2017

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Owner of Copyrighted Skyline Photograph Sues for Infringement Again

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana –Plaintiff, Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Anderson Schulle of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed his rights in the “Indianapolis Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the US Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115. Bell seeks injunctive relief along with statutory damages, costs and attorney fees.

In October, Bell filed suit against a private equity firm from Carmel, Indiana for publishing the photo on their website.

The lawsuit is the latest in a long string of lawsuits alleging infringement of a copyrighted photo of the Indianapolis skyline. See:

According to the complaint, in 2000, Plaintiff took a photograph of the downtown Indianapolis skyline from St. Clair Avenue, overlooking the downtown canal. Plaintiff registered the copyright in 2011 and has used the photograph in business and advertising materials since then. The complaint alleges that in December 2014, Defendant published the photo on his real estate business’ website without authorization or conferring credit, and claimed to own the copyright to the photo himself.

November 16, 2017

USPTO News: USPTO Seeks Comments on Year-Old Standard Protective Order

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The United States Patent and Trademark Office has opened for comments and suggestions on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Boards Standard Protective Order. The new order went into effect in June of 2016. Submit comments or suggestions on the Standard Protective Order to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Boards website.

The USPTO is considering changes to the Standard Protective Order, which is used to protect confidential information that is disclosed during the course of a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board proceeding. The standard order is modifiable on a case-by-case basis by order of the Board or agreement of the parties involved. It provides a number of standard terms to bind parties and witnesses and prevent disclosure of confidential information they may have learned.

In June 2016 the Standard Protective Order was updated to its current form. Changes made at the time included making the order automatically imposed in Board proceedings, and recommending the parties execute a binding agreement.

November 10, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Thor Industries Sues The RV Factory Over RV Patents

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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, titled Recreational Vehicle Chassis (the ‘427 patent). Plaintiff is seeking judgment in favor of Thor Industries, Inc., damages, and all infringing products be recalled.

Plaintiff is the owner of the patents, which deal with the design and functionality of travel trailers. Specifically, the ‘251 patent deals with an RV chassis having certain types of angled front corners, as opposed to squared corners. The ‘427 patent covers a type of chassis with a curved or bowed front end, instead of a flat or straight front.

According to the complaint, Defendant has been manufacturing and selling RVs with chasses containing the patented design elements. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s RV model “Luxe Luxury Fifth Wheel” infringes on the ‘251 patent. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant’s “Luxe Elite,” “Luxe Gold,” and “Weekend Warrior” models infringe the ‘427 patent by using a curved forward surface.

Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has induced and contributed to infringement by third parties who have bought and used the allegedly infringing RVs.

November 8, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Klipsch Sues Chinese Defendant Over Allegedly Infringing Earphones

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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 is seeking judgment, a permanent injunction, lost profits, damages, pre-judgement and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and all relief just and proper.

Plaintiff Klipsch is an Indianapolis-based audio company that produces headphones, earphones, and speakers for home and commercial use. China-based Defendant Paiaudio specializes in producing high-end earphones. The subject of this litigation is a type of small earphone patented by Klipsch, specifically their “X12i” model. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “π 3.14 Audio” model is virtually identical to the X12i, infringes on the patent, and violates the Lanham Act via trade dress confusion.

November 7, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Indianapolis-Based Home Healthcare Company Sues Former Employee for Ownership of Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Home Care Providers, Inc. and Dr. Dev A. Brar, of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant, Shawn R. Bashore, of Carmel, Indiana. This suit was filed for inventorship of the United States Patent No. 9,668,328 (“the ‘328 Patent”), Night-Light and Alert System, for constructive fraud, and conversion of the patent. Plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgment, lost profits, and reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees.

The ‘328 Patent is for a system including a mat and a wirelessly-connected light, the purpose of which is to allow an individual to rise from bed and turn on the lights by stepping on the mat.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, while overseeing development of the invention, represented himself as a co-inventor on the patent application, which violated provisions of the employment agreement requiring that all material created would belong to Plaintiff. Further, according to the complaint, Defendant has attempted to profit from licensing the invention.