New Decisions

August 2, 2021

Patent Infringement Suit Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

New Albany, Indiana – Chief Judge Tanya Walton Pratt for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed a patent infringement suit filed by Plaintiff, Eddie M. Green, Jr. (“Green”) in March 2020 for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Green, who claimed Defendants, Ara Yavruyan and Chain Vault Inc., infringed on his U.S. Patent No. 9,940,796 for the “Yellow Fellow Safety Sign” filed his pro se Complaint in the Southern District of Indiana although he noted a California address for the Defendants. In response, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss arguing improper venue, lack of personal jurisdiction, failure to effect service, and that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In or around April 2020, the Court directed the Clerk to issue process, which was returned unexecuted by the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) on July 9, 2020 as it could not locate the Defendants at the address listed on the Complaint. A second address was found and the Court ordered the USMS to issue process at the second address. On October 20, 2020, the USMS again returned an unexecuted summons, Complaint, and Order because it could not locate the second address for the Defendants. After being required to submit search evidence and a proper address to the Court, Green filed a Motion for Alias Summons which was granted on November 18, 2020. On November 19, 2020, having been served, the Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss.

Over the course of one month after the filing of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, Green submitted a Motion for Summary Judgment, a Motion to Strike Declaration, and five filings opposing the Motion to Dismiss.

When a Court is faced with a Fed. Rule Civ. P. 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, a plaintiff only needs to make a prima facie case of personal jurisdiction. However, “[i]f the defendant has submitted evidence in opposition to the implementation of jurisdiction, ‘the plaintiff must go beyond the pleadings and submit affirmative evidence supporting the exercise of jurisdiction.’” Additionally, the Court must employ a three-prong test to determine if there is specific jurisdiction: (1) the defendant purposefully directed its activities at residents of the forum, (2) the claim arises out of or relates to those activities, and (3) assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair.”

Here, the Defendants claim neither reside or have any physical presence in Indiana or “continuous or systematic contacts with Indiana. Thus, the Court must use the three-prong test for specific jurisdiction. However, the Defendants claim they have no contacts with the state of Indiana at all and have therefore not availed themselves to specific jurisdiction. It does not appear Green was able to provide any evidence to the contrary and therefore, the Motion to Dismiss was granted.

July 19, 2021

Seventh Circuit Affirms Denial of Fees for Trademark Infringement Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, Illinois – Chicago is apparently home to two hotels named “Hotel Chicago.” The first, owned by plaintiff/appellee, LHO Chicago River, LLC (“LHO”) was allegedly named in 2014. The second hotel, owned by defendants/appellants Rosemoor Suites, LLC, Portfolio Hotel & Resorts, LLC and Chicago Hotel, LLC (collectively “Rosemoor”), was apparently renamed to “Hotel Chicago” in 2016. LHO filed suit for trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, deceptive advertising, and common-law trademark infringement under Illinois law.

The district court found that LHO failed “to show that it is likely to succeed in proving secondary meaning” of the alleged mark “Hotel Chicago” and thus denied preliminary injunctive relief. While LHO appealed this ruling, it moved to voluntarily dismiss its claims with prejudice prior to briefing.

After the case was dismissed, Rosemoor filed a motion requesting more than half a million dollars in attorney fees, claiming the case was “exceptional.” This request was denied by the district court. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit held that the district court did not use the proper standard of Octane Fitness to deny the request and remanded. On remand, Rosemoor filed a renewed request for fees including an extra $130,000 on top of the original fee request. However, even after applying the Octane Fitness standard, the district court still denied the fee request. The Seventh Circuit affirmed finding the district court “considered the evidence under the Octane Fitness framework and reasonably determined that this case did not qualify as exceptional.”

Practice Tip: Under Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. 545 at n.7. (2014), a district court must consider the totality of the circumstances by simply weighing non-exclusive factors such as “frivolousness, motivation, objective unreasonableness (both in the factual and legal components of the case) and the need in particular circumstances to advance considerations of compensation and deterrence.”

February 1, 2021

Southern District of Indiana’s Dismissal of Patent Infringement Case Affirmed

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit originally filed by Tenstreet, LLC (“Tenstreet”) in the Southern District of Indiana. In the original suit, Tenstreet alleged that Defendant DriverReach, LLC (“DriverReach”), infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 8,145,575 (the “‘575 Patent”) for “Peer to Peer Sharing of Job Applicant Information.”

According to the District Court Order, Tenstreet developed a product called the Xchange™, which encompasses the ‘575 Patent that facilitated job applicant verification between past and prospective commercial truck driver employers. The product also apparently allows the applicant to review and correct information before it is sent to their prospective employer. Tenstreet claimed that DriverReach infringed the ‘575 Patent by selling an employment verification product, VOE Plus Solutions. DriverReach moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the ’575 Patent claims ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an abstract idea.

To analyze whether a patent claims an abstract idea, the court uses a two-step framework. First, it asks whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If yes, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’” that ensures “that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 573 U.S. 208, 217 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73).

In this case, the Court found the invention claimed “nothing more than an abstract idea implemented on a computer.” After finding the claims directed to an abstract idea the Court proceeded to step two of the framework and found “no sufficient inventive technology to transform the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and storing data on a generic computer into a patent-eligible application.” Therefore, the Court granted DriverReach’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the Federal Circuit affirmed.

DriverReach has filed a motion seeking to recover $700,000 in attorney’s fees, claiming that this case is exceptional.

Practice Tip: According to 35 U.S.C. § 101, patentable subject matter is “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” However, the Supreme Court has held that “this provision contains an important implicit exception [:] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012). Continue reading

November 16, 2020

Patent Infringement Case Dismissed for Forum Non Conveniens

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Tyler Research Corporation (“TRC”), the Plaintiff, filed suit against the Defendants, Envacon, Inc., Kieran Bozman, and JKKB Holding Corporation, alleging infringement of its rights in United States Patent No. 6,273,053 (the “‘053 Patent”). After amending the Complaint, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint Pursuant to Forum Non-Conveniens.

TRC is apparently a Pennsylvania corporation having its principal place of business in Alberta, Canada. According to the Opinion of the Court, Envacon, Inc. and JKKB Holding Corporation are both Canadian entities and Kieran Bozman resides in Canada.

Forum non conveniens allows a district court to dismiss a case “in order to best service the convenience of the parties and the ends of justice.” Stroitelstvo Bulgaria Ltd. v. Bulgarian-American Enter. Fund, 589 F.3d 417, 421 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Clerides v. Boeing Co., 534 F.3d 623, 627–28 (7th Cir. 2008)). The Court in this case found that while a “Canadian court is unlikely to adjudicate a claim for the infringement of a United States patent,” TRC could still bring a claim for infringement of its Canadian patent and a claim for breach of contract, “which alone would remedy the alleged wrong.” Opinion at p. 9. After finding an alternative forum is available for the case, the Court conducted an analysis and found the public interest and private interests of the parties would be best served by dismissing the case and allowing it to proceed in Canada. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

October 23, 2020

U.S. Supreme Court Rules “Generic.com” Trademarks May be Trademarkable

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C.– A travel-reservation website, Booking.com, filed federal trademark applications for a number of marks including the term “Booking.com.” After being examined, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused registration for the mark on the grounds it was a generic name for online reservation services.

However, the District Court, the Fourth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court all found “Booking.com” should be granted registration even though the term “booking” on its own would be generic. The Courts reasoned that because only one entity can occupy an internet domain name at one time, consumers could associate a term styled as “generic.com” with a particular website and source of services.

While the USPTO also argued that allowing trademark protection for “Booking.com” could inhibit competitors from using the term “booking,” the Supreme Court cited multiple doctrines that guard against anticompetitive effects. Those doctrines ensure that a registration for terms such as “Booking.com” would not give the registrant a monopoly on the term “booking.” Therefore, the Supreme Court declined to rule in a manner “that would largely disallow registration of ‘generic.com’ terms and open the door to cancellation of scores of currently registered marks.”

October 5, 2020

Eli Lilly Declaratory Judgment Suit Transferred to North Carolina

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) filed suit on November 13, 2019 in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant SensorRx seeking a declaratory judgment that it had not misappropriated trade secrets among other things. SensorRx in turn, on November 22, 2019 filed a lawsuit in the Western District of North Carolina seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages. SensorRx then filed a Motion to Dismiss or to Transfer Lilly’s declaratory action suit to North Carolina.

The Southern District found Lilly’s declaratory action was an “improper anticipatory filing” as there was a clear threat of litigation prior to the filing of the declaratory action. As such, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to hear the declaratory judgment action. The Court further found that the balance of factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) weighed in favor of transferring the action to the Western District of North Carolina where SensorRx filed its suit. Therefore, SensorRx’s Motion to Transfer was granted and the case was transferred to the Western District of North Carolina. Continue reading

August 10, 2020

Seventh Circuit Rules Against Molson Coors in Beer Rival Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Molson Coors Beverage Co. (“Molson Coors”) v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC (“Anheuser-Busch”) which was originally filed in United District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.

The basic issue is whether “the true statement ‘their [Molson Coors] beer is made using corn syrup and ours [Anheuser-Busch] isn’t’ wrongly implies that ‘their beer contains corn syrup.’” While the ingredient lists for both Miller Lite and Coors Light include “Corn Syrup (Dextrose),” Molson Coors argues that a list of “ingredients” is different from what is contained in the finished product. To support its argument, Molson Coors relies on the fact alcohol is omitted from the ingredients list, but is included in the final product. Continue reading

July 15, 2020

Trade Dress for Conveyor Belt Fastener Rejected as Functional

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Flexible Steel Lacing Co.’s (“Flexco”) trade dress is invalid because it is functional.

Flexco originally filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division for trade dress infringement and unfair competition against Conveyor Accessories, Inc. (“CAI”). CAI counterclaimed seeking cancellation of Flexco’s trademarks and seeking declaratory judgment of invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of CAI, finding that Flexco’s trade dress was functional because the product’s utilitarian advantages were disclosed in an expired utility patent, internal corporate documents, and advertising materials.

This case was before Chief Judge, Diane Wood, Judge Joel Flaum and Judge Kenneth Ripple assigned Appeal No. 19-2035 and was decided April 7, 2020.

July 13, 2020

U.S. Supreme Court Upheld States’ Sovereign Immunity for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

U.S. Supreme Court–Frederick Allen (“Allen”) was hired as a videographer to document the recovery of the Queen Anne’s Revenge shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Allen worked to document the recovery for over a decade and registered copyrights for his works. When North Carolina published some of Allen’s work online, Allen sued for copyright infringement. North Carolina moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground of state sovereign immunity; while Allen argued the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act of 1990 (“CRCA”) removed the States’ sovereign immunity.

The District Court agreed with Allen while the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of North Carolina on March 23, 2020.

Sovereign immunity has recently been the basis for granting summary judgment in several recent copyright cases in the Southern District of Indiana, namely at least Richard N. Bell v. Jay L. Hess, Case No. 1:16-cv-02463-TWP-DML, (S.D. Ind. March 9, 2018) and Richard N. Bell v. Jason Henderson, Case No. 1:16-cv-02488-RLY-DML, (S.D. Ind. July 23, 2018).

June 26, 2020

Federal Circuit Affirms Patents-in-Suit Unenforceable Due to Inequitable Conduct

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Appellants, GS CleanTech Corporation and Greenshift Corporation (collectively “CleanTech”), appealed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,601,858 (the “‘858 patent”), 8,008,516 (the “‘516 patent”), 8,008,517 (the “‘517 patent”), and 8,283,484 (the “‘484 patent”) (together, the “Patents-in-Suit”) are unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Before joining CleanTech in 2006, David Cantrell founded Vortex Dehydration Technology (“VDT”). In June 2003, Mr. Cantrell sent an email to two Agri-Energy LLC (“Agri-Energy”) employees regarding how VDT’s oil recovery system may be applicable in an ethanol plant. He also included an operational cost spreadsheet and an image of the system. VDT representatives conducted tests with Agri-Energy’s ethanol syrup in early July 2003.

A proposal dated July 31, 2003 was emailed to multiple Agri-Energy employees on August 1, 2003 offering “Agri-Energy a No-Risk trial [of the] ‘Oil Recovery System.’” The proposal allowed Agri-Energy to use the unit for sixty days at which point it could purchase the system for $423,000 or return it to VDT. That proposal was not accepted, however, in early 2004 communications resumed and the system was installed in the Agri-Energy plant in May 2004.