New Litigation

December 22, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: South Bend Auto Finance Company Sued for Patent Infringement

South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiff Hawk Technology Systems, LLC of Miami, Florida filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement.

Hawk accuses Defendant Instant Auto Finance Inc. of South Bend, Indiana of infringing U.S. Patent No. RE43,462 (the “‘462 patent”), which is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,265,410. Claim 12 of the ‘462 patent, and possibly others, is at issue in this litigation. That claim covers a method of simultaneously displaying and storing multiple video images.

In this complaint, filed by an Indiana patent attorney in conjunction with a lawyer from Minnesota, Hawk contends that Instant Auto Finance infringed the ‘462 patent by using a video storage and display system and/or methods that infringe one or more of the claims in the ‘462 patent. Plaintiff seeks damages as well as reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees.

December 21, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Safe Manufacturers Clash over Smart Safe Technology

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – FireKing Security Products, LLC of New Albany, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement of a patent related to smart safes.

Defendant in this litigation is American Security Products Company of Fontana, California. Both Plaintiff and Defendant are in the business of manufacturing smart safes, which feature technology designed to count and log each deposit as it is made into the safe as well as generating and transmitting daily reports of the amount of cash stored in the safe.

American Security makes a line of smart safes offered under the name “CashWizard.” FireKing asserts that these products infringe its patent for “Electronic Transmission and Tracking of Deposit Information,” which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as Patent No. 7,216,098 (the “’098 patent”). FireKing asserts that it has multiple patents associated with its smart-safe products, including the ‘098 patent, which is the only patent at issue in this Indiana lawsuit.

December 19, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Founding Member of Museum Registers Trademark Under His Own Name, Sues Museum for Use

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – Richard Litov of Evansville, Indiana sued Freedom Heritage Museum, Inc., of Evansville, Indiana alleging trademark infringement. Litov asserts claims under both federal and Indiana law.

Litov claims that he conceived the idea for the museum – a collection of exhibits and artifacts from the World War II era – as well as the museum’s name, stating that he served as its founding president and a founding board member. He asserts that the museum used the trademarked name pursuant to permission that he granted “as president and board member” of the museum.

The trademark in question has been registered under Litov’s name as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,939,292. Litov states in his complaint that the registration covers the words FREEDOM HERITAGE MUSEUM and an associated design. The word portion of the trademark, as listed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s website, is FREEDOM HERITAGE MUSEUM, EST. 2012, EVANSVILLE INDIANA. The application for the trademark registration was filed on July 6, 2015 and granted on April 19, 2016.

December 16, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Taiwan Plaintiffs Allege Infringement of Bike Rack

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiffs King Sheng Co., Ltd., which does business as Seiki, and David Tsai, both of Taiwan, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendant in this Indiana litigation is Hollywood Engineering, Inc. d/b/a Hollywood Racks of Los Angeles, California. It is accused of having infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,240,816 (“the ‘816 patent”), which relates to a bike rack for use on vehicles. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant“has made, imports, sells, offers to sell, and/or uses” numerous infringing products. The products at issue include items offered under model numbers HR200, HRT220, HR1000, HR1000R, HR1400, HR1450, HR1450E, HR1450R, HR1475, and Sunlite models 45815 and 45816.

Defendant is accused of having infringed the ‘816 patent directly and/or jointly with other entities, with the alleged infringement occuring literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. Plaintiff further contends that Defendant is liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) for inducing infringement of the patent-in-suit and under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) for contributory infringement. Stating that Defendant has had actual notice of the ‘816 patent since no later than 2009, Plaintiff also asserts that infringement of the ‘816 patent has been willful and deliberate.

December 15, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Allegations of Infringement of Movie Filed in Southern District

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Cook Productions, LLC of Los Angeles, California filed a lawsuit accusing unnamed Doe Defendants of copyright infringement. The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of Indiana, mirrors another lawsuit filed by Cook Productions in the Northern District of Indiana.

The copyrighted work at issue is the motion picture “Mr. Church,” which features Eddie Murphy and Britt Robertson. The movie has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. PA 2-002-851.

In this litigation, filed by a copyright lawyer for Plaintiff, the ten unnamed Doe Defendants are accused of having participated in a BitTorrent swarm to disseminate illegal copies of the movie. Plaintiff states that it used geolocation technology to trace Defendants to the Southern District of Indiana.

December 8, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Unnamed Defendants Accused of Infringement of Eddie Murphy Movie

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiff Cook Productions, LLC of Los Angeles, California sued 11 unnamed “Doe” Defendants in the Northern District of Indiana for infringing the copyrighted motion picture “Mr. Church.”

The movie, which features Eddie Murphy and Britt Robertson, tells the story of a lifelong friendship that began when a cook agreed to help a little girl and her dying mother. It was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on August 29, 2016 under Registration No. PA 2-002-851.

In this Indiana lawsuit, a copyright attorney for Plaintiff contends that Mr. Church was unlawfully released on the internet and shared, potentially worldwide, using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol. Defendants in this litigation are accused of having participated as part of a BitTorrent “swarm,” in which each Defendant shared portions of the movie with other Defendants, ultimately resulting in each Defendant obtaining a complete copy. Plaintiff asserts that it used geolocation technology to trace the Internet Protocol addresses of each Defendant to a point of origin within the Northern District of Indiana and that, consequently, jurisdiction in Indiana is proper.

November 29, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Klipsch Sues Alleged “Gray Market” Seller of Klipsch Products

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Klipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. It alleges infringement of several trademarks protecting the Klipsch® mark.

Listed as sole Defendant in this lawsuit is Robert Pignari of Costa Mesa, California, who does business as Main St. Electronics. Pignari also maintains an Amazon.com presence under the name “Audio Video Sales Guy.”

Klipsch accuses Defendant Pignari, who is not an authorized Klipsch distributor, of selling Klipsch products without its permission. Pignari is further accused of removing the correct serial numbers from the shipping boxes of the Klipsch products he sells and replacing them with fake serial numbers. Because Klipsch voids a product’s warranty in such cases, Pignari’s customers have purchased Klipsch products advertised as “brand new” but which carry no warranty from Klipsch.

November 25, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Dunkin’ Donuts Sued on Allegations of Deceiving Consumers with Fake Splenda

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Heartland Consumer Products LLC of Carmel, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, as well as related wrongdoing under the Indiana State Trademark Act, the common law of the State of Indiana and the Indiana Crime Victims Act. The intellectual property at issue pertains to Splenda®, a Heartland trademark under which it offers sucralose, a low-calorie sweetener.

Defendants in the litigation are Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Dunkin’ Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC of Canton, Massachusetts. They are accused of “deceiving customers into believing the Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants carry Splenda® Brand Sweetener,” by both tacitly and affirmatively misrepresenting that the non-Splenda sucralose product that the Dunkin’ Defendants offer is, in fact, Heartland’s Splenda. Plaintiff contends that consumers were confused about whether the sweetener that the Dunkin’ Defendants offered was Splenda and that some have complained that adding the other sweetener to their Dunkin’ Donuts products imparted a “funny taste.”

Defendants discontinued their agreement to purchase and offer Heartland’s Splenda in April 2016. According to the Indiana complaint, following that decision, Defendants began offering sweetener in yellow packets similar to the single-serving packets in which Splenda is offered to the public. Plaintiff contends that, when asked, Defendants in a “clear majority of stores affirmatively represented, through their agents or employees, that non-Splenda® sucralose sweetener was instead Splenda® Brand Sweetener.” Plaintiff further contends that Dunkin’ Defendants are misappropriating Plaintiff’s trademarked “Sweet Swaps®” by the use of a similar term “Smart Swaps.”

November 23, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Sues Generic Drugmaker for Third Time Regarding ALIMTA

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Plaintiff Eli Lilly and Company filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement. Defendant is Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC of Lake Zurich, Illinois.

Lilly, an Indianapolis-based company, is a developer and seller of pharmaceutical drugs. One of its drugs, ALIMTA®, is marketed as a chemotherapy agent used for the treatment of various types of cancer.

Fresenius, formerly known as APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC, manufactures and sells generic drugs. Earlier this year, Fresenius amended its Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”), which was previously filed to seek U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval to manufacture three different concentrations of ALIMTA. Through its recent amendment, Fresenius now asks for approval to manufacture and sell a fourth generic version of ALIMTA. Lilly filed this litigation in response.

November 21, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Three New Lawsuits Allege Infringement of “Mechanic: Resurrection”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond and Indianapolis, Indiana – A copyright litigator for Plaintiff ME2 Productions, Inc. of Carson City, Nevada filed three new complaints in Indiana federal courts alleging copyright infringement.

Plaintiff asserts that a total of 25 as-yet-unknown Defendants infringed the copyrighted movie “Mechanic: Resurrection,” which stars Jason Statham, Jessica Alba and Tommy Lee Jones. The movie has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. PA-1-998-057.

In its complaints, Plaintiff contends that Defendants were traced to Internet Protocol addresses in Indiana using geolocation technology. Two lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of Indiana; one was filed in the Southern District of Indiana.