New Litigation

November 28, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: Intex Recreation Sues Bestway for Patent Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for Intex Recreation Corporation (“Intex”) of Long Beach, California filed a patent infringement complaint in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Bestway (USA), Inc. (“Bestway”) of Phoenix, Arizona infringed “Inflatable Flotation Device Having Removable Canopy,” Patent No. 6,749,474, which has been registered by the U.S. Patent Office.

Intex and Bestway compete in the business of selling inflatable pool products and accessories. In this Indiana patent lawsuit, Intex contends that Bestway has made, used, offered to sell, sold, and/or imported into the United States, inflatable products that infringe one or more claims of United States Patent No. 6,749,474 (“the ‘474 Patent”), which relates to an inflatable flotation device having a removable canopy and which Intex indicates it owns. Intex claims that Bestway’s accused products are or were available, and are or were being offered for sale and sold, via the internet on at least Amazon.com and at Kmart stores and/or Kmart’s website, including to customers located within Indiana. Intex claims that one example of an infringing product offered by Bestway’s is Bestway’s UV Careful™ Baby Care Seats.

In this Indiana patent litigation, a single count is alleged: infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,749,474. Intex contends that Bestway’s infringement of the ‘474 Patent is willful and justifies a trebling of damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. Further, it asserts that is an exceptional case supporting an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285. Intex, via its Indiana patent lawyers, asks that the court:

Order, adjudge, and decree that U.S. Patent 6,749,474 is valid, enforceable, and infringed by Bestway;
Enter a permanent injunction against Bestway enjoining it, its directors, officers, agents, employees, successors, subsidiaries, assigns, and all persons acting in privity or in concert or participation with Bestway from making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, or importing into the United States, any and all products and/or services embodying the patented inventions claimed in the ‘474 Patent;
Award Intex its damages for patent infringement, and prejudgment and post-judgment interest, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284;
Order, adjudge, and decree that Bestway’s infringement of the ‘474 Patent has been deliberate and willful, and award Intex treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284; and
Find that this case is “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and award Intex its costs and reasonable attorney’s fees as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 285.

November 26, 2014

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Hoosier Momma Sues Founding Member Erin Edds

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana trademark attorneys for Hoosier Momma, LLC (“Hoosier Momma”) of Brownsburg, Indiana sued Erin Edds (“Edds”) of Marion County, Indiana in the Southern District of Indiana. In this Indiana litigation, Hoosier Momma accuses Edds of violations of the federal Lanham Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Indiana’s Uniform Trade Secret Act, as well as computer tampering, misappropriation and attempted misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, tortious interference with business relationships, and conversion. Among its allegations, Hoosier Momma contends that Edds tarnished its “Hoosier Momma” trademark as well as its “Betty Design” trademark, U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4584165 and 4584167, which have been registered with the U.S. Trademark Office.

In 2010, Kimberly Cranfill (“Cranfill”), Catherine Hill and Edds formed Hoosier Momma. They are the sole members of Hoosier Momma, which is in the business of developing and selling vegan, gluten-free products that are sold in more than 600 restaurants, stores and hotels in at least six states.

Hoosier Momma alleges multiple wrongs by Edds, including making damaging false statements, engaging in conduct that conduct negatively affects Hoosier Momma’s reputation and sales of its products, tarnishing its trademarks, and changing passwords to Hoosier Momma’s social media accounts without authorization, refusing to relinquish control of the accounts and continuing to post to those accounts.

Edds is also accused of accessing Cranfill’s e-mail account to obtain confidential information as well as sharing confidential information with Wilks & Wilson, a competitor of Hoosier Momma. Hoosier Momma also contends that Edds contacted Tone Products, Inc. (“Tone,”) a direct competitor of Hoosier Momma’s packer, and asked that Tone reverse engineer a Hoosier Momma product to allow Tone to determine the confidential recipe of such product, a trade secret of Hoosier Momma, and provide it to Edds for her personal use and/or a use that jeopardized the disclosure of Hoosier Momma’s trade secrets. Hoosier Momma also claims that Edds improperly contacted several of Hoosier Momma’s distributors, clients, manufacturers and other business partners.

Further, Edds allegedly attempted to sell her interest in Hoosier Momma without the consent purportedly required under the Hoosier Momma operating agreement. Finally, Hoosier Momma contends that Edds sold and traded Hoosier Momma product and improperly retained the proceeds.

In its Indiana trademark complaint, filed by trademark lawyers for Hoosier Momma, the following is claimed:

Count I: Violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq.
Count II: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq.
Count III: Computer Tampering
Count IV: Misappropriation and Attempted Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Violation of Indiana Uniform Trade Secret Act
Count V: Breach of Contract
Count VI: Breach of Fiduciary Duties
Count VII: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships
Count VIII: Conversion
Count XI [sic]: Unjust Enrichment

Hoosier Momma asks for injunctive relief; compensatory and exemplary damages; costs; expenses; and attorneys’ fees.

November 10, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lippert Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against MOR/ryde

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Indiana patent lawyers for Lippert Components Manufacturing, Inc. of Elkhart Indiana sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that MOR/ryde International Inc. and MOR/ryde Inc., both of which are also from Elkhart Indiana, infringed “Equalizer for Suspension System,” Patent Nos. 7,918,478 and 7,296,821, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

At issue in this litigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,918,478 (“the ‘478 Patent”) and 7,296,821 (“the ‘821 Patent”). These inventions pertain to “equalizers” that dampen vibrations for recreational vehicle trailers. Plaintiff Lippert contends that Defendants MOR/ryde International Inc. and MOR/ryde Inc. (collectively, “MOR/ryde”) have infringed, and continue to infringe, these patents. The accused products include MOR/ryde’s CRE/3000 and SRE/4000 equalizer products.

Lippert states that MOR/ryde knew of Lippert’s intellectual property rights in the ‘478 Patent and that, despite this knowledge, MOR/ryde infringed at least claim 1 of that patent. Lippert also asserts that MOR/ryde induced infringement by others as well as contributed to others’ infringement of at least claim 15 of the ‘478 Patent.

Lippert makes similar allegations regarding its ‘821 Patent, stating that MOR/ryde knew of Lippert’s patents rights in that patent and that MOR/ryde nonetheless infringed at least claim 1. Finally, Lippert contends that MOR/ryde induced infringement by others and contributed to others’ infringement of at least claim 14 of the ‘821 Patent.

In this Indiana patent infringement lawsuit, the following claims are asserted:

• Count I: ‘478 Patent Infringement

• Count II: ‘821 Patent Infringement

Lippert asserts that Defendants’ acts have been willful and contend that those actions render this an “exceptional case” as that term is defined in 35 U.S.C. §285.

Lippert asks, via its Indiana patent counsel, that the court:

• Preliminarily and permanently enjoin both MOR/ryde entities and their agents from infringing, or from contributing to or inducing others to infringe, Lippert’s ‘478 Patent and ‘821 Patent;

• Award Lippert monetary damages adequate to compensate Lippert for past infringement consistent with 35 U.S.C. § 284, up to and including treble the amount of actual damages assessed, together with costs and prejudgment interest;

• Award Lippert its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §285; and

• Order MOR/ryde to provide notice to their customers of the infringing systems and of MOR/ryde’s unlawful acts.

Practice Tip #1: A court may award increased damages for willful infringement. These extra damages are known as punitive damages. An award of punitive damages, up to and including a trebling of damages, is appropriate when an infringer has acted in wanton disregard of the patentee’s intellectual property rights. In determining whether the infringing behavior supports increased damages, the court will consider the “totality of the circumstances.”

Potential exposure for increased damages may be reduced by seeking – and acting on – timely advice from a competent patent lawyer. In contrast, the failure to seek and heed such advice may increase the probability that the court will find that the defendants have acted willfully.

Practice Tip #2: Lippert is not new to patent litigation. In fact, it has sued various competitors for patent infringement in 2003, 2008, 2012 and again in 2013. Lippert dropped the first three lawsuits. While the 2003 litigation lasted about a year and a half, the infringement actions filed in 2008 and 2012 were dropped only two months after the complaints were filed. The 2013 patent infringement lawsuit is ongoing.

Practice Tip #3: Under U.S. patent law, a trial court may award attorneys’ fees in cases of patent infringement litigation that it deems “exceptional.” Two recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings revisited how “exceptional” is defined. In part as a result of these rulings, plaintiffs filing questionable patent infringement lawsuits must exercise greater caution, as trial judges will now have greater latitude to award attorneys’ fees – including awarding fees to prevailing defendants – in those cases in which they determine that the conduct of the losing party “stands out from others.”

October 31, 2014

Indiana Patent and Copyright Litigation: Lake Lite Sues Multiple Defendants for Patent and Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – A patent and copyright attorney for Lake Lite Inc. of Laotto, Indiana filed a complaint in the Northern District of Indiana asserting, inter alia, that Universal Forest Products, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan (“UFP”); Universal Consumer Products, Inc., also of Grand Rapids, Michigan (“UCP”); and Maine Ornamental, LLC of Greene, Maine infringed “Solar Dock Light” and “Low Profile Solar LED Lamp,” Patent Nos. D697,246 and 8,845,126, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lake Lite is in the business of designing and selling dock lights and other related products and accessories in the boating/dock industry. Its product line includes solar-related dock lights.

In April 2012, Lake Lite first began to offer a “Solar Dot” line of products. Lake Lite indicates that UFP inquired about collaborating with Lake Lite to offer the Solar Dot products to UFP’s customers and that, in November 2012, a mutual non-disclosure agreement was entered so that confidential information regarding Lake Lite’s Solar Dot products could be disclosed and the potential collaboration evaluated. The disclosed information included Lake Lite’s copyright applications to now-copyrighted materials, registered as U.S. Copyright Nos. VAu001118627 and VAu001156962.

Lake Lite asserts that, during these negotiations, it made numerous modifications requested by UFP for which it was not compensated. Lake Lite and UFP failed to reach an agreement about licensing terms and discontinued negotiations. Instead, Lake Lite asserts, UFP has now wrongfully begun offering its own “Solar Deck and Dock Lights.”

In this Indiana copyright and patent litigation, Plaintiff Lake Lite’s specific complaints include that Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their manufacture, importing, marketing and sale of their solar deck and dock light products. Lake Lite contends that Defendants’ acts include infringement of Lake Lite’s copyrights and patents, unauthorized use and misappropriation of Lake Lite’s confidential information and trade secrets and violation of the mutual non-disclosure agreement between Lake Lite and UCP.

The complaint, filed by a copyright and patent lawyer for Lake Lite, alleges the following:

• Count One – Copyright Infringement

• Count Two – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D697,246

• Count Three – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,845,126

• Count Four – Breach of Contract

• Count Five – Breach of Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

• Count Six – Violation of Indiana Uniform Trade Secret Act

• Count Seven – Unjust Enrichment

Lake Lite asks for a judgment of infringement of its copyrights-in-suit, of infringement of its patents-in-suit, that the non-disclosure agreement was violated by Defendants, that Defendants violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in their dealings with Lake Lite regarding the Solar Dot products, that Defendants have misappropriated Lake Lite’s trade secrets and that Defendants have been unjustly enriched.

Lake Lite seeks injunctive relief; damages, including punitive damages; costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip:

Indiana Code Section 24-2-3-2 defines a trade secret as:

information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

1. derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

2. is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

The four general characteristics of a trade secret are:

1. it is information;

2. that derives independent economic value;

3. that is not generally known, or readily ascertainable by proper means by others who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

4. that is the subject of efforts, reasonable under the circumstances, to maintain its secrecy.

October 29, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: Draper Sues Vutec for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Draper, Inc. of Spiceland, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Vutec Corporation of Coral Springs, Florida infringed the patented “Roller Operated System with Mounting Assembly for Multi-Stage Installation,” Patent No. 6,532,109, and “Screen System,” Patent No. 6,816,308, which were issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Draper provides consumers with products such as projection screens, window shades, projector lifts and mounts and other home theater accessories. Vutec designs and manufactures projection screens and audio-visual accessories.

In its complaint, filed by patent attorneys for Draper, the following claims are asserted:

• Count I: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC I-C – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,532,109

• Count II: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC III-C – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,532,109

• Count III: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC II-e Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,532,109

• Count IV: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC IV-e – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,532,109

• Count V: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC I-C – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,816,308

• Count VI: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC III-C – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,816,308

• Count VII: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC II-e Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,816,308

• Count VIII: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC IV-e – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,816,308

Draper asserts that Vutec’s infringement has been willful, deliberate, and with knowledge of Draper’s intellectual property rights and asks that the court:

A. adjudge and decree that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,532,109 and 6,816,308 are valid and enforceable against Vutec and that Vutec has infringed and continues to infringe the patents;

B. grant injunctions enjoining acts of infringement by Vutec, its agents, and those acting in concert with it;

C. enter an award to Draper of such damages as it shall prove at trial against Vutec that are adequate to compensate Draper for said infringement as permitted under the Patent Act;

D. order an award to Draper of up to three times the amount of compensatory damages because of Vutec’s willful infringement and any enhanced damages as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284;

E. render a finding that this case is “exceptional” and award Draper its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285;

F. award Draper any profits that Draper lost due to Vutec’s infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,532,109 and 6,816,308; and

G. award Draper pre-judgment and post-judgment interests on damages.

Practice Tip: Deciding simply to ignore a complaint can be a costly error. Failing to present the defendant’s account of the facts and arguments about the proper application of the law can result in the trial court considering only the plaintiff’s side of the story. In other words, if the defendants choose to leave a complaint unanswered, the court may deem the well-pled allegations of the plaintiff to have been admitted by the defendants due to their failure to deny them.

October 27, 2014

Indiana Copyright Litigation: ABRO Sues for Infringement of Product Packaging

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Indiana copyright attorneys for ABRO Industries, Inc. of South Bend, Indiana sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that 1 New Trade, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland (“New Trade”), Quest Specialty Coatings, LLC of Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin (“Quest”), Igor Zorin and Boris Babenchick and Vadim Fishkin, infringed copyright protections associated with ABRO’s carburetor and choke cleaner package, pending U.S. Copyright Application Case No. 1-1845314781, which is currently under review with the U.S. Copyright Office.

ABRO markets and sells various automotive, industrial and consumer products throughout the world. It claims ownership of an extensive portfolio of intellectual property rights in more than 165 countries. ARBO indicates that, since at least 1992, it has continuously sold and distributed a carburetor and choke cleaner, the packaging of which is the subject of this intellectual property lawsuit.

In this copyright litigation, ABRO alleges that New Trade, under the direction and control of Zorin, Babenchik and Fishkin, is unfairly competing with ABRO by obtaining products from an affiliate of an ABRO supplier in the United States and then distributing the products in containers nearly identical to ABRO’s containers used with identical products, in the same markets, and to the same customers.

Defendants Zorin, Babenchick, Fishkin and New Trade are accused of having reproduced ABRO’s packaging work by using “nearly identical” packaging for New Trade’s competing carburetor and choke cleaning product. Defendants Zorin and Babenchick are the principal owners of Defendant New Trade. Defendant Fishkin is New Trade’s general manager. Defendant Quest is accused of supplying the carburetor and choke cleaning product.

In its complaint, filed by Indiana copyright lawyers, ABRO lists the following claims:

• Count I: Copyright Infringement

• Count II: Personal Liability and/or Vicarious Liability for Copyright Infringement -Zorin, Babenchik, and Fishkin

In its complaint, filed by Indiana copyright lawyers, ABRO asks for the following:

A. Judgment on all counts against each of the Defendants individually and jointly and severally and in favor of ABRO;

B. A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining and restraining Defendants, their agents, and all persons who act in concert and participation with them who learn of the injunction through personal service or otherwise:

(1) From further acts of infringement; and

(2) From copying, using, distributing, publishing by any means or creating a derivative work of the Work under 17 U.S.C. §502;

C. An award of actual damages caused by and any profits obtained by Defendants attributable to infringement of the Work pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(b);

D. For infringement of the Work occurring after registration thereof, an award of statutory damages or alternatively actual damages caused by and any profits obtained by Defendants attributable to the infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§504(b) and 504(c);

E. Impoundment and destruction of all products, catalogs, advertisements, promotional materials or other materials in Defendants’ possession, custody or control found to have been made or used in violation of ABRO’s copyrights pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §503;

F. An award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §505; and

G. An award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest.

Practice Tip:

This is an interesting complaint. Plaintiff makes what, at first glance, appears to be a case of trademark/trade-dress infringement, including allegations such as “intent to capitalize on ABRO’s goodwill and well-known reputation,” which are normally found in a trademark complaint. ABRO also refers in its complaint to its “extensive anti-counterfeiting program throughout the world… [which has] has resulted in countless raids, product seizures, arrests and jail terms for counterfeiters.” Yet this lawsuit is styled as a copyright case.

Copyright law in the United States is founded on the Constitutional goal of “promot[ing] the Progress of Science and useful Arts” by providing exclusive rights to creators. Protection by copyright law gives creators incentives to produce new works and distribute them to the public. In doing so, the law strikes a number of important balances in delineating what can be protected and what cannot, determining what uses are permitted without a license, and establishing appropriate enforcement mechanisms to combat piracy.

The law of copyright is generally thought of as affording protection to works that are typically thought of as art – books, paintings, music and the like. Nonetheless, works that are not primarily designed as art, such as elements of product packaging, might still secure protection by registering with the U.S. Copyright Office. A copyright registration, if available, is easier and less expensive to obtain than a registered patent or trademark. The registration remains valid much longer than a patent and does not require use in commerce, as does a trademark.

Copyright protection also provides benefits to a plaintiff when suing for infringement. In many cases, copyright infringement can be proved more easily than others types of infringement. Moreover, the damages available upon proof of infringement include statutory damages, available without a showing of harm, as well as attorneys’ fees, which are available without pleading or proving that the case was “exceptional.”

October 23, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Sues Alleging Infringement of ALIMTA

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana (“Lilly”) and The Trustees of Princeton University of Princeton, New Jersey (“Princeton”) filed a patent infringement complaint in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Nang Kuang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. of Tainan City, Taiwan and CANDA NK-2, LLC of Waco, Texas infringed and/or will infringe ALIMTA®, U.S. Patent Nos. 5,344,932 (“the ‘932 patent”) and 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 patent”; collectively, “the patents-in-suit”), which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

ALIMTA, which is licensed to Lilly, is a chemotherapy agent used for the treatment of various types of cancer. ALIMTA is composed of the pharmaceutical chemical pemetrexed disodium. It is indicated, in combination with cisplatin, (a) for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, or (b) for the initial treatment of locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. ALIMTA also is indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy. Additionally, ALIMTA is indicated for maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after four cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. One or more claims of the ‘209 patent cover a method of administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need thereof that also involves administration of folic acid and vitamin B12. The ‘932 patent, titled “N-(pyrrolo(2,3-d)pyrimidin-3-ylacyl)-Glutamic Acid Derivatives,” along with the ‘209 patent, have been listed in connection with ALIMTA in the FDA’s publication Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations.

This Indiana patent infringement lawsuit arises out of the filing by Defendant Nang Kuang of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of ALIMTA prior to the expiration of the ‘932 and ‘209 patents. Nang Kuang filed as a part of that ANDA a certification of the type described in Section 505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 55(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), with respect to the patents-in-suit, asserting that the claims of the patents-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of Defendants’ ANDA products.

In their complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, Lilly and Princeton state that Defendants intend to engage in the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, marketing, distribution, and/or importation of Defendants’ ANDA products and the proposed labeling therefor immediately and imminently upon approval of the ANDA i.e., prior to the expiration of the patents-in-suit. Plaintiffs asserts that Defendants’ actions constitute and/or will constitute infringement of the patents-in-suit, active inducement of infringement of the patents-in-suit, and contribution to the infringement by others of the patents-in-suit.

The complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, lists the following claims:

Count I: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,344,932
Count II: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209

Lilly and Princeton ask the court for:

(a) A judgment that Defendants have infringed the ‘932 patent and/or will infringe and/or actively induce infringement of the ‘932 patent;

(b) A judgment ordering that the effective date of any FDA approval for Defendants to make, use, offer for sale, sell, market, distribute, or import Defendants’ ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘932 patent, be not earlier than the expiration date of the ‘932 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;

(c) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, and all persons acting in concert with Defendants, from making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing Defendants’ ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘932 patent, or the inducement of any of the foregoing, prior to the expiration date of the ‘932 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;

(d) A judgment declaring that making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing of Defendants’ ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘932 patent, prior to the expiration date of the ‘932 patent, infringes, will infringe and/or will actively induce infringement of the ‘932 patent;

(e) A judgment that Defendants have infringed the ‘209 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of the ‘209 patent;

(f) A judgment ordering that the effective date of any FDA approval for Defendants to make, use, offer for sale, sell, market, distribute, or import Defendants’ ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, be not earlier than the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;

(g) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants, and all persons acting in concert with Defendants, from making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing Defendants’ ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, or the inducement of or contribution to any of the foregoing, prior to the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;

(h) A judgment declaring that making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing of Defendants’ ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, prior to the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, infringes, will infringe, will actively induce infringement of, and/or will contribute to the infringement by others of the ‘209 patent;

(i) A declaration that this is an exceptional case and an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

(j) An award of Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses in the action.

Practice Tip #1: This summer, Lilly succeeded in defending the ‘209 method-of-use patent in before District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in the Southern District of Indiana. The court found, inter alia, that the patent did not fail for “obviousness.”

Practice Tip #2: Obviousness is a legal conclusion based on underlying factual findings. Such findings include: 1) the scope and content of the prior art; 2) the differences between the claims and the prior art; 3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and 4) objective considerations of non-obviousness such as commercial success and satisfaction of a long-felt need. Moreover, it is insufficient that prior art merely includes separate references to the subject matter of a subsequent patent claim. Instead, obviousness requires the additional showing that a person of ordinary skill in the art of the subject matter would have combined those elements of the prior art.

October 22, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: PHD Sues DE-STA-CO for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for PHD, Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that DE-STA-CO of Auburn Hills, Michigan infringed its patent on the “Long Travel Gripper,” Patent No. 7,490,881, which has been registered by the U.S. Patent Office.

Plaintiff asserts rights acquired via assignment to a patented product called “Long Travel Gripper,” U.S. Patent No. 7,490,881 (the “‘881 Patent”). On April 29, 2014, Defendant was notified that its product “RPR Gladiator Series Gripper” appeared to infringe the ‘881 Patent.

In this Indiana patent litigation, Defendant is accused of infringing the ‘881 Patent as well as inducing infringement by others. Plaintiff contends that the infringing activities have been willful and that this case is exceptional, entitling it to an award of attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff asks the court for a judgment of infringement; damages, including treble damages; a declaration that the case is exceptional and an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to such a finding; and injunctive relief.

Practice Tip: The U.S. Supreme Court expanded upon existing jurisprudence regarding “exceptional” patent lawsuits this year. In two related cases, it held that a trial court may as a matter of its discretion award attorneys’ fees in cases of patent infringement litigation that it deems “exceptional.” These Supreme Court rulings revisiting how “exceptional” is defined may benefit any company that is the target of a questionable patent infringement lawsuit, as trial judges will now have greater latitude to award attorneys’ fees – including awarding attorneys’ fees to prevailing defendants – in those cases in which they determine that the conduct of the losing party “stands out from others.”

October 20, 2014

Indiana Cyberpiracy Litigation: Burns Rent-Alls Sues Aays Rent-All and Michael Sharp

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – An Indiana intellectual property attorney for Burns Rent-Alls, Inc. of Mishawaka, Indiana filed a cyberpiracy lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Michael Sharpe and Aays Rent-All Co., Inc., also of Mishawaka, Indiana, had wrongfully registered and used domain names that would result in confusion with the “BURNS RENT-ALLS” common-law trademark.

Burns Rent-Alls is a fifth-generation family-owned firm that has been in business for over 100 years. It offers goods and services throughout northern Indiana and southwest Michigan under the BURNS RENT-ALLS brand including equipment rentals, convention services, event rentals, portable toilet rentals, costume rentals, and tent and canopy rentals.

Aays Rent-All is, according to Plaintiff, in a similar business and provides rentals throughout northern Indiana and southwest Michigan, including equipment rentals, convention services, event rentals, and tent and canopy rentals.

Burns Rent-Alls claims that, by virtue of its “longstanding and continuous use” of the BURNS RENT-ALLS mark, it owns common law trademark rights to that mark for use in connection with Burns Rent-Alls’ goods and services.

Aays Rent-All and Sharpe are accused of registering and using domain names that are confusingly similar to Burns Rent-Alls’ Mark, with a bad-faith intent to profit from their use and registration of those domain names. At issue are: (i) burnspartyrentall.com; (ii) burnspartyrental.com; and (iii) burnsrentall.com. Plaintiff contends that Defendants are using these names to redirect Internet traffic intended for the Burns Rent-Alls’ website to Aays Rent-All’s website. This use, Plaintiff asserts, is likely to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive consumers into believing that there is an association between Aays Rent-All and Burns Rent-Alls.

Plaintiff also states that it agreed to pay, and did pay, $100 to purchase the burnsrentall.com domain name but that Defendants did not transfer the domain name as allegedly agreed.

In its complaint, Indiana intellectual property counsel for Burns Rent-Alls alleges the following:

Count I: Unfair Competition
Count II: Cyberpiracy
Count III: Breach of Contract

Burns Rent-Alls requests injunctive relief, including the transfer of the domain names at issue; damages, including treble damages; and costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip:

Plaintiff indicates that it attempted to obtain an agreement from Defendants regarding at least one of the domain names at issue prior to filing this lawsuit. Plaintiff contends that, despite this effort, Defendants continued to use the allegedly infringing website names. This lawsuit for unfair competition, cyberpiracy and breach of contract followed.

Another approach available to a plaintiff in such a situation is to seek a transfer of the domain names under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (“UDRP”). This policy was established to resolve “The Trademark Dilemma” inherent in the largely unpoliced sales of domain names — the registration of a trademark without the consent of the trademark owner.

As part of the process of registering a domain name, registrants must, among other things, 1) “represent and warrant” that registering the name “will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party” and 2) agree to have the matter heard as an UDRP proceeding if any third party asserts that the domain name violates its trademark rights.

The UDRP is an administrative procedure. A UDRP limits itself to matters concerning abusive registrations and will not intervene in genuine disputes over trademark rights. To prevail in a UDRP proceeding, for each domain name, the complainant must establish three elements:

The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in “bad faith.”

October 16, 2014

Indiana Trademark Litigation: NextEra Sues Nextra for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – A trademark attorney for NextEra Energy, Inc. of Juno Beach, Florida filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana. Defendant Nextra Technologies, LLC of Granger, Indiana is accused of infringing one or more of NextEra’s 132 federally registered trademarks. Nextra is also accused of unfair competition and false advertising.

NextEra is a clean-energy company. It has approximately 42,500 megawatts of generating capacity in 26 states in the United States and four provinces in Canada. Through its affiliates, it provides wind and solar energy goods and services. Its wind-energy services include consulting, developing, construction and installation of wind energy systems, including wind-powered energy-generating turbines and turbine transformers. Its solar-energy systems include solar panels, solar arrays, solar photovoltaic equipment, solar thermal equipment and transformers.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant Nextra is in a similar business and that it has manufactured, imported, promoted, distributed and/or sold energy products and services – including wind turbine components, solar panels, and energy systems – in the United States. Plaintiff further contends that Nextra’s goods and services are offered under “Nextra” mark and that the “Nextra” mark infringes upon NextEra’s “NextEra” family of trademarks.

Due to the alleged similarity between the types of goods and/or services offered by the two companies and the marks under which they are offered, NextEra claims that Nextra’s sales of energy products and services is likely to cause confusion, mistake and deception among purchasers as to the existence of a relationship between NextEra and Nextra.

In its complaint, filed by a trademark lawyer for NextEra, the following claims are made:

• Federal Trademark Infringement,

• Federal Unfair Competition, and

• Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition.

NextEra seeks injunctive relief and damages, including punitive damages, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: A finding of trademark infringement requires a “likelihood of confusion.” There are seven factors relevant to the likelihood-of-confusion analysis: (1) the similarity between the plaintiff’s mark and the allegedly infringing mark in appearance and suggestion; (2) actual confusion; (3) the similarity between the products and services offered by the plaintiff and defendant; (4) the area and manner of use; (5) the degree of care likely to be exercised by consumers; (6) the strength of the plaintiff’s mark; and (7) the defendant’s intent.