Patent Infringement

February 14, 2025

BTL Industries Files Lawsuit Against Be Minked Beauty for Patent and Trademark Infringement

BTL Industries, Inc. (BTL) has filed a lawsuit against Be Minked Beauty & Company LLC and its owner, Britney Humphrey, accusing them of patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. BTL, based in Massachusetts, develops and sells technology used for body-contouring treatments. Their EMSCULPT® and EMSCULPT NEO® devices use electromagnetic energy to tone muscles and have become leaders in the aesthetic industry.

According to the Complaint BTL holds a patent (Patent No. 10,478,634) for the technology used in these devices and has multiple registered trademarks for names like EMSCULPT® and HIFEM®. The company alleges that Be Minked is selling a device called the “Emsculpt RF Machine” that infringes on BTL’s patent. Additionally, BTL says Be Minked is using their trademarked names, such as “EMSCULPT” and “HIFEM,” without permission on their website.

BTL reportedly sent Be Minked a cease & desist letter about the infringement but says the company ignored it. BTL is now asking the court to stop Be Minked from using its patented technology and trademarks, and they want financial damages, including a minimum of $125,000 for the alleged patent violation. They’re also asking for a permanent ban on Be Minked using any of BTL’s trademarks or confusingly similar names and for the company to pay for BTL’s legal fees. BTL is also seeking to shut down Be Minked’s website and freeze their bank accounts.

February 7, 2025

A Legal Hitch: Uriah Products, LLC Sues CURT Manufacturing LLC Over Trailer Part Patent Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Uriah Products, LLC has filed a lawsuit against CURT Manufacturing LLC for patent infringement. Uriah, a Missouri-based company that has been making and selling trailer parts since 2004, claims CURT is violating its rights under U.S. Patent No. 10,857,846. This patent, issued in December 2020, protects an adjustable hitch assembly used in towing equipment, such as Uriah’s popular Aluma-Tow Hitch Ball Mount.

According to Uriah, CURT is selling similar products under its Alumalite Adjustable Aluminum Hi tch line, which include models with varying drop sizes. Uriah argues these products infringe on key features of the ‘846 patent. It also states that CURT’s products are almost identical to its own, apart from size differences and the distances between the top of the hitch and ball mount of the hitch.

In the lawsuit, Uriah is asking the court to declare that CURT has infringed on the patent, to stop CURT from selling the infringing products, and to award damages for the harm caused. Uriah also wants the court to order CURT to pay its legal fees and any additional relief the court finds appropriate.

January 3, 2025

Magpul Sues Elite Tactical Systems over Alleged Patent Infringement Over Polymer Ammo Magazines

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Magpul Sues Elite Tactical Systems over Alleged Patent Infringement Over Polymer Ammo Magazines

Magpul Industries Corporation has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against fellow firearm accessories manufacturer Elite Tactical Systems Group, LLC. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has infringed upon U.S. Patents Nos. 8,991,086 and 9,746,264. Magpul claims that the defendant made, used, sold, imported, and offered polymer ammunition magazines that infringe on these patents for sale. Specifically, the defendant’s products, including the ETS 30rd 5.56x45mm NATO/.223 Remington polymer magazines, are said to incorporate the patented magazine architecture described in the ’086 and ’264 patents.

Magpul argues that the defendant’s actions are unlawful and are causing harm to its exclusive patent rights. The lawsuit seeks damages, including potential treble damages, a permanent injunction to prevent further infringement, the destruction of infringing products, attorney’s fees, and other legal remedies.

November 12, 2024

Novartis Battles Competitors Over Patent Disputes in Radiopharmaceuticals

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Novartis is a Swiss pharmaceutical company known for developing innovative medicines and therapies, particularly in the radiopharmaceutical market. The company is taking steps to strengthen its position by filing lawsuits against competitors over alleged patent violations concerning its top cancer therapies, Pluvicto and Lutathera. These actions began in 2024 and involve Eli Lilly, its subsidiary, Point Biopharma, Lantheus, and Curium Pharma.

In June 2024, Novartis and the Purdue Research Foundation filed a lawsuit in Indiana, claiming that Lilly’s PNT2002 infringes on their U.S. Patent No. 10,624,970. Because PNT2002 describes similar conjugates and methods to treat the same kind of cancer (prostate) that Pluvicto is designed to treat, Novartis alleges direct competition with their product.

Lilly and the other defendants have requested the Court dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it is not in direct competition, as PNT2002 is not yet ready for the market and may not even receive regulatory approval by June 2025.

August 30, 2024

Courtroom Close Call: Knauf and Johns Manville Settle Patent Dispute Days Before Trial

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

An Indiana federal judge has dismissed a patent infringement lawsuit between Knauf Insulation Inc. and Johns Manville Corp. just days before trial. Chief U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt chose not to overturn previous rulings on claim construction, stating it would be against public interest and waste substantial efforts already put into the case.

On August 16, the two companies jointly requested dismissal of the 2015 lawsuit, which alleged that Johns Manville’s EasyFit and Flex-Glass insulation products infringed on seven Knauf patents. Although the case is dismissed, the court’s earlier rulings, including invalidation of six patents, remain in effect.

Judge Pratt argued that vacating prior rulings would not benefit the public and could encourage prolonged litigation. She cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership as precedent against overturning rulings after settlement.

June 21, 2024

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

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.

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

January 15, 2024

Tap Wars: Delta Faucet Company’s Patent Dispute with Sanitary Ware

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In the modern era of technological advancements and the burgeoning landscape of online commerce, the interconnection of patent law with the dynamics of e-commerce platforms presents intricate challenges. A recent legal dispute between Wenzhou Xin Xin Sanitary Ware Co., Ltd. (“Sanitary Ware” or “Plaintiff”) and Delta Faucet Company (“DFC”) illuminates the complexities faced by international entities selling products on major online platforms like Amazon, particularly concerning allegations of patent infringement.

According to the complaint, Sanitary Ware, a Chinese-based company operating as “HGN Sanitary Ware,” sells kitchen appliances and accessories, including glass rinsers, primarily through the Amazon Marketplace. Court documents also describe DFC, as an American plumbing fixture manufacturer under Masco Corporation, who is alleging patent infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 11,473,277 (“the ‘277 Patent”) against specific Xin Glass Rinsers listed by Sanitary Ware on Amazon.

DFC claims ‘277 Patent details a rinsing apparatus comprising components like a mounting base, fluid discharge member, valve member, and escutcheon. DFC says they initiated an Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) proceeding against Sanitary Ware’s Xin Glass Rinser based on claim 1 of the ‘277 Patent, and Sanitary Ware chose not to participate in the APEX, leading Amazon to remove the listing of the disputed Xin Glass Rinser.

December 15, 2023

Legal Verdict: STMicroelectronics Liable for $32.5M Damages to Purdue University in Transistor Technology Patent Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

STMicroelectronics, a leading European chipmaker, has been held accountable for violating Purdue University’s patent related to transistor technology. This ruling, delivered by a jury in a West Texas court, resulted in a $32.5 million damages verdict. The jury supported Purdue’s argument that ST’s use of silicon carbide metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) in electric-vehicle chargers and other devices breached the university’s patent rights specifically pertaining to transistors designed for “high-voltage power applications.” In response, an ST spokesperson announced the company’s plan to challenge the verdict by filing an appeal.

Michael Shore, an attorney representing Purdue, highlighted compelling evidence against ST, suggesting potential additional royalties exceeding $100 million before the patent’s expiration in 2026.

MOSFETs play a critical role in electronic devices by controlling and amplifying electricity flow. Purdue initiated the lawsuit against ST in 2021, alleging that the company’s MOSFETs infringed upon two of its transistor technology patents. However, one of Purdue’s patents was removed from the case by the university in West Lafayette, Indiana last year. ST contested the accusations, arguing that the remaining Purdue patent was invalid.

December 8, 2023

Orthopedic Plate System at Center of Patent Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Plaintiff OrthoPediatrics Corp. (“OP”) filed a Complaint against fellow Warsaw, Indiana corporation, WishBone Medical, Inc. (“WishBone”). They are alleging patent infringement concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,777,998, titled “Pediatric Long Bone Support or Fixation Plate.”

The complaint states that the Plaintiff (OP) has designed and patented an innovative orthopedic plate system explicitly made for pediatric patients. They claim that the patent in question addresses a longstanding issue in pediatric orthopedics—specifically adapting adult implants for use in children, which poses risks such as damaging the epiphyseal plate or stunting bone growth.

The Plaintiff asserts that WishBone’s introduction of their “PRIMA™ Femoral Locking Plate System” infringes upon Patent 8,777,998 through alleged replication of at least three of its claimed features. OP further asserts that in addition to manufacturing their own allegedly infringing product, WishBone also markets and sells the product.