Patent Infringement

March 14, 2025

Fortress Iron L.P. Digs Into Legal Action Against Digger Specialties for Alleged Patent Infringement

Fortress Iron L.P. filed a lawsuit against Digger Specialties, Inc. for patent infringement, alleging that Digger’s Westbury VertiCable Aluminum Railing violates Fortress’s U.S. Patents 11,643,838 (the “‘838 Patent”) and 12,180,735 (the “‘735 Patent”). The complaint states that Fortress, a Texas-based company, is the owner of the patents protecting its FortressCable V-Series steel cable railing systemv. Meanwhile, the court documents assert that Digger, based in Indiana, produces a similar product and has reportedly continued to sell it despite being notified of the alleged infringement.

The lawsuit claims that Digger’s product infringes on the patents, particularly regarding features such as the design of vertical cable barriers and adjustable end members for tension control. Fortress seeks monetary damages, treble damages for willful infringement, and an injunction to stop Digger from continuing to sell the infringing product.

The case has been assigned to Judge Damon R. Leichty and Magistrate Judge Scott J. Frankel in the U.S. District Court of Northern Indiana Case No. 3:25-cv-00099.

February 28, 2025

Patent Battle Winds Up: Inpres, Inc. and TWM IP LLC Sue Alltrista Plastics LLC for Alleged Infringement of Screw-Based Dispenser Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Plaintiffs Inpres, Inc. and TWM IP LLC have filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Alltrista Plastics LLC concerning U.S. Patent No. 9,585,460 (the “‘460 Patent”). The plaintiffs allege that the defendant has infringed upon the ‘460 Patent, which relates to a screw-based dispenser system with a locking elevator mechanism, and is seeking relief, including damages and an injunction. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant’s products unlawfully replicate the patented technology and that the infringement has been willful.

The accused patent, titled “Screw-Based Dispenser Having Locking Elevator and Elevator Retention Mechanism,” was issued on March 7, 2017. It specifically addresses issues with propel/repel dispensers used for consumer products such as lip balms and creams, particularly solving a problem known as “up-elevator,” where the elevator mechanism in the dispenser advances too soon.

According to the Complaint, Alltrista, operating as Jarden Plastics in 2018, purchased a large quantity of lip balm dispensers from Inpres, which incorporated the patented elevator retention mechanism. Alltrista was provided detailed specifications and engineering drawings by Inpres under confidentiality agreements, highlighting the proprietary nature of the materials. However, after returning most of the purchased units, Alltrista allegedly used these specifications to develop its own dispensers incorporating the patented technology.

February 14, 2025

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

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.