Patent Infringement

November 8, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Klipsch Sues Chinese Defendant Over Allegedly Infringing Earphones

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Klipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Shenzhen Paiaudio Electronics Co., Ltd of Guangdong, China infringed on the U.S. Patent No. D603,844 (the ‘844 patent), titled “Headphone,” and violated Klipsch headphones’ trade dress. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, a permanent injunction, lost profits, damages, pre-judgement and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and all relief just and proper.

Plaintiff Klipsch is an Indianapolis-based audio company that produces headphones, earphones, and speakers for home and commercial use. China-based Defendant Paiaudio specializes in producing high-end earphones. The subject of this litigation is a type of small earphone patented by Klipsch, specifically their “X12i” model. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “π 3.14 Audio” model is virtually identical to the X12i, infringes on the patent, and violates the Lanham Act via trade dress confusion.

October 30, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Carmel Tech Company Binatone USA Sued Over Allegedly Infringing Baby Monitors

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Uniloc, has targeted Binatone of Carmel, Indiana in its latest patent infringement suit.

Uniloc has been called a “Patent Troll in Chief” by engadget.com, and justia.com reports that it is a party to at least 343 patent cases. In just October of 2017, Uniloc has filed 17 patent infringement lawsuits. While most of Uniloc’s lawsuits have been filed in the patent-infringement-plaintiff-friendly State of Texas, the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in the TC Heartland case limits the venues for patent infringement cases. This likely forced Uniloc to file this suit in Indiana where Binatone is located.

2017-10-30-blogPhoto-300x263

Uniloc USA, Inc. of Plano Texas, and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A filed their suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Exclusive Group LLC d/b/a/ Binatone North America, of Carmel, Indiana infringed on the U.S. Patent No. 6,216,158, System and Method Using a Palm Sized Computer to Control Network Devices (the ‘158 patent). Plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgment of infringement, damages suffered as a result of the infringement, and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, as exclusive licensee of the ‘158 patent, and Uniloc Luxembourg, as owner and assignee of the ‘158 patent, filed suit alleging that a wide range of Binatone’s wireless products, such as wireless baby monitors, infringe the patent. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Motorola’s products infringe the patent by performing the same functions that are covered under the patent; specifically, remotely controlling a wireless device over a wireless connection, using wireless commands to control the other device, and wireless control of the second device by the first device.

Plaintiffs also allege in their complaint that the Defendant indirectly infringes the patent by providing instructional videos, brochures, etc. for each product, explaining to customers how to operate the products.

October 27, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Federal Circuit reverses District Court’s dismissal of Lifetime Industries’ Patent Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The Plaintiff, Lifetime Industries, Inc. (doing business as Boyd Corp.) had filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Trim-Lok, Inc infringed patent no. 6,966,590, Two-Part Seal For A Slide-Out Room, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded back to the district for further proceedings.

Plaintiff owns the patent to a two-part seal for slide-out rooms in RVs. The seal prevents moisture, debris, and air drafts from entering the vehicle. Soon after two employees left Lifetime to work at Trim-Lok, a representative of Lifetime found an allegedly infringing Trim-Lok seal installed on a third party RV. Plaintiff alleged direct, indirect, and contributory infringement on the part of Trim-Lok, based on claims that Trim-Lok directly installed the seal, or supervised installation of the seal, or influenced the RV company to install the seal on their vehicles. The district court dismissed each claim, stating that Lifetime had not adequately argued the allegations.

October 25, 2017

The USPTO Denies Petition filed by Neptune Generics, LLC in Challenge to Indiana-based Eli Lilly’s Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Petitioner, Neptune Generics, LLC had filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Offices against Eli Lilly & Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, challenging the validity of patent no. 7,772,209, Antifolate combination therapies, which has been issued by the USPTO. This patent covers intellectual property embodied in Alimta®, a drug therapy used for the treatment of various types of cancer.

Lead Petitioner Neptune Generics, LLC is a Chicago, Illinois-based pharmaceutical company that focuses on increasing access to affordable medications. Defendant Eli Lilly is a multinational pharmaceutical company based in Indianapolis. Other petitioners joined in the case are Apotex, Inc, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Fresenius Kabi USA, and Wockhardt Bio AG.

October 23, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Infringement of Patent for Furnace Cooling Pipes Alleged Against Foreign Defendants

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indiana Patent Litigation: Infringement of Patent for Furnace Cooling Pipes Alleged Against Foreign Defendants

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Amerifab, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, MELTER, S.A. a Mexican corporation; DE C.V., GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; GERDAU S.A., a Brazilian corporation; and RAVAGNAN S.P.A., an Italian corporation infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,330,269 (“the ‘269 Registration”) for “Heat Exchange Pipe with Extruded Fins”. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Amerifab, Inc. manufactures equipment to be used in a variety of industrial machinery, including heat transfer equipment. Defendant Melter manufactures heat transfer equipment, pressure vessels, and markets in North America. Defendant Gerdau Ameristeel recycles scrap steel into products for the construction, industrial, agricultural, and automotive industries in North America. Gerdau Ameristeel is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Gerdau, which operates subsidiaries primarily throughout South America. Defendant Ravagnan allegedly operates primarily out of Italy and South America, and specializes in design and construction of industrial plant and pressure vessels. Defendant Ravagnan is alleged the majority shareholder of Defendant Melter, and the two companies share facilities and employees.

October 20, 2017

Patentability of Amended Claims in IPR the Burden of the Petitioner’s Issue, Not the Patentee

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

A 7-4 of the en banc decision of the Federal Circuit concludes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board improperly requires a patent owner in an inter partes review (IPR) to show that proposed amended patent claims are patentable before a motion to amend those claims will be granted,

In an unusually opinion, the deeply divided the Court produced five opinions, none of which had enough backers to constitute the opinion of the Court. The most thoughtful opinion was 68 pages opinion, but only agreed upon by five of the judges. It concluded 5-6 that the statute unambiguously prohibited imposing on the patentee a burden of showing patentability, requiring no deference to the PTAB rule under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). However, the opinion picked up two additional votes of Judges Dyk and Reyna, who concurred in the result based on an alternative rationale conceding the ambiguity of the statute but nonetheless denying deference to the PTAB rule.

May 31, 2017

Supreme Court Provides Relief to “Exhausted” Buyers of Printer Cartridges

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The US Supreme Court has good news for people that are tired of paying high prices for printer cartridges – the fine print of the “license agreement” in the boxes that prohibits you from refilling the cartridges is no longer effective.

In Impression Products Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., U.S., No. 15-1189, 5/30/2017, the Court decided that when a patentee decides to sell—whether on its own or through a licensee—that sale exhausts its patent rights, regardless of any post-sale restrictions the patentee purports to impose, either directly or through a license, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a unanimous Court. As for international exhaustion, he observed that “nothing in the text or history of the Patent Act shows that Congress intended to confine that borderless common law principle to domestic sales.” Justice Ginsburg concurred in the general exhaustion decision as to domestic sales, but dissented as to international exhaustion.

Background

Lexmark makes and sells patented ink cartridges for its printers. It sell cartridges under one plan that permits buyers to use them as they wish, and under a “Return Program” plan that provides a discounted price. The Return Program plan limits buyers to a single use of the cartridge and requires the cartridges to be returned to Lexmark for recycling.

Lexmark filed infringement suits against many makers of after-market ink cartridges for Lexmark printers, most of which settled. In the action against Impressions, the district court entered a stipulated judgment, holding that Lexmark’s patent rights in cartridges first sold in the United States were exhausted, but the rights were retained for cartridges first sold abroad.

In a 10-2 en banc decision, the Federal Circuit held that, where the patentee’s sale is subject to a single-use/no-resale restriction that is lawful and clearly communicated, the sale does not confer resale or reuse authority to a buyer or downstream buyers. It also held that the patentee’s sale or authorization to sell a U.S. patented article abroad does not authorize the buyer to import the article and sell and use it in the United States.

The Federal Circuit decision was taken for review by the Supreme Court.

U.S. Sales

The Supreme Court concluded that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights the moment it sold its patented cartridges in the United States under the Return Program. While they may be clear and enforceable under contract law, the single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with customers do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell, according to the Court.

May 23, 2017

Indiana’s TC Heartland Wins Patent Case in US Supreme Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

TC Heartland LLC of Carmel, Indiana won a precedent-setting victory in the US Supreme Court in its patent infringement suit with Kraft Foods. The US Supreme Court held that the term “resides” in 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) for determining venue patent suits refers only to the State of incorporation.

Overruling the Federal Circuit’s decision in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Court concluded that 2008 and 2011 revisions to the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. §1391 did not modify the meaning of “resides” in Section 1400(b) to include personal jurisdiction for corporate defendants. This issue was resolved by a 1957 Supreme Court decision, and nothing in the later legislation indicates that Congress intended to overturn that decision, the Court concluded.

Background

April 12, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Again in Federal Court to Defend Alimta Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement. Defendants are Actavis LLC of Parsippany, New Jersey; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. of North Wales, Pennsylvania; and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. of Petach Tikva, Israel.

At issue is a patent for Antifolate Combination Therapies, Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 patent”) which has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This patent covers intellectual property embodied in Alimta®, a drug therapy used for the treatment of various types of cancer.

In a complaint filed by an Indiana patent litigator, Lilly states that Defendants filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic equivalents of ALIMTA® prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent. It asserts that this filing constitutes and/or will constitute infringement of the ‘209 patent, active inducement of infringement of the ‘209 patent, and contribution to the infringement by others of the ‘209 patent.

Lilly seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

April 7, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Infringement of Patents for Rotating Curling Iron Alleged in New Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – The Beachwaver Co. of Libertyville, Illinois filed a new lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging infringement of patents covering its rotating curling iron. Beachwaver seeks damages as well as injunctive and other relief under 35 U.S.C. 281, et seq.

Defendants in this newest lawsuit are Xtava, LLC of Wilmington, Delaware, C&A IP Holdings, LLC of Dover, Delaware, and C+A Global of Edison, New Jersey. They are accused of infringing two patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,398,796 (“the ‘796 patent”) and 9,504,301 (“the ‘301 patent”). These patents, both titled “Hair Styling Device,” have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff has filed two similar Indiana lawsuits asserting infringement in recent months, one in October and another in December. This most recent litigation, filed by Indiana patent lawyers for Beachwaver, lists two counts:

Count 1: Infringement of the ‘796 Patent
Count 2: Direct Infringement of the ‘301 Patent

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, costs, attorneys’ fees and damages, including treble damages.