Patent Infringement

August 23, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: RV Components Makers in Court Again Over Patent Covering Room Seal

South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiff Lifetime Industries, Inc. (“LTI”) of Elkhart, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant Trim-Lok, Inc. of Buena Park, California infringed Plaintiff’s patent for a “Two-Part Seal for a Slide-Out Room.”

The patent-in-suit, U. S. Patent No. 6,966,590 (the “‘590 patent”), has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Plaintiff states that it “currently produces, sells, and distributes two-part seals covered by the ‘590 patent” (collectively, “LTI Seals”), which are directed towards the addition of a slide-out room to a recreational vehicle. The LTI Seals include “a mounting portion and a separate bulb portion that slidably connects to the mounting portion.”

Plaintiff asserts that Defendant makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale a seal that, once installed on a recreational vehicle, infringes one or more claims of the ‘590 patent. Plaintiff indicates that it discovered this alleged wrongdoing by Defendant during a visit to Forest River, Inc., a manufacturer of recreational vehicles and mobile living quarters.

Plaintiff also contends that Defendant’s infringing behavior was knowing and intentional, citing in part two former LTI engineers who began work for Trim-Lok. These two engineers purportedly had knowledge of the ‘590 patent and LTI asserts that they “contributed to or designed” Defendant’s accused product.

In this lawsuit, filed by Indiana patent attorneys, the following counts are listed:

• Direct Infringement of the ‘590 Patent
• Induced Infringement of the ‘590 Patent

• Contributory Infringement of the ‘590 Patent

Plaintiff seeks damages, including treble damages, along with equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: This is not the first instance of patent litigation between these parties. LTI sued Trim-Lok in 2013 alleging that Trim-Lok had infringed the same patent by offering another product.

August 4, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Interactive Alleges Patent Misuse, Sues Patent Licensor

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Plaintiff Interactive Intelligence, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit for declaratory judgment in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant Avaya, Inc. of Santa Clara, California. At issue in this litigation is the proper scope of a patent licensing agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant.

In 2002, Interactive and Avaya agreed to license patents covering Avaya’s “call center” products. In exchange for this license, Interactive agreed to pay Avaya a royalty based upon Interactive’s sales. The patents-in-suit, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are as follows: U.S. Patent Nos. 5,802,058; 5,982,873; 6,009,386; 6,052,460; 6,173,399; 6,192,050; 6,208,970; 6,389,132; 6,392,666; 6,535,601; 6,560,330; 6,636,598; 6,665,395; 6,754,331; 6,850,602; 6,925,166; 7,023,980; 7,215,760; 7,542,558; 7,685,102; 7,702,083; 7,990,899; 8,107,401; 8,379,819; 8,897,428; 9,049,291; and 9,154,629.

In this federal complaint, filed by Indiana patent lawyers, Interactive states that, since 2002, its revenue has expanded to include many sources other than call center software, including “hardware resales, software maintenance and support, training, [and] subscription services for cloud based hosting.” It also contends that a “sizeable portion” of its revenue now comes from business outside of the United States.

Interactive claims that Avaya has misused its patents and misconstrued the agreement to require Interactive to pay royalties based on Interactive’s “global sales.” It argues that sales that are outside of the scope of Avaya’s patents, as well as at least some of its foreign sales, should not be subject to a royalty under the agreement. Interactive further asserts that Avaya’s “threats of potential patent infringement litigation resulted in Interactive paying significantly more than $1,000,000 in excess payments” under the agreement.

This lawsuit seeks a declaration of patent misuse by Avaya, as well as a declaration that Interactive does not infringe any of the patents asserted by Avaya. Interactive also seeks restitution and/or damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

July 27, 2016

Patent and Copyright Law: Supreme Court to Review Cases on Patent Laches and Copyrightability

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a patent case on the law of laches (SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, U.S., No. 15-927) and a case on the copyrightability of cheerleader uniforms (Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., U.S., No. 15-866).

Specifically, the question presented in SCA is:

“Whether and to what extent the defense of laches may bar a claim for patent infringement brought within the Patent Act’s six-year statutory limitations period, 35 U.S.C. § 286.”

July 22, 2016

Indiana Patent Law: Court Rules on Invalidity of Patent for Obviousness

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – In the matter of Berry Plastics Corporation v. Intertape Polymer Corporation, Judge Richard L. Young of the Southern District of Indiana ruled on Defendant Intertape’s motion to reconsider the court’s conclusion of patent invalidity on the grounds of obviousness.

This Indiana patent litigation, filed in January 2010, sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,416 (the “‘416 patent”). Plaintiff Berry Plastics Corp. sued competitor Intertape Polymer Corp., which owns the ‘416 patent.

In the complaint, Berry asked the federal court to rule that it had not infringed the patent-in-suit, titled Process for Preparing Adhesive Using Planetary Extruder. In the alternative, it asked that the court rule that the patent was invalid and unenforceable. Among the reasons cited for this proposed conclusion were assertions that Intertape had engaged in improper conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and that the patent was invalid as obvious.

The court held a jury trial in November 2014. The jury found, inter alia, that the ‘416 patent was not obvious. After the trial, the court heard additional argument on the issue of the validity of the patent and ruled for Berry, holding that the patent-in-suit was invalid as obvious.

In this recent entry, the court rules on Intertape’s motion to reconsider on the grounds that the court had ruled too broadly, inadvertently invalidating the entire patent instead of addressing only the asserted claims presented at trial. The court held that it was permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to modify its previous order (“[A]ny order or other decision … that adjudicates fewer than all the claims …does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims …. “). It also concluded that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, it had the authority to enter judgment against a party after a jury trial as long as “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.”

The court first held that certain dependent claims had not been challenged as invalid at trial and, consequently, the court had no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of those claims. On these claims, it granted the motion to reconsider.

Regarding those dependent claims that had been asserted at trial, the court evaluated the evidence and testimony presented and concluded that the dependent claims added no patentable subject matter but were instead simply obvious selections of prior art used in an ordinary way. Consequently, the court denied Intertape’s motion to reconsider.

July 14, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Ligchine Asks Federal Court to Declare That It Has Not Infringed

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Ligchine International Corporation of Floyds Knob, Indiana initiated a patent lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Defendant is Somero Enterprises, Inc. of Houghton, Michigan.

This federal lawsuit is in response to a June 2016 letter sent to Ligchine by patent lawyers for Somero. In this letter, Somero asserted that Ligchine was engaged in the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or distribution of concrete screeding machines containing a “Paver/Superflat Combo Screed Head that includes a powered roller option.” Somero contended that such conduct infringed Somero’s patent rights in U.S. Patent Nos. 9,234,318 and 9,353,490, which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Somero threatened litigation if the alleged infringement did not cease.

Ligchine asserts that it has not infringed either patent and asks the court for a declaration of non-infringement for each of the two patents-in-suit. It also asks the court to order reimbursement of its costs of the lawsuit, including attorneys’ fees.

July 8, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Alleges Infringement, Sues Generic Drugmakers

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent lawyers for Plaintiffs Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, Eli Lilly Export S.A. of Geneva, Switzerland and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd. of West Melbourne, Australia initiated patent infringement litigation in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendants are Apotex Corp. of Weston, Florida and Apotex Inc. of Ontario, Canada. Both companies manufacture, market and distribute generic pharmaceutical products. This lawsuit was initiated in response to an Abbreviated New Drug Application submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval to market a generic version of Lilly’s Axiron®, a prescription testosterone product used to treat males for conditions associated with a deficiency or absence of endogenous testosterone.

Defendants are accused of infringing Plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights in seven patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; 8,993,520; 9,180,194 and 9,289,586.

In a 28-count complaint, filed by Indiana patent attorneys for Plaintiffs, 21 counts of patent infringement are listed, including a count of direct infringement, a count of inducement to infringe and a count of contributory infringement for each of the seven patents-in-suit. The remaining seven counts seek declaratory judgment of infringement of each of the seven patents.

In addition to relief for the wrongdoings alleged in the 28 counts, Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of the costs and attorneys’ fees associated with this lawsuit.

June 22, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Folding Tricycle Alleged to Infringe Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Newton Enterprises Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong Kong filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant Singleton Trading Inc. of Brooklyn, New York committed patent infringement.

In this Indiana litigation, Singleton Trading, which does business as Elama and Blue Spotlight, is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,568,720 (the “‘720 Patent”) for a “wheeled vehicle.” The patent covers a wheeled vehicle, such as a tricycle, that can be folded from an in-use position to a storage position for ease of carrying.

Newton Enterprises claims that Singleton Trading has infringed and/or induced others to infringe the ‘720 Patent by “making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, a foldable tricycle that practices at least one invention claimed in the ‘720 Patent.” It lists as an example of such infringement Defendant’s “Zoom Bike.”

In a complaint filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, a single claim is made: “Infringement of ‘720 Patent.” Plaintiff further claims that Defendant’s infringement has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages in addition to compensatory damages. Plaintiff also asks that the court award attorney fees and costs.

June 17, 2016

Patent Law: Supreme Court Discards Rigid Test for Awarding Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – A unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court this week gave district courts more flexibility to award enhanced damage in cases of willful patent infringement.

This decision consolidated two patent infringement lawsuits, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al. and Stryker Corp. et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al, in which Indiana-based Zimmer, Inc. was sued. In each lawsuit, the proper interpretation of the statutory language of 35 U.S.C. §284, which permits district courts the discretion to award enhanced damages in cases of patent infringement, was at issue.

The exercise of that discretion is guided by the principle that enhanced damages are to be limited to cases of egregious misconduct. Prior to this week’s decision, it was also guided by a test elucidated by the Federal Circuit, as set forth in In re Seagate Technology, LLC. This test requires a patent owner to show two things by clear and convincing evidence: first, “that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent” and, second, that the risk of infringement “was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”

In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that while the Seagate standard reflected an appropriate recognition that enhanced damages were to be awarded only in egregious cases, the test set forth by the Federal Circuit “is unduly rigid” and “impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion to district courts.”

The Court primarily took issue with the requirement that objective recklessness be found, holding that such a threshold “excludes from discretionary punishment many of the most culpable offenders, such as the ‘wanton and malicious pirate’ who intentionally infringes another’s patent–with no doubts about its validity or any notion of a defense–for no purpose other than to steal the patentee’s business.”

The Court also noted that the Seagate test improperly allowed ex post facto defenses in considering culpability. Specifically, under the Seagate test, an infringer could rely on a defense at trial, even if he had been unaware of that defense at the time he had acted. This, the Court held, ignored the general rule that culpability is to be determined by an actor’s knowledge at the time of the conduct in question.

Finally, the Court rejected the requirement that recklessness be proved by clear and convincing evidence, finding it to be inconsistent with §284. Instead, it stated that enhanced damages are no different from patent infringement litigation in general, which “has always been governed by a preponderance of the evidence standard.”

The Court vacated the judgments of the Federal Circuit in both cases and remanded them for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.

Although this was a unanimous opinion, Justice Breyer authored a concurring opinion, in which Justices Alito and Kennedy joined.

May 17, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Infringement of Patented Bottle Caps Alleged in Indiana Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Novembal USA, Inc. of Edison, New Jersey filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. Defendant is Closure Systems International, Inc., of Indianapolis, Indiana.

Novembal is in the business of development, production and sale of products associated with the production, processing, packaging and distribution of food. In this recent federal lawsuit, it has accused Closure Systems of infringing a patent covering bottle-cap products, which is entitled “Cap For A Container Neck.” This patent is protected by Patent No. 9,199,769 (the “‘769 patent”), which has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Novembal contends that Closure Systems has infringed and continues to infringe, has contributed to the infringement of, or induced infringement of at least claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 of the ‘769 patent. Novembal further claims that Closure Systems’ infringement has been willful.

In this lawsuit, the Indiana patent attorney for Novembal lists a single count: “Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,199,769 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.”

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

May 16, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Second Lawsuit by Lippert Against MORryde and MOR/ryde Filed

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiffs Lippert Components Manufacturing, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana and Backsaver International, Inc. d/b/a Gorilla-Lift of Somerset, Kentucky filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana. Defendants are MORryde International, Inc. and MOR/ryde Inc.

This lawsuit alleging patent infringement follows another recent lawsuit, also alleging patent infringement, that Lippert filed against Defendants recently. That lawsuit, filed by Lippert as sole Plaintiff, asserted infringement of three patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,182,401; 6,176,045 and 6,598,354.

This second lawsuit adds Backsaver as a second Plaintiff and asserts infringement of different intellectual property, namely U.S. Patent No. 6,550,840, entitled “Tailgate Lift Assembly.”

Indiana patent lawyers for Plaintiffs contend that infringement by Defendants was willful and deliberate in a complaint listing a single count, “Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,550,840.” Plaintiffs ask the Indiana federal court for damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.