Patent Infringement

August 31, 2015

Indiana Patent Law: Court Orders TapLogic to Provide Additional Detail Regarding Non-Infringement Contentions

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Magistrate Judge Susan Collins ordered TapLogic, LLC to serve Agri-Labs with more-detailed preliminary non-infringement contentions (“PNICs”) in the ongoing patent litigation between TapLogic and Agri-Labs Holdings, LLC over TapLogic’s smart phone application “Ag PhD Soil Test.”

At issue in this patent litigation is U.S. Patent No. 8,286,857 (the “`857 Patent” or the “patent-in-Suit”), to which Agri-Labs claims ownership. The patent-in-suit, which was issued based upon an application filed by inventor Tony Wayne Covely, has been registered by the U.S. Patent Office. The `857 Patent generally relates to a system and method for performing soil analysis that uses smart phones, applications for smart phones, soil containers having unique identifiers, and global positioning (“GPS”).

In January, an Indiana patent attorney for Agri-Labs filed an intellectual property complaint in the Northern District of Indiana Fort Wayne Division alleging that TapLogic infringed on the ‘857 Patent. TapLogic counterclaimed. It asked the court for a declaratory judgment that it has not infringed Agri-Labs’ patent and that the claims of the patent are invalid. On July 1, 2015, the parties exchanged their respective contentions regarding infringement.

The instant order addresses Agri-Labs’ request that the court order TapLogic to provide a more detailed PNIC. Agri-Labs asserts that the PNICs it received were deficient, providing “nothing more than vague, conclusory language that simply mimics the language of the claims when identifying its theories of non-infringement.”

As is true for a party serving preliminary infringement contentions (“PICs”), a party serving PNICs must provide an infringement-claim chart for each accused product or process (the “accused instrumentality”). Each claim chart must contain the following contentions: (1) “each claim of each patent in suit that is allegedly infringed by the accused instrumentality;” (2) “[a] specific identification of where each limitation of the claim is found within each accused instrumentality, including . . . the identity of the structures, acts, or materials in the accused instrumentality that performs the claimed function”; and (3) “[w]hether each limitation of each asserted claim is literally present in the accused instrumentality or present under the doctrine of equivalents.”

The court noted that TapLogic’s PNICs merely recite the language of each claim and then deny that its Ag PhD Soil Test performs that function or includes that feature. As an example, one portion of Claim 1 was described as “scanning said unique identifier associated with said soil sample container containing said at least one soil sample with a handheld remote terminal, wherein said handheld remote terminal includes a handheld remote terminal sampling application.” In reply, Agri-Labs stated that its application “does NOT scan said unique identifier associated with said soil sample container containing said at least one soil sample with a handheld remote terminal, wherein said handheld remote terminal includes a handheld remote terminal sampling application.”

Consequently, the court agreed that TapLogic’s PNICs were inadequate because they lacked sufficient detail. It ordered TapLogic to serve Agri-Labs with detailed PNICs.

August 26, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Court Permits Bonutti to Withdraw Counterclaim, Denies Attorneys’ Fees to Biomet

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – In the matter of Biomet, Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, LLC, the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division granted Defendant Bonutti’s motion to dismiss with prejudice its counterclaim. Bonutti’s counterclaim alleged that Biomet had infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,806,897 (the “‘897 patent”). Patent attorneys for Biomet Inc. asked the court to impose attorneys’ fees as a condition of the dismissal but this motion was denied.

On March 8, 2013, patent lawyers for Plaintiff Biomet filed an action for declaratory judgment against Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC. At issue were contentions of patent infringement of fifteen patents. Bonutti counterclaimed against Biomet and several other counterclaim Defendants. This multi-faceted dispute had been resolved with respect to some of the patents prior to this order. Other allegations of patent infringement remained.

Among the assertions by Bonutti that had remained was a counterclaim that Biomet had infringed the ‘897 patent. In this order, the court granted Bonutti’s request under Rule 41(a)(2) to dismiss this counterclaim with prejudice. The court also addressed Biomet’s contention that it should be awarded attorneys’ fees as a “prevailing party” in this portion of the patent litigation.

The court denied attorneys’ fees to Biomet on several grounds. First, it noted that, while attorney’s fees are available as part of a Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal without prejudice, this is justified as compensation for requiring a defendant to incur unnecessary litigation expenses. That same rationale does not apply where, as in this case, the dismissal is with prejudice.

Additionally, the court noted that any request for attorneys’ fees was premature. Such fees are only available to the “prevailing party” and Biomet had not established itself as such a prevailing party. Biomet may yet be able to recover attorneys’ fees if, at the conclusion of the patent lawsuit, Biomet is held to be the prevailing party.

August 10, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Files New Lawsuit Alleging Patent Infringement of Alimta

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis,

Indiana, in conjunction with Washington, D.C. co-counsel, sued for patent infringement in the Southern District of Indiana. Lilly claims that Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. of Pune, India; Heritage Pharma Labs, Inc. of East Brunswick, New Jersey; and Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Eatontown, New Jersey, will infringe and/or have infringed Lilly’s patented “Novel Antifolate Combination Therapies,” U.S. Patent Number 7,772,209 (the “‘209 patent”), which has been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Plaintiff Lilly is in the business of, among other things, the manufacture and sale of various pharmaceuticals. Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. is a generic pharmaceutical company engaged in developing, manufacturing and marketing a broad range of pharmaceutical products. Heritage Labs is believed to perform functions relating to Emcure’s active pharmaceutical ingredient as well as formulation research and development. Heritage Pharmaceuticals is thought to be engaged in the acquisition, licensing, development, marketing, sale, and distribution of generic pharmaceutical products for the U.S. prescription drug market on behalf of Emcure.

Alimta®, which is licensed to Lilly, is a chemotherapy agent used for the treatment of various types of cancer. The drug 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 is also indicated as a single-agent treatment for patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy. Additionally, Alimta is used 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.

This Indiana lawsuit for patent infringement, submitted to the court by an Indiana patent lawyer, was triggered by the filing by defendant Emcure Pharmaceuticals of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. In that ANDA, Emcure Pharmaceuticals seeks approval to manufacture and sell its pemetrexed for injection, 500 mg/vial product prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent.

This patent litigation asserts a single count: infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209. Lilly asks for a judgment that Emcure has infringed the ‘209 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of the ‘209 patent; a judgment that use of the intellectual property currently covered by the ‘209 patent shall be protected until its expiration date; injunctive relief; attorneys’ fees and expenses; as well as other relief.

August 6, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Asks Indiana Court to Rule That It Has Not Infringed Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent-related lawsuit against Uropep Biotech GbR of Garbsen, Germany in the Southern District of Indiana.

Plaintiff Lilly is in the business of, among other things, the manufacture and sale of various pharmaceuticals including a drug trademarked as Cialis®. At issue in this intellectual property lawsuit is U.S. Patent No. 8,791,124, entitled “Use of Phosphordiesterase Inhibitors in the Treatment of Prostatic Diseases” (“the ‘124 patent”), which has been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lilly states that the ‘124 patent was issued to Defendant Uropep Biotech. Lilly further states in this Indiana lawsuit that an entity related to Uropep Biotech, Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR, sued Lilly last month in the Eastern District of Texas asserting that Lilly had infringed the ‘124 patent by manufacturing and selling Cialis.

Lilly contends that Erfindergemeinschaft does not own the patent-in-suit and that, consequently, the Texas lawsuit was improper. It further asserts that the Texas lawsuit provides evidence of an actual and justiciable controversy between Lilly and Uropep Biotech sufficient to warrant this instant Indiana lawsuit wherein the Indiana patent lawyer for Lilly asks the court for declaratory relief adjudging that it has not infringed the ‘124 patent. Lilly also asks the court for a declaration that the ‘124 patent is invalid as well as attorney’s fees and costs.

July 28, 2015

Supreme Court Keeps Brulotte – Post-Expiration Patent Royalties are Still Unlawful Per Se

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a patent-royalty lawsuit, Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC. The Court, divided 6-3, ruled against Kimble.

Stephen Kimble sued Marvel in 1997 for infringing his patent, U. S. Patent No. 5,072,856,

with its “Web Blaster,” a toy that allowed users to mimic Spider-Man’s web-slinging superpower. The litigation ended with a settlement wherein Marvel purchased Kimble’s patent for a lump sum and agreed to pay a 3% perpetual royalty on future sales.

July 22, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Adds Mylan to List of Defendants Accused of Infringing Alimta

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Mylan Laboratories Limited of Hyderabad, India; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Morgantown, West Virginia; and Mylan Inc. of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania (collectively, “Mylan”) infringed Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the 209 patent”), which covers the pharmaceutical product Alimta®.

Lilly is engaged in the business of research, development, manufacture and sale of pharmaceuticals worldwide. 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.

The drug is also 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 used 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 U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 cover a method of administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need thereof that also involves administration of folic acid and vitamin B12.

This Indiana patent infringement lawsuit arises out of the filing by Defendants 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 ‘209 patent. Defendants included as a part their ANDA filing 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 ‘209 patent, asserting that the claims of the ‘209 patent are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of Defendants’ ANDA products.

In its patent infringement complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, Lilly states that Defendants intends to engage in the manufacture, use, offer for sale and/or sale of Defendants’ ANDA Products and the proposed labeling therefor immediately and imminently upon approval their ANDA filing, i.e., prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Lilly asserts that Defendants’ actions constitute 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 lists a single count in this lawsuit – infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 – and asks the court for:

a) A judgment that Mylan has infringed the ‘209 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of the ‘209 patent;
b) A judgment ordering that the effective date of any FDA approval for Mylan to make, use, offer for sale, sell, market, distribute, or import Mylan’s ANDA Product, 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;
c) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Mylan, and all persons acting in concert with Mylan, from making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing Mylan’s ANDA Product, 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;
d) A judgment declaring that making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing of Mylan’s ANDA Product, 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 other of the ‘209 patent; and

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

Practice Tip: Lilly has also sued all Mylan Defendants for patent infringement of Effient®. It has also won a lawsuit, which was heard by the Federal Circuit, against Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. for infringing the patented Strattera®.

July 14, 2015

House Judiciary Committee Approves Patent Reform Bill by Substantial, Bipartisan Vote

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee recently approved the Innovation Act (H.R. 9) by a vote of 24-8. This bipartisan bill takes steps to combat the ever-increasing problem of abusive patent litigation. The legislation addresses abusive practices taking place in federal courts.

The Innovation Act is supported by a wide range of groups that include stakeholders from all areas of the economy representing businesses of all kinds from every corner of the United States, including independent inventors and innovators.

Key Components of the Innovation Act include:

July 7, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly and Lupin in Federal Court Anew, Patent Infringement of Axiron Now Alleged

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – In conjunction with non-Indiana co-counsel, an Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company, Eli Lilly Export S.A. (collectively, “Lilly”) and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd., sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Lupin Ltd. of Mubai, India and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland infringed on various of Plaintiffs’ patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520. These patents have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lilly is engaged in the business of research, development, manufacture and sale of

pharmaceutical products worldwide. Acrux is engaged in the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products. They sell their products worldwide. The Lupin Defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies that develop, manufacture, market, and distribute generic pharmaceutical products for sale.

At issue in this patent litigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520. These patents are alleged to cover a testosterone metered transdermal solution used to treat males for conditions associated with a deficiency or absence of endogenous testosterone. This pharmaceutical product, trademarked as Axiron®, is marketed and sold by Lilly.

Plaintiffs contend that the Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 208061 submitted in the name of Lupin Ltd. to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval to market a generic version of Lilly’s Axiron product constitutes patent infringement.

In its complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, Lilly alleges the following counts:

• Count I for Patent Infringement: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,419,307
• Count II for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,419,307
• Count III for Patent Infringement: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,419,307
• Count IV for Patent Infringement: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,177,449
• Count V for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,177,449
• Count VI for Patent Infringement: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,177,449
• Count VII for Patent Infringement: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944
• Count VIII for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944
• Count IX for Patent Infringement: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944
• Count X for Patent Infringement: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,807,861
• Count XI for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,807,861
• Count XII for Patent Infringement: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,807,861
• Count XIII for Patent Infringement: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,993,520
• Count XIV for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,993,520
• Count XV for Patent Infringement: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,993,520
• Count XVI for Declaratory Judgment: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,419,307
• Count XVII for Declaratory Judgment: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,177,449
• Count XVIII for Declaratory Judgment: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944
• Count XIX for Declaratory Judgment: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,807,861

• Count XX for Declaratory Judgment: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,993,520

Plaintiffs ask the court for judgment in their favor as follows:

a) United States Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520 are valid and enforceable;
b) Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), Defendants infringed United States Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520 by submitting ANDA No. 208061 to the FDA to obtain approval to commercially manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell, or import into the United States Lupin’s Generic Product prior to expiration of said patents;
c) Defendants’ threatened acts of commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale in, or importation into, the United States of Lupin’s Generic Product prior to the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520 would constitute infringement of said patents;
d) The effective date of any FDA approval of Lupin’s Generic Product shall be no earlier than the latest of the expiration date of United States Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520 and any additional periods of exclusivity, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A)
e) Defendants, and all persons acting in concert with Defendants, shall be enjoined from commercially manufacturing, using, offering for sale, or selling Lupin’s Generic Product within the United States, or importing Lupin’s Generic Product into the United States, until the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520 in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(e)(4)(B) and 283;) This is an exceptional case and Plaintiffs should be awarded their costs, expenses, and disbursements in this action, including reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 285 and 271(e)(4); and

g) Plaintiffs are entitled to any further appropriate relief under 35 U.S.C.§ 271(e)(4).

The case was assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01047-SEB-DML.

Practice Tip: Information on Lilly’s lawsuit against the Lupin Defendants, which asserts patent infringement relating to the drug Effient, can be found here.

June 9, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Donaldson Co. Sues Action Filtration Alleging Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for Donaldson Company, Inc. of Bloomington, Minnesota, (“Donaldson”) commenced an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Action Filtration, Inc. of Hope, Indiana infringed Patent No. 6,488,746, “Air Filter Assembly Having Non-Cylindrical Filter Elements for Filtering Air With Particulate Matter”; Patent No. D499,177, “Filter Element Having Oval Shape”; and Patent No. 7,264,656, “Air Filter Assembly Having Non-Cylindrical Filter Elements for Filtering Air With Particulate Matter,” which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Plaintiff Donaldson, established in 1915, is a worldwide provider of filtration systems and replacement parts. Defendant Action Filtration designs and manufactures replacement filters for dust collection and liquid filtration.

At issue in this Indiana patent lawsuit are three patents, to which Donaldson claims ownership: United States Patent No. 6,488,746 (“the ‘746 patent”), United States Design Patent No. D499,177 (“the ‘177 patent”) and United States Patent No. 7,264,656 (“the ‘656 patent”).

In this Indiana complaint, filed by patent lawyers for Donaldson, the following is alleged:

• Count I: Infringement of the ‘746 Patent
• Count II: Infringement of the ‘177 Patent

• Count III: Infringement of the ‘656 Patent

Donaldson asks the court for injunctive relief; compensatory damages; an award of Action Filtration’s total profits derived from infringement of the ‘177 Patent; and a declaration that the case is exceptional, to include an award to Donaldson of its attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs associated with this patent lawsuit pursuant to such a declaration.

June 5, 2015

Indiana Trademark and Patent Litigation: Simpson Sues Two Indiana Individuals Alleging Patent Infringement and Counterfeiting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Trademark and patent attorneys for Simpson Performance Products, Inc. of Mooresville, North Carolina (“Simpson”) and SFI Foundation, Inc. of Poway, California (“SFI”) commenced trademark litigation in the Western District of North Carolina alleging that Robert Wagoner of North Judson, Indiana and Derek Randall Cathcart of Valparaiso, Indiana infringed the SIMPSON® family of trademarks, some of which have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office. The case was transferred to the Northern District of Indiana. Among the trademarks at issue are U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4,117,821; 1,243,427; 3,026,333; 3,026,334; and 3,050,920. Also at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,931,669 and 8,272,074.

Plaintiff Simpson is a manufacturer of automotive and motorsports specialty/performance products, including head and neck restraints for competitive racing. The Simpson brand of automotive and motorsports products has existed 1959. Plaintiff SFI was established to develop and administer minimum performance standards for the automotive aftermarket and motorsports industries, including standards for specialty/performance racing equipment.

Simpson offers for sale the SIMPSON® Hybrid PRO Rage™ head and neck restraint. Simpson indicates that this product is one of the few such devices to be certified under a special classification, SFI SPEC 38.1, for use in NASCAR competitions.

Defendants Wagoner and Carthcart have been accused of engaging in the business of providing specialty/performance racing equipment, including head and neck restraints that are counterfeit versions of Simpson products. Plaintiffs contend that Wagoner is offering counterfeit head and neck restraints through ebay.com. Plaintiffs allege that Cathcart offers counterfeit head and neck restraints via the website racingjunk.com.

These restraints, Plaintiffs contend, bear trademarks owned by Simpson, including the SIMPSON® federally registered trademark as well as the HUTCHENS Hybrid PRO™ and Hybrid PRO™ common law trademarks.

The accused products also allegedly bear a label that falsely states, “This product designed & manufactured by Safety Solutions, Inc. PATENT NO.: 6931669; other patents pending.” According to Plaintiffs, the alleged counterfeiting activities of Defendants also constitute patent infringement.

In this lawsuit, filed by patent and trademark lawyers for Plaintiffs, the following causes of action are listed:

• Trademark Infringement
• Unfair Competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); False Designation of Origin; False or Misleading Advertising
• Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices under N.C. [North Carolina] Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1
• Patent Infringment [sic]

• Common Law Fraud

Plaintiffs ask for a finding in their favor on each of the counts alleged, including a finding that the conduct was knowing and willful, and entry against each Defendant jointly and severally. Plaintiffs seek costs, attorneys’ fees and damages, including enhanced damages, as well as injunctive relief.

This federal trademark complaint was initially filed in the Western District of North Carolina in February 2015. In May 2015, District Judge Richard Voorhees ordered it to be transferred to the Northern District of Indiana, finding that the North Carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants.