Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

Richmond, Indiana – In a recent legal case between Plaintiff, Vandor Group, Inc., and Defendant, Batesville Casket Company, Vandor sought a preliminary injunction against Batesville for alleged patent infringement concerning casket rental inserts. Vandor claimed that Batesville’s actions caused irreparable harm, impacting their expansion plans and profitability.

Photo-300x122In its decision-making process, the Court applied Federal Circuit Law, which outlines four factors for determining whether a preliminary injunction is warranted: “(1) the movant’s reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the irreparable harm the movant will suffer if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) the balance of hardships tipping in its favor; and (4) the adverse impact on the public interest.”

The court primarily focused on irreparable harm and the likelihood of success, noting that irreparable harm is assumed when patent validity and infringement are established. However, the defendant can rebut this presumption by presenting evidence to the contrary. The judge ruled that Vandor’s claims of irreparable harm, based on lost expansion opportunities, potential economic losses, and the pending expiration of patents, were speculative and lacked substantial supporting evidence. Emphasizing that general assertions of economic harm without specific evidence are insufficient to prove irreparable harm, the court dismissed Vandor’s argument about the limited duration of their patents as a basis for irreparable harm, based on established legal precedent.

Columbus, Ohio – Plaintiff Coulter Ventures, LLC, d/b/a Rogue Fitness (“Rogue”) filed suit against Bells of Steel USA Inc., for alleged patent infringement of its fitness products in Bell’s sporting goods stores, including their Indianapolis, Indiana, Bells of Steel USA Showroom.

PatentPicture-300x211According to the complaint, Rogue Fitness owns several design and utility patents for fitness equipment, including Patent No. 11,173,337: “Weightlifting Assembly and Weight Rack Including Weightlifting Assembly”, Patent No. 10,226,661: “Weightlifting Rack Assembly and Wall Mount Bracket for a Weightlifting Rack Assembly,” Patent No. D992,063: “Wall Mounted Exercise Rack,” Patent No. D961,020: “Weight Plate,” and Patent No. RE49,513: “Barbell.”  Rogue states that all these patented products are listed on the company’s website for the public to view at any time.

In the suit, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has been purposely advertising, marketing, selling, manufacturing, and distributing products that are infringing on Rogue’s lawfully held patents. Rogue specifically identified 8 of the products Bells advertises as infringing upon the Plaintiff’s patents in their design and/or utility.  The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant relies on “making cheap copies of products and designs created by others and only later dealing with patent infringement.”

Lilly-Logo-300x200Massachusetts – Judge Allison Burroughs sided with Eli Lilly in a dispute with Teva Pharmaceuticals, overturning a $176.5 million jury verdict that had previously been awarded to Teva in a patent infringement suit regarding the two companies’ development of drugs with antibodies capable of treating headache disorders associated with calcitonin gene-related peptide (“CGRP”).

According to the original complaint, Teva’s drug (Ajovy) and Lilly’s drug (Emgality) were similar in the ways in which they work, and they were both approved by the FDA only 13 days apart in September 2018.  However, Court documents show that Lilly contended that the two antibodies used in the drugs were different and, therefore, no infringement existed.

After a thorough examination of the case, Judge Burroughs agreed that the two drugs were distinct and that Teva’s patents were too expansive.  Judge Burroughs stated in her ruling that, “Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, asserted claims are too broad.”  She subsequently overturned the original jury verdict awarded to Teva writing in her ruling that “The Court does not reach this decision nor overturn a jury verdict lightly.”

Kalida, Ohio – The Plaintiff, UNVERFERTH MFG. CO., INC., filed suit against Silver Lake, Indiana company, PAR-KAN CO., LLC for patent infringement under U.S. Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285.

According to the complaint, Unverferth manufactures, uses, and sells seed tender products protected by legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ’940 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,745,123 (“the ’123 patent”).  In accordance with statutory marking provision of 35U.S.C. § 287(a), Unverferth has affixed serial numbers to its products to identify the patents used in those products.

8767940-Patent-300x258The Plaintiff claims that Par-Kan had knowledge of the ‘940 and ‘123 patents because these patents are continuations of U.S. Patent No. 8,221,047, which Unverferth sued Par-Kan over in a similar infringement case in 2013 and had received subpoenas and a cease-and-desist letter, identifying the patents by numbers.  It is alleged that the Defendant continues to manufacture, use, and sell products that infringe on the claims of the ‘940 and ‘123 patents, which constitutes willful infringement.

BlogPhotosCombined

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff, Disintermediation Services, Inc. (DSI) filed suit against Plaintiff, Perq Software, LLC for Patent Infringement.

DSI is a company that develops and sells software that supports omnichannel communications. DSI built implementations of its products on both Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure. Since launching their website in 2011, Disintermediation has handled over one million chat messages.

The Defendant, Perq Software, LLC (“Perq”), according to their website, was founded in 2008 by Andy Medley and Scott Hill, two Harvard Business School alumni set out to untangle a big, hairy problem with multifamily. The PERQ platform combines AI leasing assistant automation with powerful website conversion tools.

Continue reading

2023-03-15-BlogPhoto-1Richmond, Indiana –The Plaintiff, Vandor Group, Inc. (“Vandor”) doing business as Starmark Cremation Products, filed suit against Defendant, Batesville Casket Company, Inc. (“Batesville”), for patent infringement.

Vandor was established in 1972 by Bruce Elder in Richmond, Indiana. Vandor began by specializing in custom die-cutting of chipboard and corrugated fiberboard components.  Starmark Cremation Products began in 2004 designing and marketing a small line of engineered cremation solutions.  According to their website and social media pages, today Starmark manufacturers hundreds of alternative containers and rental inserts daily. They have designed, marketing and manufactured Sensible Solutions for its customers. Starmark prides itself on providing innovative, affordable and high quality products so that their customer can focus on the things that matter most; giving all families the opportunity to lay their loved ones to rest in an affordable yet dignified and respectful manner.

Continue reading

top-logo-seenonIndianapolis, Indiana –The Plaintiff, TeleBrands Corporation, filed suit against Plaintiff, Vieneci Garden, Inc. for patent infringement.

TeleBrands Corporation is a leading direct television marketing company and the original creator of the “As Seen On TV” logo and category of the trade. They are a well-known direct-response marketing company that specializes in developing and promoting innovative consumer products. TeleBrands is currently celebrating 30 years of being in business. Its products can be found in over 70 countries. One of its most successful products is the “Pocket Hose,” an expandable garden hose that is designed to be lightweight, durable, and easy to use.  TeleBrands holds several patents related to the design and construction of expandable garden hoses, including US10174870 and US10890278 both titled “Expandable and Contractible Garden Hose.”

Vieneci Garden, Inc. is a competing company that also produces and sells expandable garden hoses that is based out of Franklin, Indiana.  According to the Indiana Secretary of State Vieneci was created in August of 2022.  Their website touts them to be a preferred gardening tools supplier for a number of garden owners and gardeners.

Continue reading

BTL-Photo-300x258Indianapolis, Indiana –The Plaintiff, BTL Industries, Inc.  filed suit against Defendant, JV Medical Supplies, Inc.  for  trademark infringement,  false advertising and patent infringement.

BTL Industries, founded in 1993, is a leading manufacturer of non-invasive medical devices that are used for cosmetic and therapeutic purposes. The company holds several patents and trademarks related to its products, including its flagship product, the EMSCULPT device. The EMSCULPT is a non-invasive medical device designed to stimulate muscle contraction using electromagnetic energy. The device is used for body contouring, muscle strengthening, and rehabilitation. The FDA has cleared EMSCULPT for non-invasive treatment for the abdomen, buttocks, arms, calves and thighs.

JV Medical Supplies, a competitor of BTL Industries, also manufactures a similar medical device called the Muscle Stimulator. The Muscle Stimulator is marketed and sold as a non-invasive device that uses electromagnetic energy to stimulate muscle contraction, and it is intended for use in body contouring and muscle strengthening applications. The Indiana Secretary of State indicates that the corporation was created in 2021.

Continue reading

BlogPhoto-Logo-300x148

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Plaintiff, Gema USA, Inc. (“Gema”) is a Switzerland based company that was founded in 1897 as a metalworking company and operates out of Indianapolis.  Since 2012, Gema has been a part of the global Graco Group, an internationally leading manufacture of liquid conveyance systems and components.  According to the complaint, Gema is a worldwide leader in the design and manufacture of electrostatic powder coating control units, and powder feed systems.  Gema sells a variety of powder guns and spray equipment in this district and throughout the United States.

The Defendant, First in Finishing, Inc., according to their website, was formed by Monte McClung in 2009 after a 20 year Career at Gema.  First in Finishing, Inc.’s mission statement is listed to “Provide quality and reliable powder coating solutions while saving and controlling costs to customers.”  They allege to be an Integrator of Gema Products, not a Gema Distributor.

Continue reading

2022-09-02-BlogPhotoTable-300x130Goshen, Indiana – The Plaintiff, Harper Trucks Inc. (“Harper”), based out of Wichita, Kansas, have been in business since 1940.  Harper advertises to be the world’s largest manufacturer of hand trucks.  Harper Trucks are manufactured in a plant of 40,000 square feet with full robotic and new composite-injection capabilities.

The Defendant, Gleason Industrial Products Inc. (“Gleason’), according to their website, was founded in 1946 and is comprised of three manufacturing divisions throughout three states in the Midwest: Algoma Net Company, Gleason Industrial Products, and Precisions Products.  Milwaukee Hand Trucks is the name for products manufactured and sold by Gleason Industrial Products.  Milwaukee Hand Trucks are produced in Gleason’s manufacturing facilities in Goshen, Indiana and Lincoln, Illinois.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued Patent No. 10,864,933 (“933 Patent”) entitled “Four Position Hand Truck” to Harper on December 15, 2020.  The patent generally discloses and claims a multi-position hand truck that permits a user to easily change the orientation of the handle and frame among a number of positions making the hand truck extremely useful to a wide variety of uses. Continue reading

Contact Information