Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

February 26, 2014

One Number Sues Google in Indiana for Patent Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent infringement litigation was commenced by a patent attorney for One Number Corporation of Anderson, Indiana. The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Google, Inc., of Mountain View, California, infringed One Number’s Contact Number Encapsulation System, Patent No. 8,611,511 (the “‘511 patent”), which has been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

At issue in this patent litigation are the respective intellectual property rights of One Number and Google in single-phone-number telephone services. Such services allow a phone call made to one number to be transferred to multiple other phone numbers.

One Number asserts that Google has infringed and is still willfully infringing the ‘511 patent by making, selling and using a system that embodies One Number’s patented invention. The service claimed to infringe upon the ‘511 patent is Defendant’s Google Voice technology. The patent-in-suit was issued on December 17, 2013 and has been assigned to One Number.

One Number asks for judgment in its favor against Google, a final injunction against the continuing infringement, an accounting for damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: This is not the first Indiana patent litigation that One Number has instituted against Google relating to the Google Voice application. At least one similar complaint was filed in March 2010, although that complaint pertained to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,680,256 and 7,440,565. Google responded, among other ways, by seeking reexamination of One Number’s patents. This approach met with some success but was apparently insufficient to dissuade One Number from pursuing further patent litigation.

February 13, 2014

Alcon Sues Cipla for Patent Infringement of Pataday™

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent lawyers for Alcon Research, LTD of Fort Worth, Texas and Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd of Fribourg, Switzerland (collectively, “Alcon”) sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Cipla Limited of Mumbai Central, Mumbai and Cipla USA Inc. of Miami, Florida (collectively, “Cipla”) infringed Olopatadine Formulations for Topical Administration, Patent Nos. 6,995,186 (the “‘186 patent”) and 7,402,609 (the “‘609 patent”), which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

According to the complaint, the Cipla entities are engaged in the generic-pharmaceutical business. Alcon asserts that one or more of the entities develops, manufactures, imports, markets, offers to sell and/or sells generic drugs throughout the United States.

Cipla filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Pataday™ ophthalmic solution, a drug product containing olopatadine hydrochloride. The two patents-in-suit, which Alcon claims to own, are asserted to cover Pataday™. Alcon contends that Cipla’s submission of this ANDA to obtain approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation of Cipla’s ANDA product before the expiration of the patents-in-suit is an act of infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A).

Alcon states that it believes that the Cipla entities are part of a vertically integrated and unified organization and that they will act in concert to introduce the generic version of Pataday™ to the United States market prior to the expiration of Alcon’s patents.

In the complaint, intellectual property attorneys for Alcon list the following claims:

• Count I: Infringement of the ‘186 Patent
• Count II: Infringement of the ‘609 Patent
• Count III: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of the ‘186 Patent
• Count IV: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of the ‘609 Patent

Alcon asks for a judgment that the ‘186 and ‘609 patents are valid and enforceable and have been infringed; a judgment providing that the effective date of any FDA approval of commercial manufacture, use or sale of Cipla’s ANDA product be not earlier than the latest of the expiration date of the patents-in-suit, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional periods of exclusivity; preliminary and permanent injunctions protecting products covered by the ‘186 patent prior to its expiration; preliminary and permanent injunctions protecting products covered by the ‘609 patent prior to its expiration; a judgment declaring that the commercial manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or importation of Cipla’s ANDA product, or any other drug product covered by the ‘186 patent, will infringe, induce the infringement of, and contribute to the infringement by others of, that patent; a judgment declaring that the commercial manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale or importation of Cipla’s ANDA product, or any other drug product covered by the ‘609 patent, will infringe, induce the infringement of, and contribute to the infringement by others of, that patent; a declaration that this is an exceptional case and an award of attorneys’ fees; and costs and expenses.

Practice Tip:

India is the world’s leading exporter of generic drugs. Some Indian manufacturers are aggressively seeking to have their generic versions approved by the FDA well before a brand-name drug’s patent(s) expire. This has led to a substantial amount of patent litigation against Indian companies, as the difference in market price between brand-name drugs and their generic counterparts can be enormous.

In addition to Indian companies being subject to litigation in the United States, Indian courts are also actively engaged in the ongoing dispute over intellectual property rights. Those courts, as well as the Indian government, have in several notable instances found in favor of Indian generic-drug manufacturers and against intellectual property holders in the United States. For example, in 2012, a decision by India’s Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks granted a “compulsory license” of the patented cancer drug Nexavar.

According to this decision, Bayer must license Nexavar to Natco Pharma, an Indian company, in exchange for a 6% royalty on Natco’s net sales. The generic drug will be sold in India for $176 per month instead of the $5,600 per month that Bayer had been charging in that market.

While a provision exists within the World Trade Organization‘s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“TRIPS”) Agreement that allows for compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals, it has been used only infrequently, usually for drugs that treat AIDS. This was the first time such compulsory licensing was granted in India. India is only the second country, after Thailand, to grant a compulsory license to a cancer drug.

January 30, 2014

Lilly Sues Glenmark Generics for Over Proposed Manufacture and Sale of Generic Version of ALIMTA®

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana (“Lilly”) filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Glenmark Generics, Inc., USA of Mahwah, New Jersey (“Glenmark”) infringed Antifolate Combination Therapies, Patent No. 7,772,209, which has been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lilly is engaged in the business of research, development, manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products worldwide. Glenmark is in the business of distributing, selling, and offering to sell drug products throughout the United States.

ALIMTA®, which is allegedly 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. ALIMTA® also is 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 indicated 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 (“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 patent infringement lawsuit arises out of the filing by Defendant Glenmark 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. Glenmark filed as a part of ANDA No. 205526 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 Glenmark’s ANDA products.

In its complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, Lilly states that Glenmark intends to engage in the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, marketing, distribution, and/or importation of Glenmark’s ANDA Products and the proposed labeling therefor immediately and imminently upon approval of ANDA No. 205526, i.e., prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Lilly asserts that Glenmark’s 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 asks for:

• A judgment that Glenmark 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 ordering that the effective date of any FDA approval for Glenmark to make, use, offer for sale, sell, market, distribute, or import Glenmark’s ANDA Products, 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;
• A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Glenmark, and all persons acting in concert with Glenmark, from making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing Glenmark’s ANDA Products, 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;
• A judgment declaring that making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing of Glenmark’s ANDA Products, 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 others of the ‘209 patent;
• A declaration that this is an exceptional case and an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
• An award of Lilly’s costs and expenses in this action.

Practice Tip: The FDA’s ANDA process for generic drugs has been abbreviated such that, in general, the generic drug seeking approval does not require pre-clinical (animal and in vitro) testing. Instead, the process focuses on establishing that the product is bioequivalent to the “innovator” drug that has already undergone the full approval process. The statute that created the abbreviated process, however, had also created some interesting issues with respect to the period of exclusivity. For a look at some of these issues, see here.

January 27, 2014

Eli Lilly Sues Par Pharmaceutical Asserting Patent Infringement of Effient®

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney sued in the Southern District of Indiana on behalf of Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana; Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan (“Daiichi Sankyo”); Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. of Parsippany, New Jersey (“DSI”); and Ube Industries, Ltd. of Yamaguchi, Japan alleging that Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (“Par Pharmaceutical Companies”) and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”), both of Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey, (collectively “Par Pharmaceutical”) infringed Medicinal Compositions Containing Aspirin, Patent No. 8,404,703 (the “‘703 patent”) and Method of Treatment and Coadministration of Aspirin and Prasugrel, Patent No. 8,569,325 (the “‘325 patent”), which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

This is a civil action for patent infringement. It arises out of the filing by Defendant Par of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of two of Lilly’s pharmaceutical products, Effient® 5mg and Effient® 10mg tablets, prior to the expiration of Daiichi Sankyo’s and Ube’s U.S. patents, which purportedly cover methods of using Effient® products. Lilly asserts that it holds an exclusive license to these products. DSI currently co-promotes Effient® products in the United States with Lilly.

Effient® products were approved by the FDA for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in certain patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are to be managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, or angioplasty). The instructions accompanying Effient® products state that patients taking Effient® products should also take aspirin. The use of Effient® products in combination with aspirin for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with ACS who are to be managed with PCI is covered by the claims of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.

Par has submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (the “Par ANDA”) to the FDA pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 355(j), seeking approval to market a generic version of Lilly’s product for oral administration (the “Par Products”) in the United States.

Plaintiffs assert that Par will knowingly include with the Par Products instructions for use that substantially copy the instructions for Effient® products, including instructions for administering the Par Products with aspirin as claimed in the ‘703 and ‘325 patents. Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that Par knows that the instructions that will accompany the Par Products will induce and/or contribute to others using the Par Products in the manner set forth in the instructions. Plaintiffs also contend that Par specifically intends that health care providers, and/or patients will use the Par Products in accordance with the instructions provided by Par to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents. Par therefore will actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, state Plaintiffs.

In the complaint, the Indiana patent lawyer for Plaintiffs listed the following counts:

• Count I: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703
• Count II: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703
• Count III: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,569,325
• Count IV: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,569,325

Plaintiffs ask the court for judgment:

A. That Defendants, either individually or collectively, have infringed or will infringe, after the Par ANDA is approved, one or more claims of the ‘703 patent;
B. That Defendants, either individually or collectively, have infringed or will infringe, after the Par ANDA is approved, one or more claims of the ‘325 patent;
C. That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B), Par and Par Pharmaceutical Companies be permanently enjoined from making, using, selling or offering to sell either or both of the Par Products within the United States, or importing either or both of the Par Products into the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents;
D. That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the effective date of any approval of the Par ANDA under § 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(j)) shall not be earlier than the latest of the expiration dates of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions;
E. A judgment declaring that the ‘703 patent remains valid and enforceable;
F. A judgment declaring that the ‘325 patent remains valid and enforceable;
G. If either Par or Par Pharmaceutical Companies commercially makes, uses, sells or offers to sell either or both of the Par Products within the United States, or imports either or both of the Par Products into the United States, prior to the expiration of either of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions, that Plaintiffs will be awarded monetary damages for those infringing acts to the fullest extent allowed by law and be awarded prejudgment interest based on those monetary damages;
H. That this case be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
I. That Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

Practice Tip: Lilly is not an infrequent litigant. This may be in part due to the fact that the company is facing a significant patent cliff. Its patent for a former top product, the antipsychotic Zyprexa – which once generated $5 billion in annual revenues – expired in 2011. Its top-selling drug of 2013, the antidepressant Cymbalta, lost patent protection last year. The patent on blockbuster Evista, a drug for breast cancer and osteoporosis, will expire this March.

January 13, 2014

Contour Hardening Sues Vanair for Patent and Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent and trademark attorneys for Contour Hardening, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana sued seeking injunctive and monetary relief in the Southern District of Indiana. Contour Hardening alleges that Vanair Manufacturing, Inc. of Michigan City, Indiana has infringed the trademark “REAL POWER”, Trademark Registration No. 3,124,014, as well as Contour Hardening’s patented “Vehicle Mounted Electrical Generator System.” The invention is covered by Patent Nos. 6,979,913 and 7,057,303, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff Contour Hardening contends that Defendant Vanair has violated, and continues to violate, inter alia, the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. §§271 and 281- 285, as well as the Federal Trademark Act by infringing Contour Hardening’s two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,979,913 and 7,057,303 (collectively, the “Contour Patents”), and infringing Contour Hardening’s REAL POWER trademark by using Vanair’s allegedly similar ROAD POWER trademark.

Contour Hardening is a developer and provider of Power Take-Off (“PTO”) driven generator systems for vehicles ranging from Class 2 pickup trucks (e.g., full-size trucks) to larger Class 8 Heavy Duty trucks (e.g., tractor trailer trucks). It states that these systems have been utilized in municipal, fire-rescue, construction, healthcare, mining, farming and other applications.

Plaintiff asserts that, sometime around 2007, Vanair first began offering vehicle-mounted AC-generator systems that infringe one or more of the claims of the Contour Patents. Vanair is accused of having received actual knowledge that it was infringing the Contour Patents at least as early December 17, 2012, when an Indiana patent and trademark lawyer for Contour Hardening sent to Vanair a letter providing it with actual notice of the Contour Patents and expressing “concerns regarding possible infringement.” The letter requested that Vanair “evaluate [its] activities relative to these two (2) patents and provide a written response as to when any infringing activities will cease.” According to Contour Hardening, Vanair did not respond this letter.

In addition to its allegations of patent infringement, Contour Hardening asserts trademark infringement. Contour Hardening indicates that it is the owner of United States Registration No. 3,124,014 for the trademark REAL POWER for providing AC generators. It claims that, since at least 2004 and continuously to date, it has adopted and used in interstate commerce the trademark REAL POWER in connection with its PTO-driven AC-generator systems and related operations and that the trademark has become distinctive to consumers in the vehicle-mounted AC-generator industry.

Contour Hardening contends that Vanair offers the allegedly infringing products under the trademark ROAD POWER with knowledge of Contour Hardening’s REAL POWER trademark. It further asserts that the nameplates, labels or other graphic displays that Vanair uses are confusingly similar to Contour Hardening’s trademark and that Vanair’s use of the ROAD POWER trademark is likely to cause confusion or mistake or deception of consumers as to the source of origin of Vanair’s goods or services. Contour Hardening further claims that Vanair’s activities have been willful, deliberate and intentional, have caused a likelihood of confusion, and have been done with the intent to trade upon Contour Hardening’s goodwill in the trademark REAL POWER.

In the complaint, Indiana patent and trademark attorneys assert the following on Contour Hardening’s behalf:

• Count I – Infringement of U.S. Patent 6,979,913
• Count II – Infringement of U.S. Patent 7,057,303
• Count III – Trademark Infringement
• Count IV – False Designation of Origin

Contour Hardening asks the court for a judgment of infringement of the Contour Patents; a judgment of infringement of Contour Hardening’s REAL POWER trademark; a permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement; an order that all infringing devices be delivered and destroyed; damages, including treble damages; costs and expenses; an order declaring that the case is exceptional and an award of attorney’s fees pursuant to such a finding.

Practice Tip: A 2006 opinion from the Federal Circuit, AERO Products International, Inc., et al. v. INTEX Recreation Corp., et al., addressed double recovery in cases where both patent infringement and trademark infringement are found. The Federal Circuit held that the trial court’s award of both $2.95 million for patent infringement – which was doubled to $5.9 million pursuant to a finding of willful patent infringement – and $1 million for trademark infringement was impermissible as a double recovery for the “same injury.” The court vacated the $1 million award for trademark damages stating, “even though damages are claimed based upon separate statutes or causes of action, when the claims arise out of the same set of operative facts, as is the case here, there may be only one recovery.”

December 31, 2013

Vehicle Service Group Sues Mohawk Resources for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Vehicle Services Group, LLC of Madison, Indiana(“VSG”), via an Indiana patent lawyer, has sued Mohawk Resources, LTD of Amsterdam, New York(“Mohawk”) alleging patent infringement of VSG’s “Electronically Controlled Vehicle Lift and Vehicle Service System,” Patent No. 6,983,196 (the “‘196 patent”), which has been registered by the U.S. Patent Office.

VSG is a designer and manufacturer of vehicle lifts, such as those one might see lifting a car in an auto mechanic’s shop. VSG’s ‘196 patent relates to a vehicle lift that has an electronic control which is functional to control the raising and lowering of the lift and to enable the display of a variety of information.

Mohawk also makes vehicle lifts, and is a direct competitor of VSG in the marketplace. The lifts that are at issue in this case (the “Accused Lifts”) include various Mohawk products. The complaint cites infringement by the Mobile Column Lifts identified as model numbers MP-18, MP-24 and MP-30. Those particular lifts purportedly incorporate the technology covered by VSG’s ‘196 patent, and thus infringe that patent.

In addition to levying allegations of patent infringement, VSG also claims that Mohawk is actively and knowingly inducing infringement of at least claim 145 of the ‘196 patent by instructing third parties, such as customers, to network together the Accused Lifts. Finally, Mohawk is accused of knowingly contributing to the infringement by others of the ‘196 patent by making, using, offering for sale, and selling the Accused Lifts.

An Indiana patent attorney alleged the following on behalf of VSG in a civil action for patent infringement:

• Count I: Patent Infringement
• Count II: Inducing Infringement
• Count III: Contributory Infringement

VSG asserts that Mohawk’s acts of infringement of the ‘196 patent have caused and will continue to cause VSG substantial and irreparable injury. It also contends that the infringing activities have been willful and asks the court for judgment as follows:

A. That Mohawk be found to infringe the ‘196 patent;
B. That Mohawk, its officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert with them, or any of them, be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from infringing the ‘196 patent;
C. That VSG be awarded damages adequate to compensate for Mohawk’s infringement of the ‘196 patent;
D. That the Court deem this case to be exceptional; and
E. That VSG be awarded its attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs of this action.

Practice Tip: This is at least the second complaint filed by VSG in the Southern District of Indiana and assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker. A previous lawsuit, Vehicle Service Group, LLC v. Stertil-Koni USA, Inc., makes similar allegations of patent infringement.

December 27, 2013

Federal Circuit Rejects Broad Right of Public Access to Patent Trials

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a showing of good cause was sufficient to support parties’ requests to file documents under seal. The case was heard by Circuit Judges Sharon Prost, William C. Bryson and Kathleen O’Malley.

Courts have traditionally acknowledged a right of free access to patent information. Lately, however, judges have increasingly restricted the general public’s access to patent litigation. The Federal Circuit spoke to this in the matter of Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., which recently resulted in a new verdict for Apple, this time for $290 million. picture of the court.jpg

In the patent litigation that led to that verdict, the parties had agreed that certain documents were to be filed under seal. Judge Lucy H. Koh had rejected this agreement and instead had required that the parties provide “compelling reasons” for sealing documents. The parties appealed this ruling.

The Federal Circuit discussed the public-policy implications of shielding patent infringement trials from the public eye. It rejected the notion that general public interest in a trial involving patent litigation is sufficient to require that the briefs and evidence be made available to the public. Instead, the Federal Circuit held that the public’s interest must be more than mere curiosity where the information at issue was not central to the court’s decision on the merits of the case. It also held that the interests of the parties in maintaining the confidentiality of their information must be considered. The court wrote, “[w]hile protecting the public’s interest in access to the courts, we must remain mindful of the parties’ right to access those same courts upon terms which will not unduly harm their competitive interest.”

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court, holding that a showing of “compelling reasons” was not the correct standard to apply when determining if parties should be allowed to file documents under seal. Instead, under the law, only a showing of “good cause” is required.

Practice Tip: This case is unusual in that it reached the appeals court. Typically, when patent attorneys for the parties agree to keep information secret, most district court judges are willing to allow evidence and briefs to be filed under seal. It is perhaps due to the considerable public interest in this case that Judge Koh declared before the trial that “the whole trial is going to be open.”

December 23, 2013

CleanTech Adds Three Additional Defendants to Multidistrict Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – GS CleanTech Corporation of Alpharetta, Georgia (“CleanTech”) has filed complaints against three new Defendants in its ongoing multidistrict litigation in which it asserts infringement of its patented corn-oil-extraction technology. Patent lawyers for CleanTech sued Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC of Lawler, Iowa (“Homeland”) in the Northern District of Iowa. Pacific Ethanol, Inc. of Sacramento, California (“Pacific”) was sued in the Eastern District of California. Guardian Energy, LLC of Janesville, Minnesota (“Guardian”) was sued in the District of Minnesota. At issue in this litigation are the following: Patent Nos. 7,601,858, Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems; 8,008,516, Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems; 8,008,517, Method of Recovering Oil from Thin Stillage; 8,283,484, Method of Processing Ethanol Byproducts and Related Subsystems; and 8,168,037, Method and Systems for Enhancing Oil Recovery from Ethanol Production Byproducts, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office. The cases were transferred to Southern District of Indiana as part of Multidistrict Litigation No. 2181.

This Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) began with an assertion of patent infringement by CleanTech of Patent No. 7,601,858 (the “‘858 patent”), which was issued on October 13, 2009. CleanTech sued numerous Defendants alleging infringement of that patent shortly after its issuance. The Defendants accused of patent infringement in prior litigation include: Big River Resources Galva, LLC; Big River Resources West Burlington, LLC; Cardinal Ethanol, LLC; ICM, Inc.; LincolnLand Agri-Energy, LLC; David J. Vander Griend; Iroquois Bio-Energy Co., LLC; Al-Corn Clean Fuel; Blue Flint Ethanol, LLC; ACE Ethanol, LLC; Lincolnway Energy, LLC; United Wisconsin Grain Producers, LLC; Bushmills Ethanol, Inc.; Chippewa Valley Ethanol Co.; Heartland Corn Products; Adkins Energy, LLC; Little Sioux Corn Processors, LLLP; Little Sioux Corn Processors, LLLP and Western New York Energy, LLC.

Since September 29, 2011, when the court overseeing the MDL issued its order on claim construction with respect to the disputed claims of the ‘858 patent, patentee CleanTech has further asserted infringement by some of the allegedly infringing Defendants of four additional patents in the ‘858 patent family: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,008,516 (the “‘516 patent”), 8,008,517 (the “‘517 patent”), 8,283,484 (the “‘484 patent”) and, the newest addition, 8,168,037 (“the ‘037 patent”), (the ‘858, ‘516, ‘517, ‘484, ‘037 patents are, collectively, the “‘858 patent family” or “the patents-in-suit”).

CleanTech claims that the method claimed increases the efficiency and economy of recovering corn oil. CleanTech’s patented methods recover corn oil by evaporating, concentrating and mechanically separating thin stillage (“stillage”), a byproduct of ethanol produced from corn, into two components: corn oil and a post-recovery syrup (“syrup”) with most of its corn oil removed.

In one embodiment, the patented method comprises initially processing the whole stillage by mechanically separating (such as by using a centrifugal decanter) the whole stillage into distillers wet grains and thin stillage, and then introducing the thin stillage into an evaporator to form a concentrated syrup byproduct. Prior to recombining the then-concentrated syrup with the distillers wet grains, the syrup is introduced into a second mechanical separator, such as a second centrifuge, which is different from the centrifuge that mechanically separated the whole stillage into distillers wet grains and thin stillage. This second centrifuge separates corn oil from the syrup thereby allowing for the recovery of usable corn oil. The syrup that exits the centrifuge is then recombined with the distillers wet grain and dried in a dryer. The corn oil that is extracted from the syrup can be used for various purposes such as feedstock for producing biodiesel.

Patent attorneys for CleanTech have made different claims against the three new Defendants. All of the patents-in-suit – the ‘858 patent, the ‘516 patent, the ‘517 patent, the ‘484 patent, and the ‘037 patent – have purportedly been infringed by Homeland. Guardian has been accused of having infringed four of the five patents-in-suit: the ‘858 patent, the ‘516 patent, the ‘517 patent and the ‘484 patent. One claim of patent infringement, regarding the ‘858 patent, has been asserted against Pacific.

Practice Tip: Multi-district litigation affords consistency and judicial economy, as well as allowing plaintiffs and defendants to concentrate their efforts in one forum. However, lawsuits that are not settled before trial must later be remanded to the transferring court and to a judge who has had little opportunity to become familiar with the issues.

December 20, 2013

Indiana University Sues AngioDynamics for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Indiana University Research and Technology Corporation (“IURTC”) of Indianapolis, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that AngioDynamics, Inc. of Latham, New York infringed Patent No. 6,719,717, which has been registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). This Indiana patent has a publication date of April 13, 2004.

IURTC is a not-for-profit corporation that fosters collaboration between Indiana University faculty and researchers and private industry through the licensing of technology. IURTC states that its goals include acting as a resource for researchers, for industry and for Indiana.

AngioDynamics was founded in 1988. It seeks to provide benefits to patients through the designing, developing, manufacturing and marketing of innovative therapeutic devices used by interventionalists and surgeons for the minimally invasive treatment of peripheral vascular disease, tumor therapy and other, non-vascular disease.

IURTC, via its patent attorneys, is suing AngioDynamics for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 101, et seq. The patent at issue is Patent No. 6,719,717 (the “‘717 Patent”), which relates to thrombectomy treatment systems and methods. IURTC states that, by assignment, it is the current owner of all rights, title, and interests in the ‘717 Patent, including the right to enforce the patent.

The products accused of infringing IURTC’s patent (the “Accused Products”) are allegedly manufactured by Vortex Medical, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of AngioDynamics. IURTC contends that AngioDynamics has made and/or currently imports, sells, offers to sell, and/or uses the Accused Products. It also asserts that AngioDynamics provides instructions and directions on how to use the Accused Products to doctors, and other medical personnel.

IURTC further claims that AngioDynamics has known of the ‘717 Patent since at least the date of its issuance by the USPTO. It contends that, as a result, AngioDynamics’ infringement of the ‘717 Patent has been and continues to be willful and deliberate.

Patent lawyers for IURTC filed a complaint alleging a single count of patent infringement. The complaint contends that AngioDynamics is currently infringing and has infringed the ‘717 Patent directly by, without authority, having made and/or currently importing into the United States, and/or using, selling, and/or offering for sale the Accused Products, which embody the inventions claimed in the ‘717 Patent. It also claims that AngioDynamics is actively, intentionally, and/or knowingly inducing infringement of the ‘717 Patent by others, including doctors,and other medical professionals, and is thus liable to IURTC pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).

IURTC has asked that the court enter judgment:

A. Finding that U.S. Patent No. 6,719,717 is valid, enforceable, and infringed by AngioDynamics, and that AngioDynamics is liable for inducement of infringement and contributory infringement of the ‘717 Patent;
B. Entering a permanent injunction against AngioDynamics, enjoining it, its respective directors, officers, agents, employees, successors, subsidiaries, assigns, and all persons acting in privity or in concert or participation with AngioDynamics from making, using, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, or importing into the United States, any and all products and/or services embodying the patented inventions claimed in the ‘717 Patent;
C. Holding that AngioDynamics acted willfully in causing damage to IURTC;
D. Awarding IURTC such damages to which it is entitled, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
E. Awarding IURTC enhanced damages, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
F. Awarding IURTC pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and
G. Awarding IURTC its costs, expenses, and fees, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Practice Tip:

Universities today often own sizeable portfolios of patents and can earn substantial royalties from licensing those patents. To maintain that revenue, most universities seek ownership of the inventions created by their employees, typically by having the employee assign the intellectual property rights to the university. Moreover, if federal funds were used to pursue the research leading to the invention, universities are required under the Bayh-Dole Act to obtain ownership of the resulting patent.

Substantial legal difficulty can arise when the ownership of a patent is unclear. Such a problem can arise when the duty of an inventor to convey ownership of his or her invention has not been established in advance of the creation of new intellectual property. An Indiana patent attorney can help Indiana inventors determine what rights they have with respect to their inventions.

December 6, 2013

Stant Sues Briggs & Stratton for Infringing Its Patented Fuel Cap

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Stant USA Corp. of Connersville, Indiana has sued for patent infringement in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Briggs & Stratton Corp. of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin infringed its Evaporative Emissions Control Fuel Cap, Patent Number 7,261,093, which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).

Stant designs and manufactures vapor-management systems, fuel-delivery systems and thermal-management systems. Among its products are fuel caps intended for use as original equipment by automotive manufacturers and other manufacturers, including small engine manufacturers and for use as replacement parts in the aftermarket. Stant has been in business since 1898.

Briggs & Stratton, founded in 1908, holds itself out as the world’s largest producer of air-cooled gasoline engines for outdoor power equipment and has annual revenues in excess of $2 billion. The company builds over 9,000,000 engines in the U.S. each year and employs over 3,000 employees in six states.

It is alleged that Stant employees met with Briggs & Stratton employees in 2004 and disclosed to them a fuel cap for use on a lawn mower or other small engine that incorporated carbon to filter the fuel vapor before it escaped to the atmosphere.

On July 21, 2004, Stant filed U.S. provisional patent application no. 60/589,761 directed to an evaporative emissions control fuel cap. On July 19, 2005, Stant filed U.S. utility patent application no. 11/184,474 also directed to an evaporative emissions control fuel cap. Based on these applications, the USPTO issued U.S. Patent No. 7,261,093 (“the ‘093 patent”). The caps disclosed in these applications are purportedly similar to the caps disclosed to Briggs & Stratton in 2004.

Stant asserts that Briggs & Stratton has made, used, sold and/or offered for sale lawn mower engines that include a fuel cap that incorporates carbon particles to control evaporative emissions. It also contends that the fuel caps made by Briggs & Stratton embody the patented inventions of, and infringe at least claims 1 and 22 of, the ‘093 patent.

Patent attorneys for Stant ask the court for a permanent injunction; an order directing the destruction of all molds, machines, tooling or other equipment used in the manufacture of Briggs & Stratton’s fuel caps; damages, including up to treble damages; costs; fees and prejudgment interest.

Practice Tip: In the United States, an inventor has a grace period of one year from the time an invention is publicly disclosed and the time that a patent application may be filed, if patent protection for that invention is desired. However, many countries have no grace period. It is therefore wise to file a patent application before disclosing an invention publically. If that is not practicable, executing a written non-disclosure agreement prior to disclosure is advisable.