Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

December 20, 2013

Indiana University Sues AngioDynamics for Patent Infringement

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.

November 27, 2013

Eli Lilly Sues Actavis for Infringement of Patents Related to Axiron

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana; Eli Lilly Export S.A. of Geneva, Switzerland (collectively, “Lilly”); and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd. of West Melbourne, Australia have filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Actavis, Inc. and Actavis Pharma, Inc., both of Parsippany, New Jersey, and Watson Laboratories, Inc. of Corona, California infringed Patent Nos. 6,299,900 – Dermal Penetration Enhancers and Drug Delivery Systems Involving Same; 6,818,226 – Dermal Penetration Enhancers and Drug Delivery Systems Involving Same; 6,923,983 – Transdermal Delivery of Hormones; 8,071,075 – Dermal Penetration Enhancers and Drug Delivery Systems Involving Same; 8,419,307 – Spreading Implement; and 8,435,944 – Method and Composition for Transdermal Drug Delivery (collectively, the “patents-in-suit”) which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lilly is engaged in the business of research, development, manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. Acrux is engaged in the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products. Both sell their products worldwide.

Actavis, Inc., along with its wholly owned subsidiaries Actavis Pharma and Watson Laboratories, (collectively, “Actavis”) are pharmaceutical companies that develop, manufacture, market and distribute generic pharmaceutical products for sale in the United States.

Lilly is the holder of approved New Drug Application No. 022504 for the manufacture and sale of a transdermal testosterone solution made at a concentration of 30 mg/1.5L, which it markets under the trade name “Axiron®.” This drug is used to treat males for conditions associated with a deficiency or absence of endogenous testosterone.

This action relates to the Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) No. 205328 submitted by Watson Laboratories to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for approval to market a generic version of Lilly’s Axiron product. Defendants certified to the FDA that, in their opinion, the patents-in-suit were invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the generic version of Axiron described in the ANDA.

As part of its ANDA filing, Defendants sent to Lilly and Acrux an “Offer of Confidential Access” which would allow limited access to Actavis’ ANDA. Lilly and Acrux were unsatisfied with the offer, stating that the restrictions it contained would prohibit crucial decision makers from having access to the ANDA. Lilly and Acrux also contended that the restrictions were improper as they were not directed to the purpose of protecting trade secrets and other confidential business information. While attempts to reach an agreement regarding access to the ANDA were made, they were not successful.

Plaintiffs contend that the submission of the ANDA to the FDA constitutes infringement by Defendants of the patents-in-suit. In their complaint, patent lawyers for Lilly and Acrux assert twenty-four separate counts related to patent infringement. For each of the patents-in-suit, there is one count of “Direct Infringement,” one count of “Inducement to Infringe,” one count of “Contributory Infringement” and one count for declaratory judgment.

The complaint asks for an injunction to stop Defendants from producing the generic version of Axiron until the expiration of Lilly’s patents-in-suit. In addition, Lilly asks that the court declare the patents to be valid and enforceable; that Defendants infringed upon all of the patents-in-suit by, inter alia, submitting ANDA No. 205328 to obtain approval to commercially manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell or import its generic version of the drug into the United States; that Defendants’ threatened acts constitute infringement of the patents-in-suit; that FDA approval of Defendants’ generic drug be effective no sooner than the expiration date of the patent that expires last; and that this is an exceptional case. Plaintiffs also ask for costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip #1: 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.

Practice Tip #2: An offer of confidential access to an ANDA “shall contain such restrictions as to persons entitled to access, and on the use and disposition of any information accessed, as would apply had a protective order been entered for the purpose of protecting trade secrets and other confidential business information.” 21 USC § 355(c)(3)(D)(i).

November 26, 2013

CleanTech Adds Western New York Energy as a Defendant in Patent Infringement Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for GS CleanTech Corporation of Alpharetta, Georgia, have filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Western District of New York alleging that Western New York Energy, LLC of Medina, New York infringed 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, and 8,283,484, METHOD OF PROCESSING ETHANOL BYPRODUCTS AND RELATED SUBSYSTEMS, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office. The case was transferred to the 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 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 and Adkins 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, patentees, GS CleanTech Corp., and its parent GreenShift Corp., have asserted three additional patents in the ‘858 patent family against the allegedly infringing Defendants, U.S. Patent Nos., 8,008,516 (the “‘516 patent”), 8,008,517 (the “‘517 patent”) and 8,283,484 (the “‘484 patent”) (the ‘858, ‘516, ‘517 and ‘484 patents are, collectively, the “‘858 patent family”).

In this current lawsuit, initiated in Western District of New York, subsidiary GS CleanTech Corp. is the sole Plaintiff. Patent lawyers for CleanTech assert the following counts against Western New York Energy:

• Count I: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858
• Count II: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,516
• Count III: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,517
• Count IV: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,283,484

CleanTech asks the court for preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting further infringement of the patents-in-suit; an award of damages adequate to compensate CleanTech for the infringement that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the inventions of the patents-in-suit as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began; and an award to CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285 and 154(d).

Practice Tip: The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, also known as the “MDL Panel” or, simply the “Panel,” consists of seven sitting federal judges, who are appointed to serve on the Panel by the Chief Justice of the United States. The job of the Panel is to (1) determine whether civil actions pending in different federal districts involve one or more common questions of fact such that the actions should be transferred to one federal district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings; and (2) select the judge or judges and court assigned to conduct such proceedings.

November 13, 2013

Endotach’s Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Cook Medical Dismissed for Lack of Standing

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Endotach LLC of Plano, Texas sued Cook Medical Inc. of Bloomington, Indiana alleging infringement of Endovascular Bypass Graft, U.S. Patent No. 5,122,154 (the “‘154 patent”) and Endovascular Stent with Secure Mounting Means, U.S. Patent No. 5,593,417 (the “‘417 patent”; collectively, the “Rhodes patents”) issued by the U.S. Patent Office. Endotach filed its complaint in the Northern District of Florida. The case was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana upon Cook’s request.

The patents at issue, both of which were issued in the 1990s, were granted to Dr. Valentine Rhodes, an award-winning surgeon who practiced in the field of vascular medicine for over 30 years. The patents are directed to intraluminal and endovascular grafts for placement within a blood vessel, duct or lumen to hold it open. As it pertains to this lawsuit, the patents-in-suit are used for revascularization of aneurysms or stenosis occurring in blood vessels which includes anchoring projections to aid in securing the graft in place within the blood vessel.

Upon the death of Dr. Rhodes, the patents-in-suit passed as part of his estate. Dr. Rhodes’ Will bequeathed all “tangible personal property” to his wife, Brenda Rhodes (“Mrs. Rhodes”). However, there was no specific bequest of the Rhodes patents or mention of any intangible property. The Will’s residuary clause bequeathed “all the residue of [Dr. Rhodes’] estate, real and personal” to a Trust (the “Rhodes Trust”). Upon Dr. Rhodes’ death, his two daughters and Mrs. Rhodes became Co-Trustees of the Trust.

In November 2009, Mrs. Rhodes executed a document entitled “Exclusive License Agreement,” listing herself as the “patent owner.” The agreement purported to transfer an exclusive license on the ‘417 patent to Acacia Patent Acquisition LLC. That license was later assigned to Endotach and amended to include the ‘154 patent.

Endotach sued Cook in July 2012 asserting infringement of one or more claims in each of the patents-in-suit. In that complaint, it asserted that Mrs. Rhodes owned the patents-in-suit and that, as a result of the exclusive license Mrs. Rhodes had granted, Endotach had the right to enforce the patents against all infringers.

Cook moved to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction arguing that Endotach did not have standing to bring suit. On July 12, 2013, presumably in response to the motion, an “amendment” to the exclusive licensing agreement transferred an exclusive license on the Rhodes patents to Endotach from the Rhodes Trust. It was signed by Mrs. Rhodes and the other Co-Trustees.

In this opinion, Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney addressed Cook’s contention that Endotach did not have standing to sue. The court concluded that Endotach did lack standing as Mrs. Rhodes did not have any individual property interest in the Rhodes patents at the time that she purported to convey an exclusive license. The court dismissed Endotach’s lawsuit without prejudice.

Practice Tip #1: The principle of standing that is important in this case is whether or not Endotach had any legal rights and interests to the Rhodes patents at the time it filed suit. While there are some exceptions, in general, a plaintiff may not sue to assert rights held by third parties.

Practice Tip #2: Apparently realizing that the earlier effort to convey the license might be successfully challenged (as it was) and the case dismissed as a result (as it was), an additional complaint was filed on July 16, 2013, shortly after a new attempt was made to convey to Endotach an exclusive license to the patents-in-suit, this time by the Rhodes Trust. See here.

October 30, 2013

Second-Filed Litigation Stayed Pending Venue Ruling in First-Filed Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Nexans, Inc. of New Holland, Pennsylvania sued Belden, Inc. of Richmond, Indiana in the District of Delaware. At issue were allegations of infringement of Patent Nos. 6,074,503, Making enhanced data cable with cross-twist cabled core profile; 7,135,641, Data cable with cross-twist cabled core profile; 7,977,575, High performance data cable; 5,796,046, Communication cable having a striated cable jacket; and 7,663,061, High performance data cable, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office. Two days after Nexans’ complaint was filed, Belden sued Nexans regarding the same patent infringement claims in the Southern District of Indiana. The Indiana court has stayed the litigation filed by Belden pending a ruling by the Delaware court.

On November 19, 2012, Nexans filed a complaint for declaratory action in the District of
Delaware against Belden seeking a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,074,503 (the “‘503 Patent”), 7,135,641 (the “‘641 Patent”), and 7,977,575 (the “‘575 Patent”), as well as a judgment that Belden has infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,796,046 (the “‘046 Patent”).

On November 21, 2012, Belden sued Nexans in Indiana, alleging infringement of the ‘503, ‘575, and ‘064 Patents. It also alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,663,061 (the “‘061 Patent”). On December 3, 2012, Nexans filed an amended complaint in the Delaware action, seeking an additional declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of Belden’s ‘061 Patent.

In this opinion, Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore ruled on Nexans’ motion to stay the patent infringement lawsuit filed by Belden in Indiana. Nexans argued that a stay should be issued until the Delaware Court, as the first-filed court, had decided the issue of venue.

Judge Dinsmore first discussed the analysis appropriate to a determination of whether to stay litigation. Specifically, the following factors must be considered in deciding whether to stay an action: (i) whether a stay will unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage the non-moving party, (ii) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and streamline the trial, and (iii) whether a stay will reduce the burden of litigation on the parties and on the court.

In the case of duplicative patent actions, the general rule is that the first-filed action is preferred, even if it is declaratory, unless consideration of judicial and litigant economy, and the just and effective disposition of disputes, requires otherwise. Belden argued that two circumstances warranted departing from the general first-filed rule: 1) the convenience factors under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, which it argued would favor proceeding in Indiana, and 2) that Nexans’ suit in Delaware constituted forum shopping, which would allow the Indiana court to bypass the first-filed rule.

The court was not persuaded by this reasoning. Instead, it noted that, while the Seventh Circuit has approved of second-filed courts doing this analysis, and proceeding when it is in the interests of justice to do so, the Federal Circuit’s rulings control this issue in patent infringement cases. In turn, the Federal Circuit has expressly declined to apply the departure test to patent infringement cases, and has held that it prefers the first-filed rule.

The court next addressed the issue of whether the second-filed court may decide the applicability of the first-filed rule. It observed that the Federal Circuit has not yet expressly addressed whether the second-filed court may decide the applicability of the first-filed rule. While commenting that district courts have come to differing conclusions on the issue, the court was most convinced by the reasoning in those cases that have reserved the application of the first-filed rule for the first-filed court.

In concluding, the court found that it “would be at odds with the promotion of judicial and litigant economy for the court to proceed with the analysis of the exceptions to the first-filed rule.” It held that the “first-to-file rule has generally been interpreted to dictate not only which forum is appropriate, but also which forum should decide which forum is appropriate” and stayed the Indiana litigation, pending a ruling on venue from the Delaware court.

Practice Tip: The present action was stayed pending the Delaware court’s resolution of the pending motions to enjoin and dismiss. The parties in this case have been instructed to notify the Indiana court of the Delaware district court’s rulings on these motions as soon as they are issued.

October 10, 2013

Sam’s Club Sued by Escalade Sports for Infringing Patented Table Tennis Ball Storage Apron

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – Indian Industries, Inc. d/b/a Escalade Sports of Evansville, Indiana (“Escalade Sports”) has sued Sam’s East, Inc. d/b/a Sam’s Club of Bentonville, Arkansas (“Sam’s Club”) in the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement of its patented TABLE TENNIS BALL STORAGE APRON, Patent No. 8,414,431 (the “‘431 patent”), which has been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Escalade Sports began in 1927 as Indian Archery And Toy Co. It is a global company which offers goods related to basketball, table tennis, archery and other sports. Escalade Sports and its predecessors have been in the business of selling table-tennis tables and accessories since 1973.

Sam’s Club, a chain of membership-only retail clubs, was founded in 1983. A subsidiary of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., it was named after Walmart founder Sam Walton. Sam’s Club has more than 47 million members and operates approximately 600 retail warehouse clubs in the United States, along with locations in Brazil, China and Mexico. Sam’s Club operates 16 warehouse clubs in Indiana.

On April 9, 2013, the ‘431 patent was issued for an invention titled “Table Tennis Ball Storage Apron.” Prior to its issuance, the ‘431 patent was purportedly assigned to Escalade Sports. At issue in this suit is a feature of a table-tennis table which Escalade Sports claims is protected under the ‘431 patent.

Escalade Sports markets its table-tennis tables and accessories under a number of marks, including the Stiga® mark, which is used under a license from Stiga Sports AB. In the fall of 2013, Escalade Sports launched a new line of Stiga® table-tennis tables which included ball storage racks mounted along the width of the ends of the table, adjacent the player. These tables include the Stiga® Master Series ST3100 and ST4100 tables and the Stiga® STS185, STS285, STS385, STS420 and STS520 tables (the “Stiga® Storage Rack Tables”). According to the complaint, the ‘431 patent covers Escalade Sports’ Stiga® Storage Rack Tables.

Escalade Sports asserts that, sometime in 2013, Sam’s Club began selling and offering to sell the “ESPN 2 Piece Table Tennis” product. It asserts that this product infringes claims 1 through 15 of the ‘431 patent.

Patent attorneys for Escalade Sports filed this patent infringement lawsuit asserting a single claim: the infringement of the ‘431 patent. Escalade Sports contends that this infringement includes, in part, the sale and offer for sale of the ESPN 2 Piece Table Tennis product.

Escalade Sports asserts that it has been damaged by Sam’s Club’s alleged infringement and that it will suffer irreparable injury unless Sam’s Club is permanently enjoined by the court. Escalade Sports seeks: a judgment of infringement of the ‘431 patent by Sam’s Club; injunctive relief restraining Sam’s Club and its agents from further acts of infringement; an order that any devices subject to control by Sam’s Club which infringe upon any claim of the ‘431 patent be delivered up and destroyed; an award to Escalade Sports of damages, costs, attorney’s fees and/or expenses associated with this action; an award of Sam’s Club’s wrongful profits associated with any infringement of Escalade Sports’ intellectual property rights; to have any award of damages be increased to the maximum amount permitted under 35 U.S.C. §284; and an order declaring that this is an exceptional case under 35 U.S.C. § 285, upon a finding that Sam’s Club knowingly and willfully infringed.

Practice Tip:

The “willfulness” of the alleged infringement is an important issue in patent litigation because willful infringement may result in a tripling of the damages awarded to the patent holder. Willfulness consists of two elements: (1) an objective element that is often, but not always, a question of law, and (2) a subjective element that is inherently a question of fact, to be decided by the jury.

Under the first prong, if an “accused infringer’s position is susceptible to a reasonable conclusion of no infringement,” the infringer’s conduct cannot be objectively unreasonable. Conversely, an action is objectively unreasonable if the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.

When considering the second prong – the element of subjective willfulness – fact-finders should consider: (1) whether the infringer copied the patentee’s commercial products; (2) whether the infringer presented evidence that it obtained legal opinions of patent counsel to justify its infringing actions; (3) whether the infringer attempted to avoid infringement by designing around the patents; and (4) whether the infringer acted in accordance with the standards of commerce.

October 7, 2013

CleanTech’s Multidistrict Litigation Adds Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy as a Defendant

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana — Patent attorneys for GS CleanTech Corporation of Alpharetta, Georgia have filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Iowa alleging that Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy, LLC of Council Bluffs, Iowa infringed 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 and 8,283,484, METHOD OF PROCESSING ETHANOL BYPRODUCTS AND RELATED SUBSYSTEMS, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office. The case was transferred to the 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 and Adkins 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 three additional patents in the ‘858 patent family: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,008,516 (the “‘516 patent”), 8,008,517 (the “‘517 patent”) and 8,283,484 (the “‘484 patent”) (the ‘858, ‘516, ‘517 and ‘484 patents are, collectively, the “‘858 patent family”).

The patents in the ‘858 family share an identical specification and have substantially similar claim terms. CleanTech claims that the method claimed increases the efficiency and economy of recovering corn oil. Southwest Iowa Renewable Energy is charged with infringing the ‘858 patent, along with the related ‘516, ‘517, and ‘484 patents (collectively “the patents-in-suit”).

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.

Prior lawsuits included GreenShift Corp. as a Plaintiff. In this current lawsuit, initiated in Southern District of Iowa, GreenShift’s subsidiary GS CleanTech Corp. is the sole Plaintiff. Patent attorneys for CleanTech assert the following in the complaint:

· Count I: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,601,858

· Count II: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,516

· Count III: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,008,517

· Count IV: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,283,484

CleanTech asks the court for a permanent injunction prohibiting further infringement of the patents-in-suit; an award of damages adequate to compensate CleanTech for the infringement that has occurred, but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the inventions of the patents-in-suit as provided in 35 U.S.C. § 284, together with prejudgment interest from the date the infringement began; and an award to CleanTech of all remedies available under 35 U.S.C. §§ 284, 285 and 154(d).

Practice Tip: The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, (http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/) also known as the “MDL Panel” or, simply the “Panel,” consists of seven sitting federal judges, who are appointed to serve on the Panel by the Chief Justice of the United States. The job of the Panel is to (1) determine whether civil actions pending in different federal districts involve one or more common questions of fact such that the actions should be transferred to one federal district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings; and (2) select the judge or judges and court assigned to conduct such proceedings.

September 26, 2013

Verint Sues Interactive Intelligence for Infringing Twenty Different Patents

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Atlanta, Georgia — Verint Systems Inc. (“VSI”) of Melville, New York and its wholly owned subsidiary Verint Americas Inc. (“VAI”) of Alpharetta, Georgia (collectively, “Verint”) have sued Interactive Intelligence, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana in the Northern District of Georgia for infringement of twenty separate patents; these patents have been registered with the U.S. Patent Office.

Verint is engaged in the business of inventing, developing, manufacturing, selling, installing, and/or distributing computer software and hardware products and systems. The products and systems are directed to, inter alia, the analysis, recording, monitoring, transmission, and/or security of electronic communications, such as telephonic, facsimile, and e-mail communications to and from contact centers and call centers which handle incoming and/or outgoing contacts with actual and prospective customers and clients. Verint’s technology can provide an end user with the ability to capture, analyze and act on large volumes of complex information sources, such as voice, video, and unstructured text, which can enhance the ability of organizations of all sizes to make better decisions based on such information. Verint’s main location for research and development relating to recording technology is located at VAI’s facility in Georgia.

Verint’s products and systems are used by more than 10,000 organizations in over 150 countries, including over 80 percent of the Fortune 100. For example, Verint’s workforce-optimization and voice-of-the-customer solutions are designed to help organizations enhance customer-service operations in contact centers, branches, and back-office environments. This can increase customer satisfaction, reduce operating costs, uncover revenue opportunities and improve profitability. Verint uses its core competencies to develop highly scalable solutions with advanced, integrated analytics for both unstructured and structured information. Verint asserts that it has expended substantial resources inventing and developing this technology. Verint has licensed one or more of its patents to others in the industry through its Open Innovation Network (“OIN”) licensing program.

Defendant Interactive, a competitor of Verint, is in a similar business. It manufactures, uses, sells, offers to sell, installs, distributes, exports, and/or imports computer software and hardware products and systems directed to and for use in connection with methods involving the analysis, recording, monitoring, transmission and security of electronic communications, such as telephonic communications to and from contact centers and call centers.

Verint contends that it is the sole owner of all rights to the patents at issue in this suit: U.S. Patent No. 5,790,798 (“the ‘798 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,203,285 (“the ‘285 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,376,735 (“the ‘735 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,574,000 (“the ‘000 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,774,854 (“the ‘854 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,852,994 (“the ‘994 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 7,903,568 (“the ‘568 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,204,056 (“the ‘056 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,285,833 (“the ‘833 patent”); U.S. Patent No. RE41,534 (“the ‘534 patent”); U.S. Patent No. RE43,324 (“the ‘324 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,401,155 (“the ‘155 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,359,434 (“the ‘434 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,345,828 (“the ‘828 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,275,944 (“the ‘944 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,204,053 (“the ‘053 patent”); U.S. Patent No. RE43,386 (“the ‘386 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 8,130,926 (“the ‘926 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 6,404,857 (“the ‘857 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,510,220 (“the ‘220 patent”) (collectively, “the Patents-in-Suit”).

Verint believes that Interactive is, in various ways, infringing upon the Patents-In-Suit. In a letter to Interactive dated September 13, 2010, VSI invited Defendant to participate in its OIN. The OIN is a licensing program under which VSI offers to grant a worldwide license to its portfolio of patents directed, in part, to the analysis, recording, monitoring, transmission, and/or security of electronic communications. In its September 2010 letter, VSI provided Interactive with claim charts showing how Interactive’s activities fell within the claim scope of various patents within the OIN. Over the course of several months, several more letters were sent by VSI to Interactive, inviting it to participate in the OIN. No agreement was reached. The current lawsuit was subsequently filed by Verint.

Defendant Interactive is accused of infringing the Patents-in-Suit in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271, including as follows:

(a) by making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States or importing into the United States computer software and/or hardware and/or systems, and/or by engaging in or practicing in the United States methods or processes covered by the Patents-in-Suit, including such methods or processes which utilize one or more of the Accused Products [those products of Interactive which are claimed to infringe on Verint’s patents]; and/or

(b) by offering to sell or selling within the United States or importing into the United States a component of a product or system within one or more of the patents of the Patents-in-Suit, or a material or apparatus for use in practicing a method or process within one or more of the patents of the Patents-in-Suit, constituting a material part of one or more of the patents of the Patents-In-Suit, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of one or more of the patents of the Patents-in-Suit, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use; and/or

(c) by supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United States all or a substantial portion of components to form a product or system within one or more of the patents in the Patents-in-Suit, including by supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United States the Accused Products, in such a manner as to actively induce the combination of such components outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe one or more of the patents of the Patents-in-Suit if such combination occurred within the United States; and/or

(d) by supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United States a component of a product or system within one or more of the patents of the Patents-in-Suit that is especially made or especially adapted for use according to one or more of the patents of the Patents-in-Suit and is not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial non-infringing use, knowing that such component is so made or adapted and intending that such component will be combined outside of the United States in a manner that would infringe one or more of the patents of the Patents-in-Suit if such combination occurred within the United States, including by supplying or causing to be supplied in or from the United States one or more of the Accused Products; and/or

(e) actively inducing one or more of the activities identified in subparagraphs (a) through (d).

Interactive is accused of infringing, contributing to the infringement of, and actively inducing infringement of the Patents-in-Suit. The complaint lists twenty counts of patent infringement:

Count I: Infringement of the ‘798 patent
Count II: Infringement of the ‘285 patent
Count III: Infringement of the ‘735 patent
Count IV: Infringement of the ‘000 patent
Count V: Infringement of the ‘854 patent)
Count VI: Infringement of the ‘994 patent
Count VII: Infringement of the ‘568 patent
Count VIII: Infringement of the ‘056 patent
Count IX: Infringement of the ‘833 patent
Count X: Infringement of the ‘534 patent
Count XI: Infringement of the ‘324 patent
Count XII: Infringement of the ‘155 patent
Count XIII: Infringement of the ‘434 patent
Count XIV: Infringement of the ‘828 patent
Count XV: Infringement of the ‘944 patent
Count XVI: Infringement of the ‘053 patent
Count XVII: Infringement of the ‘386 patent
Count XVIII: Infringement of the ‘926 patent
Count XIX: Infringement of the ‘857 patent
Count XX: Infringement of the ‘220 patent

In the complaint, patent attorneys for Verint assert that Interactive had actual knowledge and/or notice from a time prior to the filing of the present complaint of at least the following: the ‘798 patent; the ‘285 patent; the ‘735 patent; the ‘000 patent; the ‘854 patent; the ‘994 patent and the ‘534 patent. It is also alleged that Interactive’s acts of infringement have been carried out deliberately and willfully, without the consent of Verint, at least with respect to the ‘798 patent; ‘285 patent; the ‘735 patent; the ‘000 patent; the ‘854 patent; the ‘994 patent and the ‘534 patent, entitling Verint to treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Verint further contends that this is an exceptional case entitling Verint to an award of attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Plaintiff Verint asks for a judgment that Defendant Interactive has been and is infringing, is contributing to the infringement of, and is actively inducing infringement of the Patents-in-Suit; preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against such infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 283; damages, including treble damages, by reasons of Defendant’s acts of purportedly deliberate and willful infringement; attorneys’ fees; and costs, including expert witness fees.

Practice Tip: Verint is no stranger to the value of intellectual property. It utilizes more than 1,000 employees and contractors in research and development throughout the world, and has obtained or filed more than 570 patents and applications worldwide. In its last fiscal last year, Verint obtained issuance or allowance of 60 patents and applications in the United States.

Verint is also no stranger to intellectual property lawsuits. In 2008, a Georgia jury found that NICE Systems Ltd. had infringed Verint’s U.S. Patent No. 6,404,857 and awarded Verint $3.3 million in damages. A week later, in a separate lawsuit, Verint was found not to have infringed NICE’s U.S. Patent No. 6,871,229. There have been at least three other patent infringement lawsuits between Verint and NICE. There were rumors in January that NICE was negotiating to acquire Verint Systems, Inc.

September 25, 2013

Alcon Sues Wockhardt for Patent Infringement of Pataday™

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana — Alcon Research, Ltd. of Fort Worth, Texas, and Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. of Fribourg, Switzerland (collectively, “Alcon”) have filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Wockhardt Limited of Mumbai, Maharashta, India; Wockhardt Bio AG of Zug, Switzerland; Wockhardt Bio Ltd. of Zug, Switzerland; and Wockhardt USA, LLC of Parsippany, New Jersey (collectively, “Wockhardt”) infringed Patent Nos. 6,995,186 (the “‘186 patent”) and 7,402,609 (the “‘609 patent”), both for Olopatadine Formulations For Topical Administration, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

According to the complaint, the Wockhardt entities are engaged in the generic-pharmaceutical business. Alcon asserts that one or more of the entities manufacture, import, market, offer to sell and/or sell generic drugs throughout the United States.

Wockhardt 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 Wockhardt’s submission of this ANDA to obtain approval to engage in the commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or importation of Wockhardt’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).

Plaintiff Alcon states that it believes that the Wockhardt 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 Wockhardt’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 Wockhardt’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 Wockhardt’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: 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 an interesting look at some of these issues, see here.