Patent Infringement

March 14, 2023

Vandor Group Inc. Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Batesville Casket Company

Richmond, 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.

March 8, 2023

“As Seen On TV” Corporation Sues Competitor for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, 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.

March 7, 2023

Local Medical Supply Store Sued for Selling Counterfeit Products

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, 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.

December 23, 2022

Gema USA, Inc. Sues Former Employee for Alleged Patent & Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.

September 6, 2022

Harper Trucks Inc. Sues Competitor for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Goshen, 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

August 9, 2022

PUMA Sues Competitor for Alleged Trademark and Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Plaintiffs, PUMA SE and PUMA North America Inc. (“PUMA”), are world leaders in the sportswear industry. PUMA SE, based in Herzogenaurach, Germany, is a multi-national company that designs and manufactures athletic and casual footwear, apparel, and accessories. PUMA North America Inc. is a Delaware Corporation, with its principal place of business in Somerville, Massachusetts and is one of the top five sportswear brands in the world by revenue.

PUMA applied for a Federal Trademark registration under Application Serial No. 97171928 for the mark NITRO for footwear, namely, running shoes, training shoes, and basketball shoes. According to the Complaint, in or around December 2021, PUMA requested the Defendant, Brooks Sports, Inc. (“Brooks”) cease and desist the use of the Mark NITRO mark in connection with footwear. The parties were unable to reach a settlement.

PUMA also alleges that the Brooks shoe the “Aurora BL” infringes upon their Design Patent No. D897,075 and is being sold in connection with the infringing use of PUMA’s NITRO mark.

August 25, 2021

New Paris-Based Company Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Apparently the Plaintiff, Johnson Controls Technology Company (“Johnson”), is a technology holding company for its parent company Johnson Controls International, plc (“JCI”). Johnson claims it owns multiple utility and design patents including those at issue in this case, U.S. Patent Nos. 11,022,332, 10,684,029, 10,528,013, 8,826,165, 8,190,728, D788,785, D924,888, D924,890 (collectively, “Asserted Patents”).

According to the Complaint, JCI, including Johnson, are competitors with Defendant, Kreuter Manufacturing Co., Inc. d/b/a KMC Controls, Inc. (“KMC”) in the field of building management systems, HVAC systems, and related technological solutions. Johnson claims KMC manufactures, uses, and sells devices, systems, and software that infringe the Asserted Patents. Namely, the KMC TotalControl software suite, the KMC Conquest line of controllers, the KMC ConnectLite software application, the KMC Commander automation platform, and the KMC Commander gateway devices (collectively, the “Accused Products”). Additionally, KMC allegedly “provides its customers with instructions, product information, and technical information, which instruct its customers to use its devices, systems, and software in infringing ways.”

August 13, 2021

Michigan City Resident Sues Numerous Retailers for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Apparently, James E. Cross, the Plaintiff is the owner of three design patents for convertible t-shirt designs, U.S. Patent Nos. D/580,633, D/581,136, and D/341,471 (collectively, the “Patents in Suit”). Notably, it appears the ‘633 and ‘136 Patents are set to expire in November 2022, while the ‘471 Patent expired in November 2007 since the term for a design patent filed prior to May 13, 2015 is 14 years.

Cross claims Defendants, Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc., Walmart Inc., Kohl’s Inc., and Amazon, Inc. (collectively “Defendants”), have actively induced and contributorily infringed upon the Patents in Suit and his trade dress by importing, offering for sale, and/or selling t-shirts with his ornamental designs without his permission.

While the pro se Complaint is fairly short, Cross attached numerous exhibits not discussed in the Complaint including an order dismissing Cross’ case against Meijer, Inc. due to settlement and a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision regarding the ‘471 Patent. Further attached are black and white photos of zip-up bike jerseys allegedly being sold by Defendants.

Cross is seeking an accounting of damages, costs, expenses, and reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Practice Tip: The current design patent term, if filed on or after May 13, 2015 is 15 years from the date of grant. 35 U.S.C. § 173.

July 30, 2021

Netsoft Holdings, LLC Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently the Plaintiff, Social Positioning Input Systems, LLC (“Social”), is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 9,261,365 (the “‘365 Patent”). The ‘365 Patent is titled “Device, System and Method for Remotely Entering, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Information Device.” Social claims Netsoft Holdings, LLC (“Netsoft”), the Defendant, has infringed on at least Claim 1 of the ‘365 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale associated hardware and software for asset locating (the “Product”). For example, the Product may include Netsoft’s Hubstaff asset tracking platform and any associated hardware, apps, or other software.

According to the Complaint, the Product provides an asset tracking system for real-time GPS tracking of assets that the user can see on a positional information device (i.e., a mobile device or computer). The Product apparently allows an organization’s owner and managers to track their staff’s location, review their previous routes, and display time stamps showing where users were at a specified time along their route. Because Social claims the Product infringes on at least Claim 1 of the ‘365 Patent, it is seeking damages for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.

July 28, 2021

Fishers-Based Formstack, LLC Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fishers, Indiana – Digital Verification Systems, LLC (“Digital”) is apparently the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 9,054,860 (the “‘860 Patent”) for a Digital Verified Identification System and Method. According to the Complaint, Formstack, LLC (“Formstack”), the Defendant, offers at least one Product, Formstack Sign, that infringes one or more claims of the ‘860 Patent.

Digital claims Formstack’s Product provides a system for e-signing documents and for digitally verifying the identification of the signer as shown below.

Apparently, the Product further includes a digital identification module to be associated with at least one user and at least one verification data element, for example, a unique login ID and password. It also appears a user can store their e-signature within a document using the Product. As Digital claims each of these components of the Product are covered by the ‘860 Patent, it is seeking damages for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.