Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

By

 

Newark, NJ – Patent attorneys for Howmedica Osteonics Corp. Mahwah, New Jersey Stryker.jpgand Stryker Ireland Limited of Cork, Ireland filed a patent infringement suit in the District of New Jerseyalleging DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. of Warsaw, Indiana infringed patent no. 6,475,243, Acetabular cup assembly with selected bearing; which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The complaint states that Howmedica and Stryker are joint assignees of the ‘243 patent. The complaint alleges that DePuyDepuy.jpg is currently marketing two products that infringe the ‘243, specifically the Pinnacle® and Duraloc® Acetabular Cup Systems. The complaint also alleges that by offering these products for sale, DePuy causes or encourages others to infringe the ‘243 patent by creating medical literature and providing training to healthcare providers about its infringing products and methods. The complaint seeks a finding that DePuy’s products infringe the ‘243 patent, an injunction, and damages.

Practice Tip: The plaintiffs have brought this case in New Jersey District Court against an Indiana company. The complaint states that personal jurisdiction over the Defendant is based upon the “Defendant has infringed Plaintiff’s patent in this district, regularly conducts business within this district, and its activities have targeted this district.” These are fairly generic and non-specific allegations to give rise to personal jurisdiction. If DePuy challenges jurisdiction, the plaintiffs may have to demonstrate more specific facts to successfully establish personal jurisdiction.
Continue reading

By

 

London, U.K. – The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has ruled against Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly & Company in a patent dispute. Lilly had challenged the validity of the patent of Human Genome Sciences, Inc., of Rockville, Maryland that covers the gene sequence of a protein called Neutrokine-α. lilly.jpgLilly had challenged the patent based on the fact that there is no known use of the protein. Thus, Lilly argued, the gene sequence was not patentable due to a lack of industrial application.

According to the Indianapolis Business Journal, Lilly continues to maintain the patent is invalid. The IBJ quoted a Lilly statement as stating “Human Genome Sciences seek to foreclose a whole area of research in a way that is not only harmful to the industry, but would ultimately and unjustifiably hinder the future development of new medicines.”

Practice Tip: The Court’s decision was based upon the European Patent Convention and United Kingdom patent doctrine requiring a patentable invention be susceptible to industrial application, which is similar to the U.S. patent doctrine of utility. The Court’s decision here holds that the U.S. doctrine of utility creates a higher bar to patentability that the E.U. and U.K. doctrine. The opinion explicitly rejected U.S. cases on the doctrine, including Brenner v Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966) and in re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365 (2005).

 

Continue reading

By

 

Evansville, IN – Parents try to protect their children from playground hazards. Now there is a new threat to watch out for – patent infringement.

Patent lawyers for Plaintiff, INDIAN INDUSTRIES, INC. d/b/a Escalade Sports of Evansville, IN, have sued Defendant RAINBOW PLAYSYSTEMS, INC. of Brookings, South Dakota alleging it has infringed patent no. 8,002,642, Thumbnail image for Playground.jpgPLAYSET SYSTEM COMPONENTS, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The Complaint alleges that Rainbow’s “Turbo Sunshine Castle, Turbo Sunshine Clubhouse, Rainbow Castle Supersized, and King Kong Quarter Turned Club Playsets” infringe Indian’s “curved rail panels” feature. Although parents seek to protect their children from “playground injuries,” Indian alleges that the accused playsets cause it “irreparable injury.”

Continue reading

By

 

Asheville, NC – Patent attorneys for Borg Warner, Inc. of Auburn Hills, Michigan and Borgwarner Turbo Systems, Inc. of Arden, North Carolina have filed a patent infringement suit in the Western District of North Carolina alleging Cummins, Inc. of Columbus, Indiana, Cummins Turbo Technologies Limited of the United Kingdom, and Cummins Turbo Technologies of North Charleston, South Carolina BW Turbochargers.jpginfringed patent no. 6,904,949, Method of making turbocharger including cast titanium compressor wheel; along with patent no’s. 6,629,556 and 6,663,347, Cast titanium compressor wheel, which have been issued by the US Patent Office. These patents are known collectively as “the Borg Warner Compressor Wheel Patents”.

The patents at issue are designs for and methods of manufacturing titanium compressor wheels for use in turbocharger applications. Bloomberg.com described the technology “directing air into an engine’s manifold.” The complaint alleges that Cummins infringes the Borg Warner patents by importing, making, selling, and offering for sale devices created by the patented methods. Borg accuses Cummins of directing its foundries to use the patented methods. The complaint makes three claims of patent infringement and seeks an injunction, damages and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: According to Reuters.com, patent lawyers for Borg Warner filed a similar patent infringement lawsuit against Honeywell, which resulted in a $32.5 million settlement in favor of Borg Warner.
Continue reading

By

 

Washington, D.C. – The United States Supreme Court will hear an important patent infringement case this term that will determine the scope of patent rights in certain medical methods.US Supreme Court.jpg Patent lawyers for Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. of San Diego, California filed a patent infringement suit against Mayo Collaborative Services, doing business as Mayo Medical Laboratories of Rochester, Minnesota, alleging that Mayo infringed patent no. 6,355,623, Method of treating IBD/Crohn’s disease and related conditions wherein drug metabolite levels in host blood cells determine subsequent dosage and patent no. 6,680,302, Methods of optimizing drug therapeutic efficacy for treatment of immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorders which have been issued by the US Patent Office.

The patents at issue involve claims over an observed correlation between certain blood tests and patient health, specifically the correlation between the level of certain drug metabolites in the patient’s blood and the patient’s symptoms of gastrointestinal disease. As characterized by Mayo in its brief to the Supreme Court, the inventors did not “invent” these correlations; rather, they simply observed the correlations in a patient population. Based on the patents, Prometheus brought a blood test product called Pro-Predict to the market. The level of metabolite in the patient’s blood can give the treating physician information relevant to adjusting the patient’s dose of certain medications. Mayo improved upon Prometheus’s blood test product and later released its own competing product. Patent attorneys for Prometheus then initiated this lawsuit, alleging that Mayo had infringed its patents. Mayo has attempted to defend the suit by arguing that Prometheus’s patent claims were not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has twice ruled in Prometheus’s favor.

The oral argument is scheduled for December 7, 2011 at the United States Supreme Court. The briefs can be found on the American Bar Association’s preview page for the case. A number of amicus curiae briefs have been filed as well. Notably, the American Medical Association filed an amicus brief in support of Mayo.

Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Minka Lighting, Inc. of Corona, California filed a patent suit in the Southern District of Indianaalleging Fanim Industries, Inc. of Zionsville, Indiana, Fanimation, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana and Lowes Companies, Inc. of Mooresville, North Carolina infringed Patent no. 7,481,626 Ceiling fanMinkaFan.gif with integrated fan blades and Housing, Patent no. D535,387 Ceiling fan blade assembly, and Patent no. D535,388 Ceiling fan blade which have been issued by the US Patent Office.

Minka manufactures, markets and sells home products including ceiling fans, and Fanim is a competitor in the ceiling fan industry. Lowe’s distributes and markets ceiling fans and is also a competitor of Minka. The complaint alleges that Fanim and Lowe’s sell a line of ceiling fans called the “Goldey” that infringes the ‘626, ‘387 and ‘388 patents. The complaint makes three claims of patent infringement and seeks damages, an injunction, attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: According to PACER, Minka sued Fanimation in the Southern District of Indiana in 2009 also alleging that Fanimation infringed the ‘626 patent. In the 2009 case, the parties agreed to dismiss the case with prejudice. The stipulation of dismissal referenced that Minka was in the process of applying for re-issue of the ‘626 patent.
Continue reading

By

 

Washington, D.C. — The Honorable Circuit Judges Kathleen O’Malley, Jimmie V. Reyna and William C. Bryson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have issued a permanent injunction in a patent infringement lawsuit, overruling the denial of the injunction by the District Court of Delaware. Patent lawyers for Robert Bosch LLC of Farmington Hills, Michigan, who had filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the District Court of Delaware alleging that Pylon Manufacturing Corporation of Deerfield Beach, Florida, infringed patent no. 6,292,974 Glass wiper blade for motor vehicles, patent no. 6,675,434 Wiper blade for the glass surfaces of motor vehicles with an elongated, spring-elastic support element, and patent no. 6,978,512 Wiper blade for cleaning vehicle windows, which have been issued by the US Patent Office.

The technology at issue is a beam-type automobile windshield wiperThumbnail image for Bosch.jpg blade that perform better than traditional windshield wipers. Pylon is a competitor windshield wiper blade manufacturer. Patent attorneys for Bosch filed this patent infringement lawsuit in 2008 in the District Court of Delaware. On March 31, 2010, the district court granted Pylon’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement of the ‘512 patent, but denied summary judgment of noninfringement of the two other patents. The remaining issues were tried by jury, which found that claim 13 of the ‘974 and ‘434 patents had been infringed. Bosch then filed a motion for a permanent injunction. The district court denied the permanent injunction, and this ruling is the subject of the Federal Circuit court opinion today.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court and issued the injunction. The court found that the district court made legal errors in applying the standard for a permanent injunction. The district court also erred in concluding that Bosch had not demonstrated an irreparable harm. Bosch introduced evidence of loss of market share and access to potential customers. The Federal Circuit found that this evidence did demonstrate an irreparable injury. Judge William C. Bryson dissented in part, stating he would have remanded the case to the district court to appropriately apply the correct standard.

Practice Tip: In this case, the Federal Circuit affirmed the standard for granting a permanent injunction in a patent infringement case. The patentee must make a four-part showing:

(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hard-ships between the plaintiff and the defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a per-manent injunction.

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006). Prior to the eBay case, an injunction normally would issue when there a finding that a patent is valid and has been infringed. However, the Federal Circuit Court’s opinion today seems to bolster the availability of injunctions when patent infringement has been found.

Continue reading

By

 

Washington, D.C. – The Federal Circuit Advisory Counsel has unveiled a new model order for e-discovery in patent infringement cases. The model order is intended to assist litigants in patent cases in dealing with electronically stored information. The Counsel notes that e-discovery is often overbroad and expensive. The Counsel noted that the advancing technology and increased reliance upon it makes e-discovery often necessary. Text of the model order is below.

Practice Tip: The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which has appellate jurisdiction over the Southern District of Indiana and the Northern District of Indiana, has already an
“E-discovery” Pilot Program, which has the goal of “the early resolution of disputes regarding the discovery of electronically stored information (“ESI”) without Court intervention.”
Continue reading

By

 

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed a decision of Chief Judge Richard L. Young of the Southern District of Indiana in a patent infringement case. Patent lawyers for Vernon Hugh Bowman, an Indiana farmer, had appealed Chief Judge Young’s ruling in favor of Monsanto Company of St. Louis, Missouri. In 2007, patent attorneys for Monsanto Thumbnail image for Monsanto.jpghad filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Mr. Bowman infringed patent no. 5,352,605, Chimeric genes for transforming plant cells using viral promoters and RE39,247E, GLYPHOSATE-TOLERANT 5-ENOLPYRUVYLSHIKIMATE-3-PHOSPHATE SYNTHASES, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. The patents at issue cover different aspects of genetically-modified “Roundup Ready®” soybeans that are resistant to certain herbicides, including Monsanto’s Roundup® product.

According to the court’s opinion, all growers of the Roundup Ready soybeans must sign a limited use license, called a Technology Agreement. The agreement restricts the use of the seed to a single season and does not allow the grower to save any seed from the crop produced to plant the next season. However, the agreement allows growers to sell the second-generation seeds to local grain elevators as “commodity seeds.” Farmer Bowman purchased some of these commodity seeds, planted and produced a crop from them. Mr. Bowman then retained some of the seeds from the commodity seed crop and replanted them the next year. He had also planted “Roundup Ready®” soybeans in a different area of his farm and signed the Technology Agreement.

Chief Judge Richard L. Young found that Farmer Bowman had infringed the Monsanto’s patents and entered a judgment in the amount of $84,456.20 in favor of Monsanto. The Federal Circuit Court affirmed. Reuters reported on the story.

Practice Tip: Mr. Bowman argued that he did not infringement patents under the doctrine of patent exhaustion. Specifically, he argued that no patent rights were attached to the “commodity seeds” since planters could sell the seeds to grain elevators without infringing the patent rights or technology agreement. Patent exhaustion in the context of second generation seeds has already been subject of two federal circuit court opinions: Monsanto Co. v. Scruggs, 459 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006) and Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, 302 F.3d 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Continue reading

By

 

Pittsburg, PA – Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the U S District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania has dismissed a suit seeking a declaration a non-infringement of patents owned by a Brownsburg, Indiana company. Patent attorneys for Matthews International Corporation of Pittsburg, Pennsylvannia had filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration of non-infringement of patents owned by Biosafe Engineering, LLC,Thumbnail image for Biosafe.jpg and Digestor, LLC of Brownsburg, Indiana. The patents at issue are patent nos. 5,332,532, Method for disposing of radioactively labeled animal carcasses, 6,437,211, and 6,472,580 Methods for treatment and disposal of regulated medical waste, 7,829,755, System and method for treating infectious waste matter, and 7,910,788, System for treating infectious waste matter, which have been issued by the US Patent Office. Patent attorneys for Matthews also made state law claims of trade libel, defamation, and tortuous interference with prospective contracts.

According to the court’s opinion, Matthews is in the cremation industry and provides “environmentally-friendly alternative to flame-based cremations” through an alkaline hydrolysis process. Biosafe is a competitor and owns patent rights to similar process of disposing various types of bio-waste, however none of its patents reference cremation of human remains. In 2008, Biosafe accused Matthews of infringing its patents. Matthews also alleges that Biosafe told prospective customers that Matthews committing patent infringement. In February 2011, Matthews filed this suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement. Biosafe had filed a motion to dismiss, which the court addresses in its memorandum opinion. The court stated the issue before it as “the patent portion of this motion challenges whether this Court has jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action where the declaratory plaintiff cannot possibly be liable for direct infringement and no direct infringement has occurred such that the declaratory plaintiff could be found liable for indirect infringement.”

The court found that it did not have jurisdiction to issue a declaration of non-infringement because it found that Matthews had taken no steps towards direct infringement of the patents. The court also found it did not have jurisdiction over the state law defamation, libel and tortuous interference claims. The court dismissed the suit with prejudice.

Practice Tip: In its motion to dismiss, Biosafe argued that the court did not have jurisdiction because there was no “case or controversy” regarding a patent infringement claim, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). The legal standard for jurisdiction over a suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement of a patent has been significantly revised in recent years following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 132 n. 11 (2007) and its progeny. The court here noted “It is, thus, insufficient in a patent case simply to plead that a declaratory defendant‘s actions have caused economic harm. Instead, under MedImmune, the Federal Circuit has found that an “adverse legal interest” requires a dispute pertaining to a legal right. Arris, 639 F.3d at 1374 (“An adverse legal interest‟ requires a dispute as to a legal right-for example, an underlying legal cause of action that the declaratory defendant could have brought or threatened to bring.”).”
Continue reading

Contact Information
Indiana Intellectual Property: IP Litigation, Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights
  • Seventh Circuit
  • Northern District of Indiana
  • Southern District of Indiana
Paul B. Overhauser
Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Greenfield
18 E Main St #202
Greenfield, IN 46140
Phone: 317.467.9100
Fax: 866.283.8549
Indianapolis
101 W Ohio St #2000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.891.1500
Fax: 866.283.8549

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design