Patent Infringement

December 8, 2011

Indiana District Court’s Verdict for Alcon Laboratories in Patent Infringement Suit Over Eye Medication Now Pending on Appeal

Indianapolis, IN – A patent infringement judgment from the Southern District of Indiana will be reviewed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In May, Chief Judge Richard L. Young of the Southern District of Indiana issued a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiffs Alcon Research Ltd., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., both of Fort Worth, Texas and Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co., Ltd.) of Tokyo, Japan, after a bench trial on the plaintiff’s patent infringement claims against Apotex, Inc., of Ontario, Canada and Apotex Corp. Weston, Florida. Alcon filed a complaint alleging Apotex infringed patent no.5,641,805, TOPICAL OPHTHALMIC FORMULATIONS FOR TREATING ALLERGIC EYE DISEASES, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

Chief Judge Young presided over a bench trial April 26, 2010 to May 7, 2010, and final arguments were presented to the court on August 3, 2010. The Court found that plaintiffs had “proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Defendants’ generic equivalent of Plaintiffs’ patented allergy topical ocular medication, Patanol®;, infringed claims 1-8 of the ‘805 patent[,]” and that the defendant failed to show, by preponderance of evidence, that the patent claims were invalid. The court also found that the defendants failed to prove, by preponderance of evidence, that the ‘805 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

Apotex has appealed the case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (docket number 2011-1455). Apotex’s brief was filed on October 3, 2011, and Alcon’s brief is due on December 23, 2011.

Practice Tip: One of the defenses raised by Apotex was to claim the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Apotex claimed that one of the inventors of the ‘805 failed to disclose results of certain tests and other data in the patent application. Apotex claimed the inventor as well as the attorney who filed the patent application violated their duty of candor to the PTO, which is imposes pursuant federal regulations 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c). Alcon, however, presented evidence that the tests in question were believed to be inconclusive and that the inventor simply forgot about another test. Under the totality of circumstances, the court found that a finding of deceptive intent was not warranted. The court, therefore, declined to find that the patent should not be enforceable under the theory of inequitable conduct.

In addition, the court held that Apotex could not raise an additional theory of invalidity – invalidity for lack of a written description – until after the trial. The court found that the late disclosure had prejudiced the plaintiff and therefore refused to consider the new theory.
Continue reading

December 1, 2011

Department of Justice Launches Website to Educate about Criminal Intellectual Property Theft

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Justice and National Crime Prevention Council have launched a new website designed to educate the public about intellectual property theft. The site focuses on four types of criminal intellectual property theft: counterfeit drugs, pirated products, fake consumer goods, and gangs and organized crime. The site provides background on the extent of the intellectual property theft in the United States and the impact on the economy. For example the site states “More than 250,000 more people could be employed in the U.S. automotive industry if it weren’t for the trade in counterfeit parts.”

The website is part of a larger campaign by the Department of Justice to raise public awareness about intellectual property theft. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech earlier this week to launch the campaign. Attorney General Holder stated “For far too long, the sale of counterfeit, defective, and dangerous goods has been perceived as “business as usual.” But these and other IP crimes can destroy jobs, suppress innovation, and jeopardize the health and safety of consumers.”

Practice Tip: Intellectual property attorneys may find the new website’s links to resources as well as instructions on where to report intellectual property theft useful.

November 17, 2011

Southern District Dismisses Patent Infringement Case over Motorcycle Suspension for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – The Southern District of Indiana has dismissed a patent infringement lawsuit finding a lack of personal jurisdiction over a California company accusing of patent infringement. Patent lawyers for AirFx LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging J.D. Braun, of Los Angeles, California, doing business as Goldenstate Custom Cycles, Dr. V-Twin, Inc. of Sherman Oaks, California, infringed Patent No. 7,559,396 B2, Motorcycle air suspension system, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News blogged about the case when it was filed in July.

The California defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Patent attorneys for AirFX had argued that the Indiana district court had personal jurisdiction because the company had a website that was accessible in Indiana and listed an Indiana store where its products could be purchased. Judge William T. Lawrence, writing for the court, held that “the mere existence of nationally-accessible websites is a poor foundation on which to base personal jurisdiction.” Thus the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Practice Tip: This case reiterates that simply having a website that is accessible within a district does not create personal jurisdiction. In order to achieve personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must establish “minimum contacts” with the district.
Continue reading

November 15, 2011

Howmedica Osteonics Corp. and Stryker Ireland Ltd. Sues DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. for Patent Infringement of a Surgical Implant Used in Hip Replacement Procedures

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Newark, NJ – Patent attorneys for Howmedica Osteonics Corp. Mahwah, New Jersey and 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 DePuy 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

November 7, 2011

Eli Lilly & Co. Loses Appeal in British Supreme Court Over Patent Dispute Over Gene Sequence

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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 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).

November 4, 2011

Patent Lawsuit Filed Over Playground “Curved Rail Panels”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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, PLAYSET 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.”

November 2, 2011

Borg Warner Sues Cummins for Patent Infringement of Turbocharger Wheel Design and Methods

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.jpg infringed 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

October 31, 2011

Preview of U.S. Supreme Court Patent Infringement Case Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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. 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.

October 27, 2011

Minka Lighting Sues Fanim Industries, Fanimaton, Inc, and Lowe’s for Patent Infringement of Ceiling Fans

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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 fan 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

October 20, 2011

Federal Circuit Court Grants Injunction in Patent Infringement Suit Over Windshield Wiper Blade Technology

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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 wiper 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.