Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

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

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney of the Southern District of Indiana has issued a claim construction order in a patent infringement lawsuit. Patent attorneys for GS Cleantech Corporation of New York, New York, filed a patent infringement suit regarding patent no. 7,601,858, Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The ‘858 patent is directed to “a method of processing a concentrated byproduct of a dry milling process for producing ethanol. In its most basic form, the method comprises of recovering oil from the concentrated byproduct.” Id. col.2 l.18-22. The specification of the patent repeatedly refers to the invention as a two-step process comprised of a concentration step and a recovery step. Plaintiffs accuse Defendants’ methods of infringing “The Concentrate Terms” of the ‘858 patent.

In the order the Court construed the following terms: 

                    Claim Term

                   Construction

“concentrate”/”concentrated byproduct”/ “concentrated thin stillage”.

“syrup containing water, oil, and solids resulting from the concentrating or evaporating process”.

“mechanically processing”

“to subject to a mechanical device (or devices) to effect a particular result”.

“heating and mechanically processing the concentrate/ concentrated byproduct/concentrated thin stillage to separate the oil from the concentrate/concentrated byproduct/concentrated thin stillage”

“the Concentrate Term (as construed by the Court in this Order) subjected to heat and a mechanical device (or devices) to extract a product that is substantially oil from the Concentrate Term (as construed by the Court in this Order)”.

“centrifuging the concentrate to recover oil “.

“processing the concentrate (as defined by the Court in this Order) with a centrifuge to separate the oil from the concentrate so that the oil stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially oil and the remaining concentrate stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially free of oil”

Practice Tip:Previous articles about this litigation have posted many times by Indiana Intellectual Property Law News including:

GS Cleantech Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Flottweg in Indiana

Multiple Patent Infringement Suits Brought by Greenshift Consolidated in Indiana

GS CleanTech Sues Iroquois Bio-Energy for Patent Infringement

Cardinal Ethanol Sued by GS Cleantech for Patent Infringement

By

 

Evansville, IN – Patent lawyers for SOP Services of Las Vegas, Nevada and Bear Archery of Evansville, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit in alleging Vital Hunting Gear, Inc. of Lexington, KY infringed patent no. 7,159,325 and 7,343,686, Patent Picture.jpgBOW SIGHT WITH FIBER OPTICS, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

This is the second suit brought by Bear Archery’s patent attorneys in the last 3 months asserting infringement of these two patents. Another suit filed in June, 2011 is reported here, and about eight other suits have been filed in the last four years.

As with the June 2011 complaint, the Complaint alleges that the defendant “has manufactured and continues to manufacture, use, sell, offer to sell and distribute fiber optic sights which infringe certain claims of the Patents-In-Suit.” Bear Archery seeks a declaratory judgment, injunction, impounding order, damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. In addition, the complaint also includes a trademark infringement claim; Bear Archery alleges that is “famous” WHISKER BISCUIT mark is infringed by Vital Hunting’s use of the term TEFLON BISCUIT. Although Bear Archery’s trademark attorneys stated in the compliant that “A true copy of registration 3,833,665 is attached as Exhibit D” [to the complaint], registration 3,833,665 is for an INFINITY MAX logo, and is owned by George A. Atkinson. This appears to have nothing to do with the claim against Vital Hunting.

Note: On August 31, 2011, Bear Archery’s patent infringement attorneys dismissed the case they filed in June 2011 against Impact Archery involving the same two patents.
Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – The Southern District of Indiana has issued a claim construction order in a patent infringement lawsuit. Cook Incorporated, of Bloomington, Indiana, had filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against Endologix, Inc., of Irvine, California. The patents at issue are owned by Cook and are patent nos. 5,035,706, PERCUTANEOUS STENT AND METHOD FOR RETRIEVAL THEREOF and 5,755,777, Thumbnail image for Cook Inc.jpgEXPANDABLE TRANSLUMINAL GRAFT PROSTHESIS FOR REPAIR OF ANEURYSM, which have been issued by the US Patent Office.

The patents at issue are medical devices that are used to treat abdominal aortic aneurysms, which are caused by the weakening of the aorta. The patented technologies are stents that strengthen the walls of the aorta and delivery systems. Cook alleges that Endologix’s Powerlink product infringes its patents. On April 15, 2011, the court held a Markman hearing to determine whether the patents cover the alleged infringer’s product. The parties disputed whether certain features of Endologix product were covered by Cook’s patents and the meaning of specific terms in the patent’s claims. Judge Pratt’s order set out the meaning of over thirty the disputed claim terms.

According to Yahoo Finance, Endologix has interpreted the rulings to be favorable.

Practice Tip: As the court described in its opinion, “[i]n order to win a patent infringement suit, a plaintiff must establish that the patent claim “covers the alleged infringer’s product or process.” Markman, 517 U.S. at 374 (citation and internal quotations omitted). Consequently, the first step in an infringement analysis involves determining the meaning and the scope of the words of the patent’s claims.” While resolution of disputed claim terms, such as what occurred in this opinion, does not resolve the controversy entirely, it is a significant step.

Continue reading

By

 

[Disclosure: Overhauser Law Offices, LLC, the publisher of this website, represents a party in this litigation]

Chief Judge Philip P. Simon for the Northern District of Indiana has construed the claims of Patent No. 5,866,210, METHOD FOR COATING A SUBSTRATE.

The ‘210 patent describes a method of coating substrates such as those used in catalytic converters. Catalytic converters are typically found in automobile and truck engines, and their purpose is to reduce or remove harmful emissions from engine exhaust. The type of catalytic converter relevant here is principally composed of a core – or substrate – which sits inside a metal housing. The substrate is a single unit (a monolithic substrate) that has a number of honeycomb-like channels running parallel to each other within the metal frame. Through various methods, the inner walls of these channels are coated with a catalyst slurry made of precious metals. As engine exhaust flows through the substrate’s channels, the precious metals coating the channels’ inner walls cause a chemical reaction that converts the harmful engine emissions into more benign substances. But because the precious metals are expensive, care must be taken to sufficiently coat the channels without wasting the catalytic slurry.

The ‘210 patent teaches a methodThumbnail image for BASF Picture.jpg of coating the channels of the substrate through a process called vacuum infusion coating. Through this process, one end of the substrate is partially immersed in a dip pan of catalytic slurry. The dip pan, the size and depth of which may vary, is loaded with an amount of slurry exceeding the amount of coating necessary to coat the walls of the substrate to a desired level. A vacuum is applied to the other end of the substrate, which draws the slurry of precious metals up the channels of the substrate to coat the inner walls of the substrate’s channels. The vacuum continues to suck air through the channels as the substrate is removed from the pan, and then the coating dries to the channel walls. The ‘210 patent teaches that each of the channels of the substrate are coated to the same length, creating a “uniform coating profile.” And as the specification explains, “the typical coating operation requires the immersion of one end of the substrate into the coating media followed by drying and then the insertion of the opposed end of the substrate into the coating media followed by drying and curing.”

The Court’s ruling on claim terms proposed by patent attorneys for the parties were as follows:
Continue reading

By

 

Fort Wayne, IN – The Northern District of Indiana has granted partial summary judgment in a patent infringement case. Geocel LLC,Geocel.jpg of Elkhart, Indiana, had filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana seeking a declaratory judgment that patent no. RE 41,586, PITCH POCKET AND SEALANT, which has been issued by the US Patent Office and is owned by Chem Link Inc., of Schoolcraft, Michigan, is invalid and has not been infringed.

Geocel filed this patent infringement lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that some of claims in the ‘586 patent were invalid and that Geocel had not infringement the patent. Specifically, Geocel alleged claims 21-25 violate the rule against recapture based upon the fact that Chem Link Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for ChemLink.jpghad previously applied for a patent of similar technology that had been repeatedly rejected by the U.S. Patent Office. The issue in this summary judgment decision was whether claims 21-25 of the ‘586 patent violate the rule against recapture, which “prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims.” The court here concluded that the claims did not violate the rule against recapture, and therefore granted partial summary judgment in favor of Chem Link, indicating that the patent is valid. There are still unresolved issues in the case and it remains on the docket.

Practice Tip: As the court explained, Title 35 of the United States Code, Section 251 provides in part that: “Whenever any patent is, through error without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid . . . by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.” The rule against recapture “prevents a patentee from regaining through reissue subject matter that he surrendered in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims.” MBO Labs., Inc. v.Becton, Dickinson & Co., 602 F.3d 1306, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (quoting Hester Indus., Inc. v.Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
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 – 2024, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design