Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Tissue Extraction Devices, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit alleging Hologic, Inc. of Bedford, Massachusetts and Suros Surgical Systems, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed Patent No. 7,749,172, PNEUMATIC CIRCUIT, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The patent infringement complaint alleges that Jeff Schwindt, owner of Tissue Extraction Devices, invented the technology at issue, which is apparently a hand-piece used by doctors who are performing breast biopsies. Mr. Schwindt assigned the patent rights to Tissue Extraction Devices. The hand-piece allows the doctors to remove a tissue sample for biopsy. According to the complaint, Schwindt worked together with Suros to further develop the hand-piece. Schwindt, however, is the owner of the patent on the hand-piece. Suros introduced breast biopsy systems that included the hand-piece to the market under the names ATEC and EVIVA. Suros is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hologic. Tissue Extraction claims these two systems infringe upon the patent owned by Schwindt. Tissue Extraction’s patent infringement attorneys have requested a declaratory judgment that the patent has been infringed, damages, and attorney fees.

This case has been assigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 1:11-cv-00628-TWP-TAB.

Practice Tip: Based on the complaint, this lawsuit appears to be the result of a dispute between an inventor and another party who participated in some way in the development or marketing of the invention. This case illustrates the importance of having a clear agreement regarding intellectual property rights before parties begin working together to invent, develop and market a product.
Continue reading

 Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Simon Property Group of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent lawsuit against NorthMobileTech of Middleton, Wisconsin. In its complaint, Simon states that NorthMobileTech has accused Simon of infringing NorthMobileTech’s patent, and Simon believes a patent infringement lawsuit against it is imminent. On April 20, 2011, the same day as Simon’s patent attorneys filed its suit, patent attorneys for NorthMobileTech filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Simon in the Western District of Wisconsin.
Continue reading

Indianapolis; IN – Patent lawyers for Hill-Rom Services, Inc. of Batesville, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit alleging Stryker Corporation of Kalamazoo, Michigan infringed twelve patents owned by Hill-Rom all of which have been issued by the US Patent Office.

Hill-Rom alleges that Stryker has manufactured, used , imported, offered for sale, or sold ten types of stretchers and hospital beds with powered wheels that infringe Hill-Rom’s patents. Hill-Rom is seeking damages and declaratory judgment for these patent infringement claims as provided by the Patent Act. In the complaint, patent attorneys also claim that two of Stryker’s patents interfere with patent claims in Hill-Rom’s patents, which were filed with the US Patent Office before Stryker filed its patents. Hill-Rom is seeking a declaratory judgment that Stryker’s infringing patents are invalid.

Continue reading

 Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Masco Corporation of Indiana of Indianapolis, IN filed a patent infringement suit alleging Sir Faucet, LLC of Toledo, OH infringed Patent No. 7,753,079, MAGNETIC COUPLING FOR SPRAYHEADS, and Patent No. 7,909,061, MAGNETIC COUPLING FOR SPRAYHEADS, which have been issued by the US Patent Office. Masco does business under the name Delta, and is a fairly frequent litigant in patent infringement lawsuits. Another Masco lawsuit in Indiana is discussed on this site here. Also, Masco was recently sued for patent infringement by one of its major competitors, Moen. That complaint is here. Given that Moen and Sir Faucet suits were filed at about the same time, and that Sir Faucet is located in Northern Ohio where Moen is located, there may be some connection between these two suits.

While the Indiana suit contains a boilerplate allegation “upon information and belief” that Sir Faucet is “making using, importing, selling, or offering for sale in the United States, including the Southern District of Indiana, products and/or services embodying the patent inventions,” it lacks the type of supporting detail that may be required to prove personal jurisdiction. The complaint also alleges in paragraph 12 that the case is “exceptional,” but states no fact to support this conclusion. If a court finds a case to be “exceptional,” it may award a prevailing party treble damages and attorney’s fees.

Practice Tip: If a defendant is selling an infringing product in the jurisdiction where a plaintiff desires to file a suit, it is helpful to make a representative purchase in that jurisdiction, and reference the sale in the Complaint. This may thwart an attempt by the defendant to have the case dismissed or transferred to the defendant’s preferred venue.
This case has been assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 1:11-cv-00404-SEB-DML.

Continue reading

New Albany, IN – Patent lawyers for CSP Technologies, Inc. of Auburn, AL, filed a patent infringement suit alleging Sud-Chemie AG of Munich, Germany; Sud-Chemie, Inc., of Louisville, KY; and Airsec S.A.S. of Choisy-le-Roi, France infringed Patent No. 7,537, 137, titled RESEALABLE MOISTURE TIGHT CONTAINER ASSEMBLY FOR STRIPS AND THE LIKE HAVING A LIP SNAP SEAL, as issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Knauf Insulation Limited of the United Kingdom has filed a patent infringement suit alleging CertainTeed Corporation of Valley Forge, Pennsylvania infringed Patent No. 7,854,980, FORMALDEHYDE-FREE MINERAL FIBRE INSULATION PRODUCT, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. Knauf Insulation USA is based in Shelbyville, Indiana where it employs 500 workers.

Knauf’s patent attorneys allege that CertainTeed makes and offers for sale a product known as “CertainTeed Sustainable Insulation” that infringers at least one of the claims of Knauf’s patent. According to coverage by the Indianapolis Star, Knauf’s patented technology allows it to make insulation with using formaldehyde. Knauf is seeking a declaratory judgment that CertainTeed has infringed the patent, injunction, damages and attorneys’ fees. According to Inside Indiana Business, CertainTeed has responded by publicly denying the allegations.

This case has been assigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 1:11-cv-00300-TWP-DML.
Continue reading

South Bend; IN – Trademark lawyers for Zimmer, Inc. of Warsaw, Indiana filed a trademark infringement suit alleging that Ari Kresch, a Michigan attorney, and other law firms and attorneys in Michigan and Texas infringed various trademark registrations, including Trademark No. 647,921, Trademark No. 1,778,807 and Trademark No. 1,707, 954 registered with the US Trademark Office.

Zimmer develops, manufactures and sells a line of knee replacement devices called NexGen®. Zimmer’s trademark attorneys alleged that these attorneys and law firms have used Zimmer’s trademarked graphics and logos on their websites and television advertisements to attempt to attract personal injury clients relating to the NexGen® knee replacement line and other Zimmer products. The law firms and attorneys apparently sought to bring personal injury lawsuits against Zimmer that would allege Zimmer’s products caused injury. According to Zimmer’s complaint, these attorneys and law firms used false information about Zimmer’s products in these attempts to gain clients. Allegedly, the defendants also sent letters to Zimmer’s customers advising them of potential problems with Zimmer’s products. Zimmer’s attorneys allege that the defendants have also registered an internet domain name that also infringes on the Zimmer’s trademarks. Trademark attorneys for Zimmer alleged trademark infringement, false advertising, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Zimmer has also made a claim of “cybersquatting” as a violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), stating that the domain name registered by the defendants was confusingly similar to Zimmer’s trademarks and was in bad faith. The complaint also alleges common law trademark infringement, defamation, tortuous interference with business relationships, product disparagement, and common law unfair competition. Zimmer is seeking a permanent injunction barring the use of their trademarked materials by the defendants, as well as damages and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: This case raises interesting questions about trademark rights versus the first amendment right to free speech, particularly in the context of attorney advertising. Trademark rights are not a total bar to one party use of another’s trademark material to advertise another product or service. For example, the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A)‘s fair use doctrine discusses use for advertising for comparison to another product and criticizing a trademarked good or service. The defendants are likely to claim that their use of the trademarked materials falls under this category.

This case has been assigned to Judge William C. Lee and Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein in the Northern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 3:11-cv-00063-WCL-CAN.
Continue reading