Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

 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

Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for plaintiff Schwindt, claim the defendants Miller and Mark omitted Schwindt as an inventor on a patent application, that turned out to be worth millions. All three were early founders and investors in Suros Sugical Systems, an Indianapolis medical device manufacturer founded in 2000. Suros grew quickly, and was acquired for $240 million by Hologic in 2006.

Plaintiff Schwindt did some outside engineering consulting for Suros. He claims his contributions (suggesting a pneumatic control, a pressure switch and a pneumatic circuit manifold for a biopsy device) elevate him to the status of an “inventor” of the system on which he worked. Suros applied for and was issued several patents, including 6,758,824, although Schwindt was not named an “inventor” on the applications filed by Suros.

Schwindt later started his own company, Tissue Extraction Devices, and filed for his own patent applications for the same invention. This led to an interference proceeding, which remains pending. According to the complaint, in that proceeding, “the USPTO suggested that it is the district court and not the Office that is in the best position to fashion an equitable remedy to fit the facts in cases [such as this one] where inequitable conduct is established.” In contrast, Suros claims in the interference that Schwindt simply followed instructions to fabricate a circuit board and console for Suros’s device using off-the-shelf components and had no involvement in the biopsy device’s development.

Notwithstanding the ongoing interference proceeding, in the present suit, Schwindt asks the Court to declare him a co-inventor of the patents issued to Suros.

Practice Tip: This case highlights the importance of having clear intellectual property rights agreements when utilizing outside consultants. Even though a company may pay an outside firm to assist with developing a product, unless the agreement specifically calls for the assignment of inventions, the consultant will own the right to any resulting inventions, not the company commissioning the work.

It will be interesting to see how the Court addresses jurisdictional issues. The Complaint asserts claims for fraud/deception, unjust enrichment, and “accounting,” which are all state law claims that do not appear to invoke Federal jurisdiction. The only claim alleged to justify federal jurisdiction is that for declaratory judgment that the plaintiff is a co-inventor of the patents. However, patent ownership issues usually arise under state law. Jim Arnold Corp. v. Hydrotech Systems, Inc., 109 F.3d 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1197), cert. denied sum nom., 118 S. Ct. 338 (1997).

The complaint and more information about this suit is below.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Bald Spot Racing, LLC of Indianapolis, IN have filed a patent infringement suit alleging BSCI, Inc. of Mooresville, NC infringed patent no. 6,733,710 VEHICLE PASSENGER RESTRAINT AND METHOD OF PRODUCING SAME, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. Despite the title of the patent, its single claim is limited to a method for making a car seat that is custom formed to a specific driver.

The single independent claim of the patent is:

1. A method of producing a restraint for a passenger of a vehicle comprising the steps of:
placing an enclosure of flexible plastic within a vehicle;

• placing a passenger of the vehicle atop and adjacent said enclosure while in said vehicle;
• allowing said flexible plastic to form around the passenger forming a plastic restraint;
• removing the passenger from the vehicle;
• causing the plastic restraint to harden;
• removing the plastic restraint from the vehicle; scanning said plastic restraint to profile said plastic restraint; and, shaping solid plastic in accordance with the profile of the plastic restraint producing a passenger restraint.

This case has been assigned to Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 1:11-CV-00095-JMS-TAB.

Practice Tip: The complaint alleges upon “information and belief” that the defendant “sold or offered for sale seat inserts for a racecar within this judicial district that were made by the defendant using a process protected by the patent . . .” An intriguing issue in this case is likely to be whether the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction in Indiana if it did not actually practice the method in Indiana, and has no other contacts with Indiana. Personal jurisdiction could be more likely if there was an actual sale of a product of a seat insert to a customer in Indiana that was made using the patented method. It is not unusual for a patent owner to purchase one of the defendant’s products in the State where the patent owner plans to file suit, and then to reference that sale in the complaint to improve the odds so of acquiring personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The complaint here does not reference such a purchase.

Continue reading