Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently, Alfred C. Nelson invented a magnetic coupling for sprayheads for his employer, Delta Faucet Company (“Delta”), the Plaintiff. Delta claims it now owns three patents covering Mr. Nelson’s invention, US. Patent Nos. 7,753,079, 10,669,702 and 10,724,217 (collectively the “Delta Patents”). Further, Delta claims it has produced kitchen faucets using MagnaTite® Docking and MagneDock® Technology that are protected by the Delta Patents.

According to the Corrected Complaint, Kohler Co., the Defendant, manufactures and offers for sale products having a “DockNetik® magnetic docking system that allegedly infringe the Delta Patents. The allegedly infringing products include the Motif™ kitchen faucet. Delta is seeking an injunction, damages, and attorneys’ fees for patent infringement. Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently Delta Faucet Company (“Delta”), the Plaintiff, employs a number of engineers to improve upon products within the plumbing industry including kitchen faucets. One of those engineers invented a “Magnetic Coupling for Sprayheads,” which is protected by U.S. Patent Nos. 10,669,702 and 10,724,217 (the “Patents At Issue”). This invention apparently provides for a simple and durable coupling between a pull-down sprayhead and the spout of a kitchen faucet.

Delta claims Defendant, As America, Inc. has infringed the Patents In Suit with its “Dock-Tite™ spray-head docking system.” Delta is seeking judgment pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and (b), an injunction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283, treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Continue reading

New Albany, Indiana –Thomas A. Person (“Person”), the Plaintiff, claims to have invented a cigar “Cedar spill” protected by U.S. Patent Nos. 8,507,070 and D664,292 (the “‘070 Patent”, the “‘292 Patent”, collectively “Person’s Patents”).  The entity Defendants, Cigar Reserve LLC and Collett Enterprises, Incorporated, allegedly sell products that infringe Person’s Patents.  The individual Defendants, Brian and Chanda Kurland, are each purportedly members of and control Cigar Reserve.

According to the Complaint, Person discovered Cigar Reserve was selling a cedar spill for a cigar around August 13, 2013. After multiple communications with Mr. Kurland, the two parties entered into a License Agreement on June 16, 2014.  The term of the License Agreement was seemingly extended on at least two occasions until Mr. Kurland was informed the License Agreement would terminate on January 1, 2017.  Person states he discovered allegedly infringing products being sold by the Defendants on October 3, 2020, more than three years after the License Agreement ended.  Therefore, Person is suing for patent infringement of both Person’s Patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

Continue reading

New Albany, Indiana –Sandcraft, LLC dba Sandcraft Motorsports (“Sandcraft”), the Plaintiff designs, manufactures, and sells aftermarket parts for Utility Terrain Vehicles (“UTV”).  Apparently one such part is a “CARRIER BEARING ASSEMBLY” protected by United States Patent No. 10,471,825 (the “‘825 Patent”), which was assigned to Sandcraft.  Sandcraft claims it makes and sells carrier bearings products that embody and use the inventions claimed in the ‘825 Patent bearing the patent number (the “Sandcraft Products”).

According to the Complaint, Super ATV, LLC dba SuperATV, the Defendant, makes, imports, and/or sells carrier bearings products that allegedly infringe the ‘825 Patent (the “Accused Products”).  Sandcraft claims SuperATV monitors the UTV market and the intellectual property of its competitors and therefore had actual notice of or was willfully blind to the existence of the ‘825 Patent since at least May 14, 2018, the date the patent application published.  Further, Sandcraft claims SuperATV had actual notice of the ‘825 Patent at least as of February 26, 2020 based on correspondence sent to SuperATV’s counsel.  Therefore, Sandcraft is seeking damages for patent infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 154(d) and 284. Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Somero Enterprises, Inc. (“Somero”), the Plaintiff, claims to be a pioneer in the development and manufacturing of laser-guided concrete screeding machines. According to the Complaint, Somero has a portfolio of 63 patents including the patent at issue, United States Patent No. 8,038,366 (the “‘366 Patent”).  Somero claims Ligchine International Corporation (“Ligchine”), the Defendant, offers a product called the “SpiderScreed” that allegedly infringes the ‘366 Patent.

Per the Complaint, Somero sent a letter to Ligchine on July 30, 2020 accusing Ligchine of infringing the ‘366 Patent by manufacturing and selling the SpiderScreed product. Somero claims the SpiderScreed infringes at least claims 1-5 of the ‘366 Patent and Ligchine has not ceased the manufacture and sale of the SpiderScreed.  Therefore, Somero is seeking damages and attorneys’ fees for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 285.

Continue reading

Fort Wayne, Indiana – According to the Complaint, Magnadyne Corporation (“Magnadyne”), the Plaintiff, and Winegard Company (“Winegard”), the Defendant, are competitors in the recreational vehicle market. Magnadyne claims to have filed a patent application titled “Combination External Vehicle Antenna Housing and Installation Method” on April 2, 2018. Apparently that application published on October 4, 2018 as US2018/0287250A1 (the “‘250 Publication”). The day after the ‘250 Publication was published, Magnadyne claims it provided a copy to Winegard via one of Winegard’s subsidiaries, WiFi Ranger. Thereafter on April 14, 2020, Magnadyne’s patent was issued as United States Patent No. 10,622,709 (the “‘709 Patent”).

Magnadyne claims to have notified Winegard and WiFi Ranger of the ‘709 Patent the day it issued via written communications. Since then, Magnadyne claims Winegard has continued to sell an alleged infringing product, the Air 360+, among other products accused of infringement. Per the Complaint, the sale, manufacture, and use of the Air 360+ directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ‘709 Patent. Magnadyne claims to have suffered damages for direct infringement, contributory infringement, and induced infringement of the ‘709 Patent. Therefore, Magnadyne is seeking a reasonable royalty, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana –Apparently, BelAir Electronics, Inc. (“BelAir”), the Plaintiff, is the assignee of two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 7,941,195 (the “‘195 Patent”) and 10,097,676 (the “‘676 Patent), both entitled “Protective Mask of Mobile Phone.” According to the Complaint, Carved LLC (“Carved”), the Defendant, manufactures, sells, and distributes protective masks for mobile devices (the “Accused Products”). BelAir claims the Accused Products infringe at least claim 9 of the ‘195 Patent and at least claims 1, 5, 8, and 9 of the ‘676 Patent.Per the Complaint, BelAir sent notice of the alleged infringement to Carved on or about December 17, 2019. Because Carved has not ceased producing and selling the Accused Products, BelAir is seeking damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eddie M. Green, Jr. Jeffersonville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Meijer, Inc. infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 9,940,796 (“the ‘796 Registration”) for “Wet Floor Safety Sign”. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Eddie M. Green, Jr. (“Green”), the Plaintiff, apparently owns United States Patent No. 9,940,796 (the “‘796 Patent”) for the “Yellow Fellow Safety Sign.” Believing the Defendant, Meijer, Inc., infringed the ‘796 Patent, Green filed suit, pro se, alleging patent infringement. Green claims that despite warning Meijer of the alleged infringement on two separate occasions, Meijer continues to use the allegedly infringing wet floor signs.

Green is seeking an injunction and damages for the allegedly unlicensed use of his invention. As in another lawsuit against different defendants, Green claims his ability to sell his product and costs for marketing and advertising his patented product will be greater due to Meijer’s “misuse of fake and unpatented products in the safety field.”

Continue reading