Patent Infringement

February 13, 2020

Federal Circuit finds in favor of Seirus Innovative over Columbia Sportswear

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion as to Summary Judgment in the case of Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. (“Columbia”), an Oregon Corporation, versus Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. (“Seirus”), a Utah Corporation. This appeal by Columbia came after a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California found that claims 2 and 23 of U.S. Patent 8,453,270 (the “’270 Patent”) are invalid as anticipated and obvious. Seirus cross-appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon’s grant of summary judgment that it infringes U.S. Patent D657,093 (the “’093 Patent”) and from the entry of the jury’s damages award. The Court of Appeals found claims 2 and 23 of the ‘270 Patent are invalid and that the Court for the District of Oregon erred in granting summary judgment for infringement of the ‘093 Patent.

Columbia originally filed suit in the District of Oregon on January 12, 2015 claiming that Seirus infringed both the ‘270 and ‘093 Patents. Seirus moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of California, but that motion was denied. The district court then “granted summary judgment that Seirus’s HeatWave products infringe the ‘093 patent” stating that “the difference in wave pattern, orientation, and the presence of Seirus’s logo” were characterized as “minor differences.” Seirus moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of California for a second time, two years after its first motion, in light of the decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brans LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). Due to the intervening case law, the District of Oregon transferred the remainder of the claims to the Southern District of California.

A jury trial was held in the Southern District of California and claims 2 and 3 of the ‘270 Patent were found to be invalid as anticipated and obvious. The jury also awarded Columbia $3,018,174 in damages for non-willful infringement of the ‘093 Patent. Both Parties “filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, but the court summarily denied them in a two-page opinion.” Subsequently, the Parties each filed notices of appeal.

The court’s denial of the motions for judgment as a matter of law is reviewed by the substantial evidence standard. “A jury’s verdict must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.” OTR Wheel Eng’g, Inc. v. W. Worldwide Servs. Inc., 897 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 853 F.3d 980, 984 (9th Cir. 2017). The court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir. 2007). The granting of a new trial may only be done “if the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, is based upon false or perjurious evidence, or to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 510 n.15 (9th Cir. 2000). Continue reading

February 7, 2020

Indiana-Based Orthotict Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement and Patent False Marking

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, ERMI LLC (“ERMI”) of Atlanta, Georgia, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Clyde Peach, Jr., (“Mr. Peach”) d/b/a Indiana Brace Co Inc., d/b/a, Clyde Peach LLC, d/b/a Peach Medical, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana, willfully infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,669,660 (the “‘660 Patent”) for “Orthotic Apparatus and Method for Using Same.” ERMI is seeking damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

According to the Complaint, Dr. Thomas P. Branch (“Dr. Branch”) while practicing as a board certified orthopedic surgeon with TREX Orthopedics, P.C., invented the orthotic apparatus claimed in the ‘660 Patent. Dr. Branch allegedly assigned all rights to the continuation patent application that led to the issuance of the ‘660 Patent to ERMI. The ‘660 Patent expired on August 10, 2019. ERMI claims it produces and sells the ERMI Knee Extensionater® device that is covered by the claims of the ‘660 Patent and marked with the ‘660 Patent number.

ERMI claims Mr. Peach filed a provisional followed by a non-provisional patent application (the “Peach ‘028 Application”) for a Knee Extension Therapy Device in July 2010 and July 2011, respectively. The Peach ‘028 Application was allegedly rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August 2, 2013 citing a number of patent references including the ‘660 Patent. ERMI claims the Peach ‘028 Application became abandoned on September 11, 2014 and that “Mr. Peach had actual notice of the ‘660 Patent no later than August 2, 2013.”

November 18, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Indiana Court Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction in RV Range Oven Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – The Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, issued its Opinion and Order denying a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the case of Furrion Property Holding Limited, and Furrion Limited (collectively “Furrion”) versus Way Interglobal Network, LLC (“Way Interglobal”). This case was filed by Furrion in July 2019 alleging Way Interglobal’s oven infringed Furrion’s 2 in 1 Range Oven. Furrion then moved for a preliminary injunction, barring any further sales of the allegedly infringing product until the lawsuit was decided. The Court held Furrion “failed to meet its burden of showing irreparable harm”, and therefore denied the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

Furrion, as evidence of intentional copying and infringement, claims the user manual produced by Way Interglobal utilizes identical language to Furrion’s manual. While that could be an exceptional coincidence, Judge Simon found the images included in Way Interglobal’s manual included images of Furrion’s 2 in 1 Range Oven including Furrion’s trademarked logo. Way Interglobal’s CEO and president, Wayne Kaylor, testified that he was unaware of the similarities in the user manuals and speculated that the Chinese manufacturer who writes the user manual may have taken a shortcut when preparing the manual. Kaylor further testified that Way Interglobal had heard rumors that Furrion was alleging Way Interglobal’s range oven infringed Furrion’s patents in or around July 2018 and that “Way Interglobal changed the metal grate of its gas range to distinguish it from Furrion’s” without admitting any infringement.

To find in favor of Furrion’s motion for preliminary injunction, Furrion must show “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits . . . ; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance of hardships between the parties favors an injunction; and (4) the public interest likewise favors an injunction.” PHG Techs., LLC v. St. John Companies, Inc., 469 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “[I]f the moving party fails to clear the likelihood of success and irreparable harm hurdles, ‘a court’s inquiry is over and the injunction must be denied” in the Seventh Circuit. Abbott Labs v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 11 (7th Cir. 1992). However, if the moving party shows all four elements, the court weighs he factors in deciding whether to grant the injunction.

November 13, 2019

United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board Rules in Favor of Lippert Components in RV Leveling Patent Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The Petitioner, Lippert Components, Inc. (“Lippert”), filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 12 and 13 of Days Corporation’s (“Days”) United States Patent No. 6,619,693 B1 (the “‘693 Patent”) for “Apparatus and Method for Automatically Leveling an Object”. In addition to filing its Reply and Sur-Reply to the inter partes review, Days also filed a Motion to Amend the ‘693 Patent. Days also filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence prior to the oral hearing. The United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) determined claims 12 and 13 of the ‘693 Patent are unpatentable, denied Days’ Motion to Amend, and dismissed Days’ Motion to Exclude as moot.

The ‘693 Patent “discloses an apparatus for automatically leveling a vehicle, such as a recreational vehicle, that is located on uneven terrain or an out-of-level surface.” The vehicle to be leveled contains four adjustable legs that can be manually lowered and raised to achieve a feeling of true level relative to horizontal in the interior of the vehicle. The leveling process can also be performed automatically with the use of a controller. The person having ordinary skill in the art for the Court’s analysis was found to be a person having “either a bachelor’s degree in engineering, preferably mechanical or electrical, or at least five years of work experience in the field of vehicle leveling systems and related equipment.”

The PTAB interpreted the claims 12 and 13 of the ‘693 Patent using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the patent’s specification.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018). The term “reference level plane”, when referring to a pre-set vehicle orientation plane, may be construed to be a plane in which the vehicle feels at true level to horizontal. In claims 12 and 13, there are two identical “Sensor Limitations”. Those Sensor Limitations are “a sensor . . . to sense pitch and roll of the vehicle relative to a reference level plane,” and “the sensor produces an orientation signal representing the vehicle pitch and roll.” In this case, the PTAB agreed with Lippert in that when construed “under the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ‘693 patent specification, claims 12 and 13 do not require the sensor to be aligned directly along the vehicle’s longitudinal and lateral axes.” The PTAB further stated that “[c]onstruing claims 12 and 13 to be limited to a sensor that must be aligned directly along the vehicle’s longitudinal and lateral axes would improperly incorporate a limitation into the claims from the specification.”

November 6, 2019

Cummins Reports Wins in Patent and Trademark Infringement Suits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Cummins Inc. of Columbus, Indiana has announced success in legal actions against Turbotechsnab LLC and Weifang Yuhang Turbocharger Co. Ltd. for infringement of Cummins’ trademarks and patents.

In a decision reached by the Moscow City Arbitrazh Court, Turbotechsnab was held to have infringed Cummins’ HOLSET trademarks. The court awarded an injunction against Turbotechsnab prohibiting further illegal use of Cummins’ HOLSET trademarks in connection with selling, offering to sell, storing and advertising turbochargers. Additionally, the court ordered Turbotechsnab to pay damages and fees to Cummins.

As part of the settlement with Weifang Yuhang Turbocharger Co. Ltd., that company agreed to cease and desist purchasing, making and selling any nozzle ring product that infringes Cummins’ patents, and agreed to destroy all existing infringing stock.

November 5, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Tenstreet, LLC’s Software Patent Held Invalid Due to Patent-Ineligible Claims

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tenstreet, LLC (“Tenstreet”) of Tulsa, Oklahoma, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, DriverReach, LLC (“DriverReach”) of Indianapolis, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 8,145,575 (the “‘575 Patent”) for “Peer to Peer Sharing of Job Applicant Information”. Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint and the Court has now granted that motion. This case was described on this site here.

Tenstreet develops products for the transportation industry such as its Xchange^TMnetwork to help share job applicant verification data between employers, past and present, for commercial truck drivers. The ‘575 Patent, obtained by Tenstreet on March 27, 2012, claims to streamline the verification process between past and prospective employers while giving the drivers a chance to review and correct information before it is sent to the prospective employer. DriverReach allegedly sells its own employment verification product, VOE Plus Solutions. Tenstreet claimed VOE Plus Solutions infringed on the ‘575 Patent. DriverReach moved the Court to dismiss Tenstreet’s claims “on the ground that the ‘575 patent is patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101, patentable subject matter is “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” However, the Supreme Court has held “that this provision contains an important implicit exception[:] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012)). In this case, the Court discusses the abstract idea exception. When determining if a patent claims an abstract idea, the Court first looks to whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Second, the Court looks for an “inventive concept” which transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application.

October 31, 2019

Patent Office Updates Eligibility Guidelines for Patentability Under Section 101

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

October 17, 2019. The US Patent Office has issued an Update on “Subject Matter Eligibility.” These Guidelines are used by the Patent Office to determine whether patent claims are eligible for protection under 35 USC 101.

Patent claims satisfy § 101’s eligibility requirement unless they are directed to an abstract idea (or other ineligible principle) and fail to add any inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208 (2014). In particular, claims that recite a specific advance in computer technology—including, for example, an unconventional arrangement of computer components—are eligible.

It is notoriously unclear to understand how should be applied. For example , Judge Plager of the Federal Circuit (and former Dean of the School of Law and Indiana University – Bloomington) has stated that the “body of doctrine” is “incoherent,” “render[ing] it near impossible to know with any certainty whether [an] invention is or is not patent eligible.” Interval Licensing LLC, 896 F.3d at 1348 (Plager, J., concurring and dissenting). Other jurists have noted that the case law is “baffling,” “inconsistent,” and that “needs clarification by higher authority, perhaps by Congress.” Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, 927 F.3d 1333, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

October 25, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Irvine Shade & Door, Inc. Sued For Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Stoett Industries, Inc. (“Stoett”) of Hicksville, Ohio and Newline International, LLC (“Newline”) of Culpeper, Virginia, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Irvine Shade & Door, Inc. (“Irvine”) of Elkhart, Indiana, infringed their rights in United States Patent No. 6,470,511 (the “‘511 Patent”) for “SHOWER SCREENS”. Plaintiffs are seeking preliminary and permanent injunction, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and other relief the court deems proper.

According to the Complaint, Newline was founded in New Zealand in 1983 and expanded its sales and facilities for shower screens into the United States in 2002. While Newline is the owner of the ‘511 Patent, Stoett claims to be the exclusive distributer for products covered by the ‘511 Patent in the United States via a licensing agreement dated December 2, 2012. Stoett allegedly sells a single shower screen for about $215.00 and has sold over 90,000 shower screens throughout the United states.

Plaintiffs believe Irvine has entered into contracts or has relationships with third-parties to make or sell infringing shower screens which either have or will result in lost sales for Newline and Stoett. As such, Plaintiffs are seeking damages for the alleged infringement of the ‘511 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. Second, Plaintiffs are alleging Irvine has participated in state deceptive trade practices in violation of Ohio’s deceptive trade practice laws, Ohio Rev. Code § 4165.01, et seq. Finally, Plaintiffs are seeking damages for the alleged unfair competition by Irvine and unjust enrichment.

October 23, 2019

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Limits Design Patent Scope

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued its Opinion in the case of Curver Luxembourg, SARL (“Curver”) versus Home Expressions Inc., (“Home Expressions”) to construe claim language of a design patent to limit the scope of the claimed design. Curver, the Plaintiff-Appellant in this case, is the assignee of United States Design Patent No. D677,946 (the “‘946 Patent”) for “Pattern for a Chair” that claims “an ornamental design pattern for a chair.” While the ‘946 Patent claims the pattern for the chair, the figures for the design patent are disembodied from any article of manufacture. Curver instituted litigation against Home Expressions alleging that it made and sold baskets that incorporated Curver’s patented design and were thus infringing the ‘946 Patent. The District Court found in favor of Home Expressions as it found the ‘946 Patent was limited to chairs only. Curver then appealed to the CAFC which affirmed the District Court’s decision that the claim language limited the scope of the claimed design to apply to chairs only.

Curver filed for the ‘946 Patent in 2011 with the original title “patent directed to a pattern for furniture.” During prosecution, the examiner objected to many things including the title because under 37 C.F.R. § 1.153, a design patent’s title must designate a “particular article” for the design. Curver allegedly accepted the examiner’s suggestion to direct its pattern to be used for a chair and amended its application accordingly without amending the attached figures.

Home Expressions allegedly makes and sells baskets that have a similar Y-shape to Curver’s ‘946 Patent. Because of this, Curver filed a complaint against Home Expressions alleging its baskets infringed the ‘946 Patent. Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6), Home Expressions filed a Motion to Dismiss Curver’s Complaint for failing to plead a plausible claim of infringement, which was granted by the district court. As part of a two-step analysis, the District Court first construed the scope of the ‘946 Patent to be limited to a design pattern for a chair. For part two of the analysis, “the district court found that an ordinary observer would not purchase Home Expression’s basket with the ornamental “Y” design believing that the purchase was for an ornamental “Y” design applied to a chair, as protected by the ‘946 patent.” As such, Curver’s Complaint was dismissed.

October 10, 2019

Closure Systems International Sues Novembal USA Seeking Correction of Inventorship

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Closure Systems International, Inc. (“CSI”) of Indianapolis, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana seeking a correction in inventorship for two U.S. Design Patents issued to Defendant, Novembal USA Inc. (“Novembal”) of Edison, New Jersey. The patents at issue in this case are United States Patent Nos. D836,442 (the “‘442 Patent”) and D838,171 (the “‘171 Patent”) (collectively the “Patents in Suit”). CSI is seeking preliminary and/or permanent injunctions, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

CSI claims three of its employees, Arnold Benecke, Bill Moll, and John Edie, developed a closure for a bottle (the “Option 2 Closure”) for its customer, Nestle Waters (“Nestle”) on or about January 27, 2011. This invention was allegedly assigned to CSI pursuant to assignments from the three inventors. According to the Complaint, on March 9, 2011, CSI sent a presentation concerning the Option 2 Closure and another option to Nestle that stated that it would have “Prototypes molded by April 1” and “Small quantity of slit samples will be sent by April 13”. CSI claims it emailed Nestle a drawing of the Option 2 Closure on March 10, 2011.

CSI claims Nestle trialed different closures from CSI and at least two other competitors, including Novembal, and CSI delivered 100 samples of the Option 2 Closure to Nestle in or about June 2011. CSI alleges each of the manufacturers at the Nestle trials witnessed each closure and saw all the samples provided to Nestle. After the trials, Nestle awarded the business to Novembal, not CSI.

According to the Complaint, Nestle asked CSI to replace Novembal and inquired as to its ability to supply the Option 2 Closure in early 2018. CSI claims it began supplying a similar closure to the Option 2 Closure to Nestle, but it was slightly different (the “New Closure”). On or about May 24, 2019, CSI claims it was informed by Nestle that the New Closure infringed one or more Novembal patents. Just six days later, Novembal allegedly sent a cease and desist letter to CSI stating that the New Closure infringed the ‘442 Patent.