Patent Infringement

October 25, 2019

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

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.

October 9, 2019

Formstack, LLC Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Transaction Secure, LLC (“Transaction”) a foreign limited liability company, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Formstack, LLC (“Formstack”) of Fishers, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 8,738,921 (the “‘921 Patent”) for “System and Method for Authenticating a Person’s Identity Using a Trusted Entity”. Transaction is seeking damages, attorneys’ fees, and any further relief the Court deems proper.

Transaction claims the ‘921 Patent, issued on May 27, 2014, teaches an advancement over two-factor authentication for protecting sensitive information from identity theft. Formstack’s website allegedly operates as the “Accused Product”. Transaction alleges that the Accused Product infringes at least Claim 1 of the ‘921 Patent as it is a trusted entity to authenticate account holders “by using non-personal information for securing personal data.”

According to the complaint, users provide personal information to Formstack to create an account from a trusted computer system. Formstack then allegedly stores the user information confidentially and provides the user with an authorization login that is associated with the user but does not contain the user’s personal information. After the user requests resource access from Formstack using their login, Formstack allegedly “provides an authorization code to obtain the access token and ID token for accessing the services”. Transaction claims “the user identity is verified by the resource server by using the authorization code to allow the user to access the code” in the Accused Product. Transaction claims Formstack’s Accused Product infringes the ‘921 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. As such, Transaction is seeking damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.

October 7, 2019

Engineered by Schildmeier Granted Over $1.4 Million Dollars in Default Judgment

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Judge Richard L. Young in the Southern District of Indiana granted default judgment in favor of Engineered by Schildmeier, LLC (“Engineered”) and against WUHU Xuelang Auto Parts Co., LTD and Amazing Parts Warehouse (collectively the “Defendants”). Engineered filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment of both patent and trade dress infringement in late 2018. The patent allegedly infringed in the complaint is United States Patent No. D 816,584 (the “‘584 Patent”) for a “Pair of Bed Rail Stake Pocket Covers”.

When a defendant fails to plead or defend a case against them within the allotted time frame, they are in default. A plaintiff may motion the court for a default judgment, which is a binding judgment of the court for failure of the defendant to answer the allegations. The court can then grant a default judgment. If a proof of damages hearing is necessary, the judge can order such a hearing, but the defendant may not appear at that point to defend the amount of damages asserted by the plaintiff. A default judgment may be set aside upon request of the defendant, but they must show a good defense and legitimate excuse as to why they were in default to the court.

In this case, neither of the Defendants plead or otherwise defended themselves against the allegations set forth in Engineered’s complaint. As such, the court granted Engineered’s motion for default judgment and awarded damages accordingly. First, the Court found that the Defendants infringed the ‘584 Patent. Second, the Court found the Defendants violated Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act by infringing Engineered’s trade dress. Third, the Defendants were enjoined from importing, selling, or offering for sale any imitations of the ‘584 Patent. Finally, Engineered was awarded a total of $1,424,070.00. The damages award was calculated by adding $470,020.00 in lost profits; $940,040.00 in treble damages for willful infringement; $13,610.00 in attorneys’ fees; and $400.00 in court costs. By failing to appear and defend themselves, not only will defendants have default judgments granted against them, but as shown in this case, extremely large damages may also be imposed.

September 26, 2019

Furrion, LLC of Elkhart Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Elkhart, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Display Technologies, LLC (“Display”) of North Miami, Florida, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Furrion, LLC of Elkhart, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 9,300,723 (the “‘723 Patent”) for “Enabling social interactive wireless communications”. Display is seeking damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any further relief the court deems proper.

Display is claiming Furrion has infringed and continues infringing one or more claims of the ‘723 Patent including at least Claims 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20. According to the complaint, Display is claiming at least Furrion’s DV7100 media system with NFC and Bluetooth wireless technology (the “Product”), among other Products infringe the ‘723 Patent.

Display claims the Product infringes Claim 12 because it receives media files from a wireless mobile device via Bluetooth or NFC and the Product includes a security measure such as a Bluetooth PIN, among other features. Regarding Claim 14, Display claims it is infringed by the transfer of a digital media file from the wireless mobile device to the Product completely bypassing the security measure. Further, Display claims the Product infringes Claims 16, 17, and 20 because the Product is an audio system with a Bluetooth connection, and “the digital media file is provided by the wireless mobile device.” As such, Display is seeking damages for patent infringement.

August 14, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Natural Alternatives, LLC and SNI Solutions, Inc. Seek Damages for Alleged Infringement of an Anti-Freezing and Deicing Composition and Method

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, SNI Solutions, Inc. of Geneseo, Illinois and Natural Alternatives, LLC of Lexington, Kentucky originally filed suit in the Central District of Illinois, that has since been transferred to the Southern District of Indiana, alleging that Defendants, Univar USA, Inc. (“Univar”) of Downers Grove, Illinois and Road Solutions, Inc. of South Bend, Indiana infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,080,330 (the “‘330 Patent”) for “Anti-Freezing and Deicing Composition and Method”. Plaintiffs are seeking damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the court deems proper.

SNI Solutions allegedly develops, manufactures, and sells de-icing agents containing de-sugared sugar beet molasses (“DSBM”) including products covered by the ‘330 Patent (“Covered Products”). State and local governments allegedly utilize DSBM for road de-icing and commercial de-icing applications. Natural Alternatives claims it develops, manufactures, and sells DSBM and the Covered Products as it is the owner by assignment of the ‘330 Patent. SNI Solutions and Natural Alternatives claim they have maintained a licensing agreement for SNI to commercialize the ‘330 Patent since October 21, 2008.

According to the complaint, Univar is or was a direct competitor of the Plaintiffs for the sale of DSBM and that Univar intended at least some of the DSBM it sold was to be combined with materials covered by the ‘330 Patent. Plaintiffs claim that Univar entered into a Letter of Intent with Todd Bloomer, the inventor of the ‘330 Patent, for Univar’s manufacture, marketing, and sale of DSBM in April 2006. Univar allegedly distributed products throughout the United States and Canada advertising the products as being protected by the ‘330 Patent between April 2006 and October 2008.

August 9, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Indiana-Based Way Interglobal Network, LLC Sued for Alleged Patent and Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Furrion Property Holding Limited and Furrion Limited, both of Cyberport Road, Hong Kong (collectively “Furrion”), filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Way Interglobal Network, LLC (“Way Interglobal”) of Elkhart, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent Numbers D839,038 (the “‘038 Patent”), D851,978 (the “‘978 Patent”), D851,979 (the “‘979 Patent”), and D851,990 (the “‘990 Patent”) (collectively the “Furrion Design Patents”). Furrion is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, actual damages, total profits, treble damages, and pre and post judgment interest.

According to the complaint, Furrion was formed in 2007 to create modern-luxury technology for traveling including electronics, appliances, and energy sources for land and water vehicles. Furrion claims it has designed and manufactured its cooktops and ovens for use in the “RV” industry since at least 2013. The 2 in 1 Range Ovens produced and sold by Furrion have an allegedly distinctive and unique ornamental design compared to those traditionally available in the RV industry. Furrion claims the Furrion 2 in 1 Range Oven has had great success since May 2017 and is one of its best-selling products.

Furrion Property Holding Limited claims to be the owner by assignment of the Furrion Design Patents with Furrion Limited being the exclusive license holder for the Furrion Design Patents. According to the complaint, Furrion updates an online list of its products that are protected by Furrion’s U.S. patents giving notice of their patent property rights. The marketing and product materials for the Furrion products also allegedly contain copyright and trademark notices. Furrion claims the 2 in 1 Range Oven User Manual, in particular, can be viewed and/or downloaded online from anywhere by anyone. Furrion further claims it has at least four registered United States Trademarks that have been used in connection with its 2 in 1 Range Ovens, which include U.S. Registration Nos. 5,595,145, 5,487,459, 5,595,144, and 4,563,947 (the “Furrion Marks”).

August 6, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Illinois Institute of Technology and All Cell Technologies, LLC Seek Damages for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, All Cell Technologies, LLC (“All Cell”) and Illinois Institute of Technology (“IIT”), both of Chicago, Illinois, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Workhorse Motor Works Inc. (“WMW”) of Union City, Indiana, and Workhorse Group Inc. (“WGI”) of Loveland, Ohio (collectively “Workhorse”) infringed their rights in United States Patent No. 6,468,689 (the “‘689 Patent”) for “Thermal Management of Battery Systems”, U.S. Patent No. 6,942,944 (the “‘944 Patent”) for “Battery System Thermal Management”, and U.S. Patent No. 8,273,474 (the “‘474 Patent”) for “Battery System Thermal Management”. The Plaintiffs are seeking damages, prejudgment interest, and any further relief that the Court deems proper.

According to the complaint, All Cell utilizes phase change materials (“PCM”) to build blocks adapted to house electrochemical cells. The thermal management blocks used by All Cell allegedly utilize PCM to absorb and conduct heat away from the electrochemical cells to extend the life of the cell and prevent damage or fire to electrochemical batteries. Workhorse is in the business of developing and manufacturing electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles. All Cell claims it worked with Workhorse previously to provide its thermal management blocks for Workhorse’s electric vehicles. Per the complaint, Workhorse stopped purchasing thermal management blocks and electrochemical cells from All Cell in early 2017 and began purchasing them from alternate sources.

It is alleged that the ‘689 Patent, the ‘944 Patent, and the ‘474 Patent are all owned by IIT with All Cell having an exclusive licensing agreement for the use of the patents, giving both parties standing to sue for infringement. As such, IIT and All Cell have collectively brought a patent infringement action against Workhorse. Plaintiffs allege at least claims 1-6 and 8 of the ‘689 Patent, claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 21-23, and 26 of the ‘944 Patent, and claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-12, and 15-19 of the ‘474 Patent have been or are being infringed by Workhorse. IIT and All Cell are claiming infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), knowingly and actively inducing infringement by others pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), and knowingly and actively contributing to the infringement by others pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Plaintiffs are seeking damages to compensate for the infringement but are seeking no less than a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. §284.

July 8, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Auburn, Indiana Company Alleges India-Based Company Infringed Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Rieke LLC of Auburn, Indiana, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Technocraft Industries India Ltd. (“Technocraft”) of India but allegedly doing business in this District, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 8,292,133 (“the ‘133 Patent”) for “Vented Closure Assembly for a Container”, Patent No. D608,641 (“the ‘641 Patent”) for “Closure for a Container With Retaining Ring”, and Patent No. D610,007 (“the ‘007 Patent) for “Closure for a Container With Retaining Ring”. Rieke is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre and post judgment interest.

Rieke claims its product being infringed in this case, the Flexspout II, which is an “anti-glugging pouring dispenser with a removable cap that can be crimped on to drums, barrels, or other containers”, is so unique it has three patents covering the invention. According to the complaint, Technocraft’s Managing Director, Sharad Kumar Saraf (“Saraf”), visits the U.S. frequently to attend trade shows and solicit customers and business partners. Rieke alleges Saraf attended a trade show in April 2018 at which he inspected the Flexspout II sample, asked questions about its patent protection, and that he was informed by Rieke’s representative that it would “protect its innovations and defend itself if Technocraft copied Rieke’s innovative designs.”

According to the complaint, Technocraft makes and offers for sale a foreign-made version of the product to Rieke’s U.S. customers at a much lower price than Rieke offers. After discovering Technocraft’s allegedly infringing actions, Rieke reached out to Saraf by phone and through a follow up cease and desist letter. Technocraft, according to Rieke, refuses to fully comply with the requests in Rieke’s letter and did not provide Rieke with all of the information requested. As such, Rieke filed suit seeking damages for the infringement of the ‘133 Patent, the ‘641 Patent, and the ‘007 Patent.