Patent Infringement

September 26, 2019

Furrion, LLC of Elkhart Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

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.

May 28, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: New Berry, Inc. Seeks Damages for Patent Infringement and Trade Secret Misappropriation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, New Berry, Inc., d/b/a Berry Metal Company (“New Berry”) of Harmony, Pennsylvania filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Todd G. Smith (“Smith”) of Grove City, Pennsylvania, and Allan J. MacRae (“MacRae”), and MacRae Technologies, Inc. (“MacRae Technologies”), both of Hayward, California, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 10,222,124 (the “‘124 Patent”) for “Stave with External Manifold” and United States Patent No. 9,121,076 (the “‘076 Patent”) for “Stave and Brick Constrictions Having Refactory Wear Monitors and in Process Thermocouples.” New Berry is seeking actual, compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, pre and post judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees.

According to the complaint, New Berry is the owner and assignee of both the ‘124 Patent, which was filed February 1, 2013 and issued on March 5, 2019, and the ‘076 Patent, which issued on September 1, 2015. New Berry claims that Smith signed an Employment Agreement with New Berry in 1996, which among other things assigned all of Smith’s inventions during his employment to New Berry and prohibited Smith from using or disclosing any trade secrets that pertain to New Berry’s products and services. Smith is listed as the inventor of the ‘124 Patent and a co-inventor of the ‘076 Patent.

New Berry claims that Smith, who left New Berry in 2015, is collaborating with MacRae and MacRae Technologies and has shared New Berry’s trade secrets with them. MacRae filed a patent application November 16, 2017 that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,963,754 (the “’754 Patent”) on May 8, 2018. The complaint alleges MacRae assigned the ‘754 Patent to MacRae Technologies on March 6, 2019. New Berry claims that the “‘124 Patent reads on the staves comprising center manifold technology described and claimed in the ‘754 Patent.”

April 10, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Eli Lilly And Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Back In Court Over Patent Infringement Claims

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli Lilly”) of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. of Hyderabad, Telagana, India, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, (collectively “Dr. Reddy’s”) infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 Patent”). Eli Lilly is seeking judgment that Dr. Reddy’s has infringed the ‘209 patent; that the effective date of any FDA approval for Dr. Reddy’s NDA product be not earlier than the expiration of the ‘209 patent; and for costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, along with any other relief the court may deem just and proper.

The Complaint asserts that Eli Lilly sells ALIMTA ®, an FDA approved product used in combination with Cisplatin to treat patients with specific types of cancer. Eli Lilly claims that it is the assignee of the ‘209 patent, a method patent which was upheld as valid by the Federal Circuit in, Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Dr. Reddy’s and Eli Lilly were engaged in a previous lawsuit concerning Dr. Reddy’s NDA No. 208297 and the ‘209 patent. According to the Complaint in this matter, the court found in the previous lawsuit that the filing of NDA No. 208297 indirectly infringed specific claims of the ‘209 patent and entered final judgment in favor of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly claims that because Dr. Reddy’s did not challenge the validity of the ‘209 patent as a counterclaim or affirmative defense in the previous litigation over the ‘209 patent and NDA No. 208297, Dr. Reddy’s is barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata from doing so in this case.

Dr. Reddy’s has filed an amendment to NDA No. 208297, and the Complaint alleges that the purpose of this amendment was to obtain approval of the product before the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Eli Lilly is claiming infringement of the ‘209 patent based on its belief that Dr. Reddy’s NDA product delivers the same active Pemetrexed moiety as the ‘209 patent. Further, Eli Lilly alleges that Dr. Reddy’s NDA product when used as directed will infringe claims 1-22 of the ‘209 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. As such, Eli Lilly is seeking judgment of infringement, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

March 18, 2019

Indiana Based Delta Faucet Company Sues ALDI, Inc. for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Attorneys for Delta Faucet Company (“Delta”) of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit against ALDI, Inc. (“Aldi”) of Batavia, Illinois alleging that Aldi infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,360,723 (the “’723 Patent”). The ‘723 Patent, titled “Showerhead system with integrated handle,” was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on April 22, 2008. Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction, damages including treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court.

Delta alleges that Aldi’s “Easy Home 2 in 1 Showerhead Kit” infringes at least one claim of the ‘723 Patent. Plaintiff has an exclusive license to the ‘723 Patent from Sidus Technologies and therefore has the right to sue for the infringement of the patent. Delta is seeking damages including reasonably royalties pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(d). Further, Delta is claiming Aldi’s willful patent infringement justifies treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

March 7, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Indiana Craft Company Sued for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ellison Educational Equipment of California, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Heartfelt Creations, Inc. and DOES 1-10 of Goshen, Indiana, infringed its rights in the United States Patent No. 9,079,325 (the ‘325 Patent). Plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, punitive damages, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Ellison was founded in 1977 by a husband and wife who designed the first hand-operated die-cutting machine. Plaintiff has continued to provide innovations in the educational and craft markets ever since and even launched a new craft brand, Sizzix® in 2001. On July 15, 2011, Ellison filed a provisional patent application for a “Chemical-Etched Die Having Improved Registration Means.” The ‘325 Patent was issued stemming from the provisional patent application on July 14, 2015.

Heartfelt is alleged to have created patterns that are turned into chemically-etched dies and are used in conjunction with the method taught by the ‘325 Patent. Further, the company gives demonstrations on how to use the product in violation of the ‘325 Patent and teaches the public how to infringe the ‘325 Patent on Heartfelt’s YouTube channel. Ellison sent a cease and desist letter to Heartfelt based on Ellison’s beliefs Heartfelt was infringing the ‘325 Patent on December 21, 2018.

Plaintiff is claiming direct patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) with enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Second, it is claiming inducement of infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Finally, Ellison is claiming contributory infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

March 4, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Canadian Manufacturer Files Patent Infringement Suit in the Northern District of Indiana

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tyler Research Corporation (“TRC”), a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Alberta, Canada, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Envacon, Inc., a Canadian corporation with a facility in Lafayette, Indiana, Keirnan Bozman, an individual residing in Alberta, Canada, and JKKB Holdings Corporation of Alberta, Canada, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,273,053 (the “‘053 Patent”). Plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, costs, expenses, both prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

TRC, Bozman, and non-party, Joseph Krepela, entered into an exclusive licensing agreement granting TRC the exclusive right to manufacture Bozman and Krepela’s innovative engine shut off valves (the “Shut Off Valves”) on November 11, 1999. For consideration under the licensing agreement, TRC assisted with the design and completed development of the Shut Off Valves and provided employment to Bozman and Krepela. The licensing agreement did not limit TRC’s rights geographically and TRC’s exclusive right was to be in place so long as any patent rights of Bozman and Krepela existed in reference to the Shut Off Valves.

Bozman and Krepela were to put forth their best efforts in obtaining patent protection in Canada and the United States for the Shut Off Valves. Just short of four months after the exclusive licensing agreement with TRC was signed, Bozman and Krepela assigned their rights to the Shut Off Valves and the exclusive licensing agreement to JKKB. The very next day, JKKB filed for patent protection in the United States and Canada for the Shut Off Valves. The ‘053 Patent issued on August 14, 2001, with TRC holding the exclusive license to manufacture the Shut Off Valves.

Plaintiff exclusively manufactured the Shut Off Valves from 2001 until 2004, when it decided to outsource some of the manufacturing steps to Envacon, pursuant to the exclusive licensing agreement. Envacon, even before they began manufacturing some parts of the Shut Off Valves, had marketed and sold the completed Shut Off Valves for TRC and paid TRC’s parent corporation for TRC’s manufacturing services. TRC and Envacon operated out of the same premises from November 23, 1999 until April 16, 2011 and as such, TRC was able to maintain oversight, direction, and control over Envacon’s actions and involvement in manufacturing the Shut Off Valves.

Without giving prior notice, Envacon abandoned the space it shared with TRC on April 16, 2011. As TRC could no longer provide the necessary control and oversight over the manufacturing after Envacon left, Envacon was no longer authorized to manufacture the Shut Off Valves. TRC claims that Envacon, Bozman, and JKKB have all participated in the manufacturing of Shut Off Valves that infringe at least Claims 4, 14, and 15 of the ‘053 Patent or have conspired to deprive TRC of its rights under the exclusive licensing agreement. Plaintiff is claiming patent infringement against Envacon and Bozman, civil conspiracy against all Defendants, tortious interference against Envacon and Bozman, and civil conspiracy for tortious interference with a contractual relationship against Bozman and Envacon.

TRC of its rights under the exclusive licensing agreement. Plaintiff is claiming patent infringement against Envacon and Bozman, civil conspiracy against all Defendants, tortious interference against Envacon and Bozman, and civil conspiracy for tortious interference with a contractual relationship against Bozman and Envacon.