Patent Infringement

December 17, 2018

Indiana Patent Litigation: Indiana Based Company, Engineered by Schildmeier, Seeks Declaratory Judgment of Patent and Trade Dress Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Engineered by Schildmeier, LLC of Anderson, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Amazing Parts Warehouse (d/b/a several different names) of Lexington, Kentucky, and Wuhn Xuelang Auto Parts Co., Ltd. of China, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. D 816,584 (“the ‘584 Patent”) for a “Pair of Bed Rail Stake Pocket Covers”. Plaintiff is seeking judgment including damages, pre and post-judgment interests and costs.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have been offering to sell products on Amazon, eBay, and other various sites since February 2018. Amazon has taken down the advertisements when shown the ‘584 Patent. After a bit of time, Amazing Parts Warehouse then re-advertises the same product under a different dba. Amazon removes the new advertisements as they are reported and the cycle repeats almost monthly. The advertisements on eBay have not been removed as eBay refuses to act on validity of patents without Court direction. Plaintiff continues to send Cease and Desist letters to Defendants through Amazon and eBay as well as contact with their websites and the U.S. Postal Service.

Count I of the Complaint asserts federal patent infringement as the Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ bed rail stake pocket covers are as they claim, not only identical, but substantially the same leading to customer confusion. Count II claims trade dress infringement in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The third count seeks declaratory judgment of both the design patent and trade dress validity. Next, Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment of infringement and validity of trade dress. The final count asserts unfair competition under Indiana state law. Plaintiff claims that they have lost nearly $100,000 in lost profits since the Defendants began selling their counterfeit products in February and they continue to lose a minimum of $3,000 in profits per week.

August 31, 2018

Indiana Patent Litigation: Indiana Corporation Sued for Patent Infringement Involving Programmable Security Systems

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, InVue Security Products Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Mobile Tech, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Technologies Inc. and MTI, formerly known as Merchandising Technologies, Inc. of Hillsboro, Oregon, but incorporated in Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 10,062,266, (the “‘266 patent”) for a “Programmable Security System and Method for Protecting Merchandise”. Plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, judgment awarding InVue a reasonable royalty, prejudgment interest, and other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

Chief executive officers for both parties met in person on April 11, 2018 to discuss the defendant’s Intellikey 3.0, its Gateway products, and other potentially infringing items “Accused Items”. The plaintiff provided defendant with a copy of at least Claim 1 of the pending ‘266 patent, informing them that the Intellikey 3.0 would infringe the claims of the ‘266 patent when issued. The application for the ‘266 patent published on August 16, 2018 and the ‘266 patent issued on August 28, 2018, just before the Complaint was filed.

The first cause of action in the Complaint is for direct infringement of the ‘266 patent as MTI manufactures, offers for sale, sells, imports, and/or uses the Accused Items. Second, contributory infringement of the ‘266 patent is alleged as the Accused Items are not staple articles of commerce, are not suitable for a substantial non-infringing use, and are especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘266 patent. Third, infringement by inducement because the defendant sells the Accused Items to customers with the intent that they will use and operate them in a manner that infringes the ‘266 patent. Finally, plaintiffs claim that defendants should be held liable for pre-issuance damages as they were aware and had actual notice of the patent application after it published.

July 6, 2018

Indiana Patent Litigation: Patent Infringement for a System for Transmitting Video Images over a Computer Network to a Remote Receiver Alleged in New Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Secure Cam, LLC of Sheridan, Wyoming originally filed suit in the Northern District of California alleging that Defendant, Project Nursery, LLC of San Francisco, California infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,257,158, (“the ‘158 Patent”) for “System for Transmitting Video Images over a Computer Network to a Remote Receiver”. As of June 21, 2018 this case has been transferred to the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff is seeking damages, costs, expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant’s face recognition readers and license plate recognition cameras that they manufacture, import into the United States, or offer for sale, and/or sell infringe at least Claim 12 of the ‘158 Patent. Other products alleged to infringe the ‘158 Patent include: Project Nursery 5” HD Dual Connect Wi-Fi Baby Monitor System, Project Nursery 4.3 Baby Monitor System with 2 Digital Zoom Cameras, Project Nursery Video Baby Monitor System with Digital Zoom Camera, Project Nursery 5” High Definition Baby Monitor System with 1.5” Mini Monitor, Project Nursery 4.3” Baby Monitor System with 1.5” Mini Monitor, and Project Nursery 4.3” Baby Monitor System. In the Complaint, plaintiffs point out seven separate elements included in the allegedly infringing products that are all elements in Claim 12 of the ‘158 Patent.

July 5, 2018

Indiana Patent Litigation: U.S. District Court Rules in Favor of Eli Lilly in Alitma Patent Infringement Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Company 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, infringed its rights in U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 Patent”).

The ‘209 Patent at issue here is a method patent for administering pemetrexed disodium, a chemotherapy drug, with vitamins, the combination of which is marketed as ALITMA® by Lilly. This invention helps to solve the toxicity issue in chemotherapy patients being treated with pemetrexed. The particular regimen of vitamin and folic acid are important for the pretreatment of these patients. As of December 2015, Dr. Reddy’s informed Lilly that it had submitted a FDA New Drug Application for a product that would be marketed as a competing product to ALITMA®.

The first issue the Court had to decide was whether Lilly was barred from asserting the doctrine of equivalents under prosecution history estoppel. The Court held that Lilly had not surrendered the equivalent in question because their decision to use the choice pemetrexed salt was tangential to the reasons for the amendment. The choice to narrow was simply to overcome a rejection in view of a prior art article about a different antifolate, methotrexate.

June 15, 2018

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Ruling by Indiana Southern District Declining Award of Attorney Fees

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Stone Basket Innovations, LLC of Austin, Texas, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas which was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Cook Medical, LLC of Bloomington, Indiana, infringed Patent No. 6,551,327 (“‘327 Patent”), Endoscopic Stone Extraction Device with Improved Basket, issued by the US Patent Office.

The initial Complaint for this case was filed on April 8, 2015. Defendant served their invalidity contentions in October 2015 and deposed the ‘327 patent’s inventor in January of 2016. During the deposition, the inventor stated in regards to an addition to overcome an examiner’s rejection, “I realize there is nothing novel about it.” Defendant then petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review (IPR) of all the claims. The District Court case was stayed pending the outcome of the petition for an IPR based off a joint motion.

After the IPR was instituted in September 2016, Plaintiff offered to license the ‘327 patent to Defendant for $150,000.00. Negotiations fell through and the settlement did not occur. Plaintiff then filed a motion requesting an adverse judgment in the IPR proceeding in December 2016 and moved to dismiss the District Court case with prejudice, both of which were granted.

May 31, 2018

New Jersey Patent Litigation: Warsaw, Indiana Based Biomed Company Awarded $13 Million in Patent Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Jersey – In February of 2005, Attorneys for Plaintiff, Howmedica Osteonics Corp., of Mahwah, New Jersey filed suit in the District Court of New Jersey alleging that Defendants, Zimmer, Inc. of Warsaw, Indiana, Centerpulse Orthopedics, Inc. of Austin, Texas, and Smith & Nephew, Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,174,934 (“the ‘934 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”, United States Patent No. 6,372,814 (“the ‘814 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”, United States Patent No. 6,664,308 (“the 308 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”, and United States Patent No. 6,818,020 (“the ‘020 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”. Plaintiff sought judgment for damages including interest and costs, treble damages, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff is a corporation that develops, manufactures, and distributes orthopedic products, generally used in hip and knee procedures and other bone replacement procedures. Defendant is a corporation based in Warsaw, Indiana, that also focuses on products for joint and extremity replacements.

May 3, 2018

Indiana Patent Litigation: Texas Home Goods Store Sues Menards Over Cutting Board Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Dexas International, LTD., of Coppel, Texas filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Menard, Inc., of Eau Claire, Wisconsin infringed its rights in United States Patent No. D563,739 (“the ‘739 Patent”) for “Cutting Board With Snap-In Pop Strainer”. Plaintiff is seeking an injunction, lost profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and destruction of infringing items.

Plaintiff is a Texas-based corporation specializing in manufacturing kitchen gadgets and pet care items. Defendant is a Wisconsin-based corporation that owns and operates large-scale hardware and home improvement stores across the country.

April 5, 2018

Indiana Patent Litigation: Texas Pharmaceutical Company Sues Indiana-Based Roche

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Blue Sky Networks, LLC of Plano, Texas filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Roche Diabetes Care, Inc., of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed its rights in United States Patent Nos. 6,484,027, (“the ‘027 Patent”), 6,865,372, (“the ‘372 Patent”), 8,265,691, (“the ‘691 Patent”), 8,346,169, (“the ‘169 Patent”), and 8,792,828 (“the ‘828 Patent”). Plaintiff is seeking judgment, damages, and attorneys’ fees.

According to the complaint, “The Asserted Patents are directed to wireless mobile devices, such as handsets, peripherals, and computing devices, that operate via wireless short-range direct communication with other wireless devices. Such devices may also be enabled for simultaneous operation on a wireless network…and wireless short-range direct communication with other wireless devices.”

February 26, 2018

Indiana Patent Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Thrush Co., Inc. of Peru, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Wessels Company of Greenwood, Indiana infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 8,177,975 (“the ‘975 Patent”) for “Apparatus for Removing Air and/or Debris from a Flow of Liquid”. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, ascertainable damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff is an Indiana corporation that owns the rights to the ‘975 Patent. The patent describes a device that filters air and debris out of liquid flowing through a pipe. Plaintiff sells the device throughout the country and Indiana.

January 24, 2018

Indiana Patent Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Vandor Corporation, of Richmond, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Matthews International Corp., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania infringed its rights on United States Patent No. 9,649,240 (“the ‘240 Patent”) titled “Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Sides,” and United States Patent No. 8,375,535 (the ‘535 patent), titled “Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Features.” Plaintiff is seeking judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of both patents. Both patents describe caskets and cremation containers to be used in cremation and other funeral services. The caskets include sides and edges that fold down. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sells a product named “Matthews Cremation Fold-Down Rental Insert” that infringes upon claims of both patents.