Indiana Intellectual Property Law News
Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Draper, Inc. of Spiceland, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Vutec Corporation of Coral Springs, Florida infringed the patented “Roller Operated System with Mounting Assembly for Multi-Stage Installation,” Patent No. 6,532,109, and “Screen System,” Patent No. 6,816,308, which were issued by the U.S. Patent Office.
Draper provides consumers with products such as projection screens, window shades, projector lifts and mounts and other home theater accessories. Vutec designs and manufactures projection screens and audio-visual accessories.
In its complaint, filed by patent attorneys for Draper, the following claims are asserted:
• Count I: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC I-C – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,532,109
• Count II: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC III-C – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,532,109
• Count III: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC II-e Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,532,109
• Count IV: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC IV-e – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,532,109
• Count V: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC I-C – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,816,308
• Count VI: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC III-C – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,816,308
• Count VII: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC II-e Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,816,308
• Count VIII: Vutec Motorized Projection Screen Model – LECTRIC IV-e – Patent Infringement of United States Patent No. 6,816,308
Draper asserts that Vutec’s infringement has been willful, deliberate, and with knowledge of Draper’s intellectual property rights and asks that the court:
A. adjudge and decree that U.S. Patent Nos. 6,532,109 and 6,816,308 are valid and enforceable against Vutec and that Vutec has infringed and continues to infringe the patents;
B. grant injunctions enjoining acts of infringement by Vutec, its agents, and those acting in concert with it;
C. enter an award to Draper of such damages as it shall prove at trial against Vutec that are adequate to compensate Draper for said infringement as permitted under the Patent Act;
D. order an award to Draper of up to three times the amount of compensatory damages because of Vutec’s willful infringement and any enhanced damages as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 284;
E. render a finding that this case is “exceptional” and award Draper its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, as provided by 35 U.S.C. § 285;
F. award Draper any profits that Draper lost due to Vutec’s infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,532,109 and 6,816,308; and
G. award Draper pre-judgment and post-judgment interests on damages.
Practice Tip: Deciding simply to ignore a complaint can be a costly error. Failing to present the defendant’s account of the facts and arguments about the proper application of the law can result in the trial court considering only the plaintiff’s side of the story. In other words, if the defendants choose to leave a complaint unanswered, the court may deem the well-pled allegations of the plaintiff to have been admitted by the defendants due to their failure to deny them.
The suit was filed by Thomas S. Reynolds II and Jeremy Adelson of Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC. The case was assigned to Judge Jane Magnus Stinson and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 1:14-cv-01737-JMS-TAB.