Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

January 15, 2015

Indiana Trade Secret Law: Federal Prosecutors Drop All Charges Against Scientists Accused of Theft of Lilly Trade Secrets

Indianapolis, Indiana – All federal criminal charges against Guoqing Cao and Shuyu Li, who were formerly employed by Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”), were recently dropped by federal prosecutors, who stated that “additional information” had been received that altered “the investigative facts initially relied upon by the government” in its case against Cao and Li.

This federal indictment was brought in 2013 in the Southern District of Indiana. Defendants Cao and Li, two doctoral-level scientists, were charged with multiple counts of theft. At issue was intellectual property belonging to Indiana-based Lilly valued at $55 million. Counts one through three of the indictment, as well as counts five through ten, were listed as theft of trade secrets and aiding and abetting. Count four alleged conspiracy to commit theft of trade secrets.

In the initial proceedings, the United States maintained that Defendants were traitors who had conveyed “American trade secrets” – specifically, “crown jewels” in the form of many millions worth of intellectual property belonging to Lilly – to Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd., a company located in Shanghai, China.

January 14, 2015

Trademark Law: TTAB to Hold External Stakeholder Forum

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Alexandria, Virgina – The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) will host an external stakeholder forum (please see below) on January 29, 2015, from 1 to 3 pm, to discuss issues related to its e-filing system or ESTTA (Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals).

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) is in the process of redesigning its IT systems to take advantage of new technology that will allow end-to-end electronic processing of trademark matters. The new system, known as Trademark Next Generation (“TMNG”), will significantly increase the functionality and flexibility of the USPTO’s systems, including those used by TTAB, but the TTAB-related aspects of TMNG, particularly for trial cases, will deploy later than those related to examination and appeals. In the interim, TTAB is considering potential updates to ESTTA that it considers crucial to its stakeholders. The goal of the forum is to gain stakeholder input as to capabilities considered to be critical, both for the purpose of enhancing ESTTA functionality in the near term and to assist TTAB in planning for the aspects of TMNG that will impact TTAB.

Some areas that TTAB has identified for discussion are:Difficulties encountered with attachments to filings, both in terms of pre-filing review and resolution of images in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System (“TTABVUE”) following submission.

• Expansion of list of grounds on the ESTTA cover page for purposes of initiating opposition and cancellation proceedings.

• Modification of the consent motion form to allow filers to control resetting of dates that have not yet lapsed.

• Implementation of a “saved” feature (similar to the one available in the Trademark Electronic Application System) that will allow more than one author to contribute to the filing before submission.

This is only a preliminary list of topics for discussion and the TTAB welcomes any additional suggestions or issues that its stakeholders wish to explore.

The forum will be open to anyone who wishes to attend in person and also will be available in webinar format. The TTAB asks that you register your intent to attend by sending an e-mail with your contact information to TTABRSVP@uspto.gov. Please indicate whether you intend to attend in person or via the web.

Webinar instructions are available here. Additional information is available on the TTAB’s webpage.

January 13, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Federal Circuit Overturns Trial Court’s Award of Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled on the patent infringement litigation between Zimmer of Warsaw, Indiana and Stryker of Kalamazoo, Michigan. The Federal Circuit upheld the jury’s finding that Zimmer had infringed three of Stryker’s patents but overturned the decision of the Western District of Michigan to triple the damage award, reducing the award from $228 million to $70 million, and vacated the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees.

Stryker and Zimmer are the two principal participants in the market for orthopedic pulsed lavage devices. A modern, orthopedic pulsed lavage device is a combination spray-gun and suction-tube, used by medical professionals to clean wounds and tissue during surgery.

In 2010, Stryker Corp, Stryker Puerto Rico, Ltd. and Stryker Sales Corp. (collectively, “Stryker”), sued Zimmer, Inc., Zimmer Surgical, Inc. and Zimmer Orthopaedic Surgical Products of Warsaw, Indiana (collectively, “Zimmer”) alleging that Zimmer’s line of Pulsavac Plus pulsed lavage devices infringed three of Stryker’s patents – U.S. Patent No. 6,022,329 (“the ‘329 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,144,383 (“the ‘383 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,179,807 (“the ‘807 patent”). A jury awarded $70 million in damages and the district court increased that figure by approximately $2.4 million to reflect sales made by Zimmer during a time period that had not been considered by the jury.

Stryker also moved for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284, alleging willful patent infringement by Zimmer. Under § 284, “the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed” at trial. For this determination, the court referred to Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc.. In Read, the Federal Circuit had held that the “paramount determination in deciding to grant enhancement and the amount thereof is the egregiousness of the defendant’s conduct based on all the facts and circumstances.” In evaluating the egregiousness of the defendant’s conduct, courts typically rely on the nine Read factors, which are:

1. whether the infringer deliberately copied the patentee’s ideas or design;

2. whether the infringer investigated the scope of the patent and formed a good faith belief that it was invalid or not infringed;

3. the infringer’s conduct during litigation;

4. the infringer’s size and financial condition;

5. closeness of the case;

6. duration of the infringing conduct;

7. remedial actions, if any, taken by the infringer;

8. the infringer’s motivation for harm; and

9. whether the infringer attempted to conceal its misconduct.

The district court found that all nine Read factors favored substantial enhancement of the jury’s award and trebled both the jury’s award of $70 million and the court’s award of supplemental damages.

In the current opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the jury’s findings that Stryker’s patents were valid and had been infringed by Zimmer, as well as the jury’s award of damages to Stryker but reversed the district court’s judgment that Zimmer’s infringement was willful.

To establish willfulness, the patentee has the burden of showing “by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent.” If and only if the patentee establishes this “threshold objective standard” does the inquiry then proceed to the question of whether the objectively defined risk was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to a party accused of patent infringement.

The Federal Circuit noted that the district court had failed to undertake the required objective assessment of Zimmer’s specific defenses to Stryker’s claims. The Federal Circuit then considered the question of objective recklessness, which “will not be found where the accused infringer’s position is susceptible to a reasonable conclusion of no infringement.” The court held that the objective standard showed that Zimmer had presented reasonable defenses to all of the asserted claims of Stryker’s patents. Consequently, Zimmer was found not to have acted recklessly and the decision to award enhanced damages was reversed.

Because the appellate court reversed the trial court’s determination that the infringement of the patents had been willful – and because district court’s award of attorneys’ fees was based on that determination – the Federal Circuit vacated district court’s finding that the case was exceptional as well as the award of attorneys’ fees and remanded the issue to the trial court for further consideration.

January 9, 2015

High Court Will Decide Whether to Overrule Brulotte Doctrine

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

picture of gavel.png

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case asking whether its decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964), that a licensee’s obligations are absolved after the expiration of a patent, should be overruled. Kimble v. Marvel Ent. Inc., U.S., No. 13-720.

Ninth Circuit Decision

In this case, Kimble held a patent on a glove that allows its wearer to shoot pressurized foam string from the palm, mimicking a gesture of the comic-book hero “Spider-Man.” (Patent No. 5,072,856). Kimble met with Marvel’s predecessor to discuss his glove invention, which was then covered by his pending patent application. When Marvel began manufacturing a similar toy called the “Web Blaster,” Kimble sued in 1997 for patent infringement and for breach of contract based on an alleged oral agreement to compensate him for any use of his ideas.

January 8, 2015

Indiana Trademark Law: If You Have Been Sued for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

How does a trademark infringement lawsuit begin?

A trademark lawsuit begins when the trademark owner files a complaint with a court alleging trademark infringement. Among other things, the complaint names the parties involved and sets forth the allegations that form the basis of the lawsuit. Trademark owners who decide to sue may file their complaint in either state court or federal court, depending on the circumstances. However, in most cases, the trademark owner, as plaintiff, will choose federal court. Even when a plaintiff chooses state court, it may be possible for the defendant to have the case “removed” to federal court.

Frequently, either before or at the time a complaint is filed, the trademark owner or the owner’s trademark attorney may send you a letter or otherwise contact you to make claims about the owner’s trademark rights and demand that you take certain actions, such as ceasing use of your mark.

January 7, 2015

Patent Office Issues 186 Patents To Indiana Citizens in December 2014

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 186 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in December 2014, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

Patent No.		Title
D720,489		Light
D720,433		Faucet spout
D720,343		Stand
8924909		Microelectromechanical system design and layout
8924332		Forecasting hotspots using predictive visual analytics approach
8923670		Molded optical structure for optical transceiver

January 5, 2015

202 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in December 2014

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 202 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in December 2014 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Reg. No.	Word Mark	Click to View
4663945	SMART SUPPORT	LIVE
4663882	ALEXANDER DALLAS	LIVE
4663777	PHASE SEPARATION	LIVE
4663776	FAZE SEPARATION	LIVE
4663633	DIGAROO	LIVE
4663559	DEMAND COMMAND	LIVE

January 2, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Eli Lilly Sues Sandoz Inc. Alleging Infringement of Patented ALIMTA

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – In conjunction with co-counsel, an Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement by Sandoz Inc. of Princeton, New Jersey of ALIMTA®, Patent No. 7,772,209, which was issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

ALIMTA, which is licensed to Lilly, is a chemotherapy agent used for the treatment of various types of cancer. ALIMTA is composed of the pharmaceutical chemical pemetrexed disodium. It is indicated, in combination with cisplatin, (a) for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, or (b) for the initial treatment of locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. ALIMTA also is indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy. Additionally, ALIMTA is indicated for maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after four cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. One or more claims of the ‘209 patent cover a method of administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need thereof that also involves administration of folic acid and vitamin B12.

This Indiana patent infringement lawsuit arises out of the filing by Defendant of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of ALIMTA prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Defendant filed as a part of that ANDA a certification of the type described in Section 505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 55(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), with respect to the patent-in-suit, asserting that the claims of the patent-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of Defendant’s ANDA products.

In its complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, Lilly states that Defendant intends to engage in the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, marketing, distribution, and/or importation of Defendant’s ANDA products and the proposed labeling therefor immediately and imminently upon approval of the ANDA i.e., prior to the expiration of the patent-in-suit. Lilly asserts that Defendant’s actions constitute and/or will constitute infringement of the patent-in-suit, active inducement of infringement of the patent-in-suit, and contribution to the infringement by others of the patent-in-suit.

The complaint lists a single claim: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209. Lilly asks the court for the following relief:

(a) A judgment that Sandoz has infringed the ‘209 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of the ‘209 patent;

(b) A judgment ordering that the effective date of any FDA approval for Sandoz to make, use, offer for sale, sell, market, distribute, or import Sandoz’s ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, be not earlier than the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;

(c) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Sandoz, and all persons acting in concert with Sandoz, from making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing Sandoz’s ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, or the inducement of or contribution to any of the foregoing, prior to the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;

(d) A judgment declaring that making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing of Sandoz’s ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, prior to the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, infringes, will infringe, will actively induce infringement of, and/or will contribute to the infringement by other of the ‘209 patent;

(e) A declaration that this is an exceptional case and an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

(f) An award of Lilly’s costs and expenses in this action.

December 29, 2014

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Bettie Page, LLC Sues Vibes Base

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Bettie Page, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana (“BPL”) sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Vibes Base Enterprises, Inc. of El Monte, California (“Vibes Base”) committed unfair competition under federal, California and Indiana common law. BPL has asked the court for the cancellation of a federal trademark registration belonging to Vibes Base.

BLP claims that it is the exclusive owner of the name, likeness, voice, right of publicity and endorsement, worldwide trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property related to the late model Bettie Page. Among its intellectual property holdings are trademark registrations for BETTIE PAGE, trademark numbers 2,868,613 and 2,868,614 which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Vibes Base develops, manufactures and markets lines of apparel products and accessories under various brand names, including “Bette Paige.” In May 1999, Sand K. Inc. obtained federal trademark registration number 2,244,182 for the mark BETTE PAIGE for women’s clothing. Sand assigned that mark to Vibes Base in 2011.

In March 2014, BPL filed a federal trademark application for the BETTIE PAGE trademark for “computerized on-line retail store services in the field of clothing…” and similar uses. The USPTO refused registration of this trademark on the grounds that a likelihood of confusion existed between BETTIE PAGE, for which Plaintiff had applied, and the trademark BETTE PAIGE, which had previously been registered.

Plaintiff contends that the registration and/or use of the BETTE PAIGE trademark is an illegal use of the Page intellectual property, including the right of publicity.

In this complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark lawyer, the following counts are asserted:

• Count I: Unfair Competition Under 15 U.S.C. §1125(A)
• Count II: Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.
• Count III: Common Law Unfair Competition
• Count IV: Unjust Enrichment
• Count V: Right of Publicity Infringement Under Cal. Civ. Code §3344.1
• Count VI: Request for Declaratory Judgment of No Trademark Infringement
• Count VII: Declaration that Defendant’s Registration is Invalid (Non Compliance with 15 U.S.C. §1052(c))
• Count VIII: Declaration that Defendant’s Registration is Invalid (False Designation of Origin, Sponsorship or Endorsement)

BPL asks the court to cancel Vibes Base’s BETTE PAIGE trademark; for an award of actual damages; for treble damages for willful and/or intentional use of an unauthorized trademark; for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses; to order Vibes Base to destroy or surrender to BPL all unauthorized products, including all products that Vibes Base is able to recall; and, in the alternative, to declare that BPL’s trademark, as contained in its trademark application, is not confusingly similar to the BETTE PAIGE trademark.

December 23, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Sues Amneal on Allegations of Patent Infringement of Axiron

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – In conjunction with co-counsel, an Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, Eli Lilly Export S.A. of Geneva, Switzerland (collectively, “Lilly”) and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd. of West Melbourne, Australia sued for patent infringement in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC of Bridgewater, New Jersey, infringed its patented product Axiron®, for which Plaintiffs claim patent protection under Patent Nos. 8,435,944; 8,419,307; 8,177,449 and 8,807,861, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lilly is engaged in the business of research, development, manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. Acrux is engaged in the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products. They sell their products worldwide. Amneal is a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, markets and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for sale in the United States.

Lilly is the holder of approved New Drug Application No. 022504 for the manufacture and sale of a transdermal testosterone solution made at a concentration of 30 mg/1.5L, which it markets under the trade name “Axiron®.” This drug is used to treat males for conditions associated with a deficiency or absence of endogenous testosterone.

This action relates to the Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) submitted by Amneal to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for approval to market a generic version of Lilly’s Axiron product. Defendant certified to the FDA that, in its opinion, the patents-in-suit were invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the generic version of Axiron described in the ANDA.

Plaintiffs contend that the submission of the ANDA to the FDA constitutes infringement by Defendant of the patents-in-suit. In the complaint, patent lawyers for Lilly and Acrux assert sixteen separate counts related to patent infringement. Among the allegations listed for the patents-in-suit are counts of “Direct Infringement,” “Inducement to Infringe,” “Contributory Infringement” and for declaratory judgment.

The complaint asks for an injunction to stop Defendant from producing the generic version of Axiron until the expiration of Lilly’s patents-in-suit. In addition, Lilly asks that the court declare the patents to be valid and enforceable; that Defendant infringed upon all of the patents-in-suit by, inter alia, submitting Defendant’s ANDA to obtain approval to commercially manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell or import its generic version of the drug into the United States; that Defendant’s threatened acts constitute infringement of the patents-in-suit; that FDA approval of Defendant’s generic drug be effective no sooner than the expiration date of the patent-in-suit that expires last; and that this is an exceptional case. Plaintiffs also ask for costs and attorneys’ fees.