Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

March 17, 2014

Indiana Patent Infringement Litigation: Eli Lilly Sues Numerous Defendants

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana (“Lilly”) filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against multiple defendants asserting infringement of Patent Nos. 5,288,726, “Tetrahydrothienopyridine Derivatives, Furo and Pyrrolo Analogs Thereof and Their Preparation and Uses for Inhibiting Blood Platelet Aggregation,” 8,569,325, “Method of Treatment with Coadministration of Aspirin and Prasugrel” and 8,404,703, “Medicinal Compositions Containing Aspirin,” which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

In a 101-page complaint, Indiana patent counsel for Plaintiffs Lilly; Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd.; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.; and Ube Industries, Ltd. sued alleging patent infringement by more than thirty Defendants. The Defendants are: Accord Healthcare, Inc. USA; Accord Healthcare, Inc.; Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC; Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC; Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. India Pvt. Ltd.; Aurobindo Pharma Limited; Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc.; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd; Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc.; Glenmark Generics Inc., USA; Glenmark Generics Ltd.; Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.; Hetero USA Inc.; Hetero Labs Limited; Hetero Labs Limited Unit V; Hetero Drugs Ltd.; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Mylan Inc.; Mylan Laboratories Limited (these three companies are, collectively, “Mylan”); Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc.; Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.; Sun Pharma Global FZE; Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd.; Sun Pharma Global Inc.; Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.; Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Actavis plc; Actavis, Inc.; Actavis Pharma, Inc.; Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (d/b/a Zydus Cadila). Defendants hail from various areas of the world, including India, the United Arab Emirates, the British Virgin Islands, Israel, Ireland and the United States.

This complaint asserts patent infringement arising out of the filing by Defendants of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”s) with the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of two pharmaceutical products – Effient® 5mg and Effient® 10mg tablets (pictured above) – prior to the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 5,288,726 (the “‘726 patent”), 8,404,703 (the “‘703 patent”) and 8,569,325 (the “‘325 patent”), which cover the two Effient® products and/or methods of using Effient® products and for which Lilly claims an exclusively license.

Effient® products were approved by the FDA for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in certain patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are to be managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, or angioplasty). Effient® products contain prasugrel hydrochloride, which is also known as 5-[(1RS)-2-cyclopropyl-1-(2-fluorophenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridin-2-yl acetate hydrochloride or 2-acetoxy-5-(alpha-cyclopropylcarbonyl-2-fluorobenzy1)-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridine hydrochloride, and is covered by the ‘726 patent.

The instructions accompanying Effient® products state that patients taking Effient® products should also take aspirin. The use of Effient® products in combination with aspirin for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with ACS who are to be managed with PCI is allegedly covered by the claims of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.

Defendants are, in general, accused of infringing the patents-in-suit by including with their products instructions for use that substantially copy the instructions for Effient® products, including instructions for administering the Defendants’ products with aspirin as claimed in the ‘703 and ‘325 patents. Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants know that the instructions that will accompany the Defendants’ Products will induce and/or contribute to others using the Defendants’ Products in the manner set forth in the instructions.

Plaintiffs also contend that Defendants specifically intend that health care providers, and/or patients will use the Defendants’ Products in accordance with the instructions provided by Defendants to directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents. In doing so, state Plaintiffs, Defendants will actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.

The complaint, filed by an Indiana patent attorney, lists a total of fifty counts. All Defendants are accused of infringement of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents. Declaratory judgment of infringement of these patents is sought against all Defendants. Additionally, claims of infringement of, and a request for declaratory judgment regarding, the ‘726 patent are made against Mylan.

Plaintiffs ask the court for judgment:

• That all Defendants, either individually or collectively, have infringed or will infringe one or more claims of the ‘703 patent;
• That all Defendants, either individually or collectively, have infringed or will infringe one or more claims of the ‘325 patent;
• That Mylan, either individually or collectively, has infringed or will infringe one or more claims of the ‘726 patent;
• That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B), Defendants be permanently enjoined from making, using, selling or offering to sell any of the Defendants’ accused products within the United States, or, where applicable, importing accused products into the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents;
• That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the effective date of any approval of any ANDAs under § 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(j)) shall not be earlier than the later of the expiration dates of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions;
• That the ‘703 patent remains valid and enforceable;
• That the ‘325 patent remains valid and enforceable;
• That the ‘726 patent remains valid and enforceable;
• If any Defendant commercially makes, uses, sells or offers to sell any accused product within the United States, or, where applicable, imports any accused product into the United States, prior to the expiration of either of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions, that Plaintiffs be awarded monetary damages for those infringing acts to the fullest extent allowed by law and be awarded prejudgment interest based on those monetary damages;
• If Mylan commercially makes, uses, sells or offers to sell any accused product within the United States, or, where applicable, imports any accused product into the United States, prior to the expiration of the ‘726 patent, including any extensions, that Plaintiffs be awarded monetary damages for those infringing acts to the fullest extent allowed by law and be awarded prejudgment interest based on those monetary damages;
• That the case be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285; and
• That Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

Practice Tip: Lilly is not an infrequent litigant. This may be in part due to the fact that the company is facing a significant patent cliff. Its patent for a former top product, the antipsychotic Zyprexa – which once generated $5 billion in annual revenues – expired in 2011. Its top-selling drug of 2013, the antidepressant Cymbalta, lost patent protection last year. The patent on blockbuster Evista, a drug for breast cancer and osteoporosis, expires this month.

March 14, 2014

Meeting on Notice and Takedown System to be Held

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – A public meeting to focus on improving the operation of the notice and takedown system under the DMCA will be held on March 20, 2014.

DOC Picture.jpg The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force (“IPTF”) will hold the first meeting of the public multistakeholder forum on improving the operation of the notice and takedown system for removing infringing content from the Internet under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. The meeting was called for in the Commerce Department’s Green Paper on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy released last year. The IPTF is a joint effort between the USPTO and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”).

The goal of the multistakeholder forum is to identify best practices and/or produce voluntary agreements for improving the operation of the DMCA notice and takedown system. The IPTF plans to hold several additional meetings throughout the year. The initial meeting will focus on identifying concrete topics to be addressed by participants, and to discuss and make decisions about the process for the forum’s ongoing work. The IPTF aims to have participation from a wide variety of the notice and takedown system’s current users, including right holders and individual creators, service providers, and any other stakeholders that are directly affected – such as consumer and public interest representatives, technical and engineering experts, and companies in the business of identifying infringing content.

March 13, 2014

Indiana Court of Appeals Finds Noncompetition Agreement Overly Broad and Unenforceable

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Court of Appeals of Indiana has affirmed the decision of the Marion Superior Court to deny injunctive relief to Clark’s Sales & Service, Inc. (“Clark’s”) of Indianapolis, Indiana in its suit against John D. Smith (“Smith”) of Indiana and Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. (“Ferguson”) of Newport News, Virginia.

In 1998, Smith began working for Clark’s, a company that sells and services appliances in the builder-distributor market in Indiana. In 2004, after one of Clark’s high-level managers left for a competitive position at another company, Clark’s had Smith and various other employees sign a written employment agreement containing both a confidentiality clause and a noncompetition agreement.

Smith resigned his position at Clark’s on April 13, 2012 but, before doing so, he took copies of Clark’s sales records from 2010 and 2011, including customer and builder contact information, the price of materials sold and the costs and profit margins of Clark’s. On April 18, 2012, he accepted an offer of employment with Ferguson, a nearby competitor. In his new position, he solicited business from various customers of Clark’s.

Indiana attorneys for Clark’s sued to enforce the confidentiality and noncompetition provisions of the agreement entered into with Smith. The trial court concluded that the restrictive covenant that Clark’s drafted was overly broad and unreasonable, and denied Clark’s motion for a preliminary injunction. From that order, this interlocutory appeal was brought.

On appeal, Clark’s challenged the trial court’s ruling, calling it clearly erroneous. It claimed that the noncompetition agreement was not unreasonable and unenforceable. Clark’s also argued that, even if the noncompetition agreement were unreasonable and unenforceable as written, the court should apply the “blue-pencil doctrine” to make whatever modifications were necessary to render the covenant reasonable and enforceable.

The Indiana appellate court first discussed whether Clark’s had a legitimate and protectable interest, defined as “some reason why it would be unfair to allow the employee to compete with the former employer.” Indiana courts have held that “the advantageous familiarity and personal contact which employees derive from dealing with an employer’s customers are elements of an employer’s ‘good will’ and are a protectible interest which may justify a restraint.” The appellate court held that, while the trial court had not explicitly stated that it had found such a protectable interest, such a finding was implicit in its ruling. The appellate court ruled that the trial court had not erred by determining that Clark’s had established this element.

The Indiana appellate court then evaluated the reasonableness of the restrictions. Both parties agreed that the two-year limit was reasonable and valid. They disagreed, however, regarding the reasonableness of the noncompetition agreement as to the scope of activities and geographic area restricted.

The appellate court held that the one type of activities prohibited – Clark’s restrictions against contact with any of its past or prospective customers – was vague and too broad. The agreement also prohibited not merely those activities which Smith had engaged in during his tenure at Clark’s, but also prohibited him from providing any services competitive to “those offered by” Clark’s. That provision was held to be “overly broad, onerous, and an undue restriction on Smith’s economic freedom” and, thus, unenforceable.

The restrictions placed on the geographic area in which Smith could work were also evaluated. Those restrictions included working “in any state in which Gregg [Smith’s previous employer] does business, as well as working for any other entity providing services competitive to Clark’s in Marion County, any county contiguous to Marion County, any county in Indiana in which Clark’s has at least one customer, the State of Indiana, or within a fifty-mile radius of Smith’s principal office with Clark’s, which was in Castleton.” The appellate court held that it was “unquestionable that the expansive geographic scope . . . is unreasonable as written.”

Finally, the court addressed the “blue-pencil doctrine.” This doctrine allows a court to strike unreasonable restrictions in a covenant not to compete, provided that they are divisible. However, this doctrine does not extend to allow a court to create a reasonable restriction, as this would subject the parties to an agreement that they have not made.

The court held that blue pencil doctrine was inapplicable, as the terms that Clark’s proposed be stricken had been written as merely a small part of an indiscrete whole. Moreover, it held that, even if it were to strike the text that Clark’s had proposed be stricken, the restrictions would still be overly broad and in excess of what would be required to protect Clark’s legitimate business interest.

The Indiana appellate court affirmed the trial court, holding that its judgment was not clearly erroneous.

Practice Tip #1: To demonstrate the reasonableness of a noncompetition agreement, the employer must first show that it has a legitimate interest to be protected by the agreement. The employer also bears the burden of showing that the agreement is reasonable in terms of the time, activities, and geographic area restricted.

Practice Tip #2: Covenants not to compete are in restraint of trade and are not favored by the law. If a court applying Indiana law finds that portions of a noncompetition agreement are unreasonable, it may not modify the restrictions to make them reasonable. Doing so would subject the parties to an agreement they had not made. The court may, however, employ the “blue pencil” rule to “cross out” portions deemed unreasonable while leaving any separable and reasonable portions intact.

Practice Tip #3: This is at least the second time that the Indiana Court of Appeals has heard an interlocutory appeal on this non-compete litigation. In a prior appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, which had improperly concluded that the noncompetition agreement failed for lack of consideration. We blogged about that appeal here.

Practice Tip #4: While Appellant-Plaintiff here argued that broad drafting was permissible and simply a “good faith effort to provide itself the greatest level of protection allowed by law,” the Indiana appellate court did not agree. Instead, it called the practice “unsavory” and reminded Clark’s that “Indiana law strongly discourages employers’ attempts to draft unreasonably broad and oppressive covenants.”

March 12, 2014

Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit on Burden of Proof in Patent Infringement Litigation Brought Under the Declaratory Judgment Act

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – An issue in the patent infringement dispute between medical-device giant Medtronic, Inc. and Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC (“Mirowski”) was heard by the United States Supreme Court. In question was the placement of the burden of proof in patent infringement litigation that seeks a declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the burden of proof of infringement rests with the patent holder even if the lawsuit is filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

After hearing arguments by patent attorneys for each side, the district court had held that Mirowski, the party asserting infringement, had the burden of proving patent infringement; it found that Mirowski had not met that burden.

The Federal Circuit reversed. It concluded that, when a patentee (Mirowski) is a declaratory judgment defendant and is also prevented from asserting an infringement counterclaim by the existence of a license between the parties – as Mirowski was – the party seeking the declaratory judgment (Medtronic) bears the burden of proving that it had not infringed the patent.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The question before the Court was “whether the burden of proof shifts when the patentee is a defendant in a declaratory judgment action, and the plaintiff (the potential infringer) seeks a judgment that he does not infringe the patent.”

Mirowski argued that it would be unfair to place a burden of proof on the party that was not seeking relief. The Intellectual Property Owners Association supported Mirowski’s position, contending that a failure to shift the burden of proof in such cases would lead to abuse of declaratory judgment actions, as the risks and burdens of patent infringement litigation would be placed entirely on the patent owner.

In contrast, Medtronic argued that placing the burden on a licensee would create an unacceptable choice between finality and fairness, as it would require the judicial system to permit a party to relitigate issues that had been previously decided under a different burden of proof.

The Supreme Court reversed the shifted burden of proof imposed by the Federal Circuit. The Court declared that it saw “no convincing reason why burden of proof law should favor the patentee” simply because it was filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Practice Tip #1: It is settled law that, in patent infringement litigation, a patentee normally bears the burden of proof. Because 1) the operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is only procedural and leaves substantive rights unchanged and 2) the burden of proof is a substantive aspect of a claim, this holding by the Supreme Court is not unanticipated.

Practice Tip #2: When drafting the terms of a license, patent owners should consider adding provisions to deter potential challenges by licensees.

Practice Tip #3: We have also blogged recently about another declaratory judgment case involving Mirowski, which is being heard in the Southern District of Indiana.

March 10, 2014

Southern District of Indiana to Begin Pilot Program

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Southern District of Indiana is beginning a pilot program that will allow active hyperlinks to be included within e-filed and court-issued documents. Hyperlinks will allow immediate access by the reader to the referenced materials, i.e., case management and electronic court filing system (“CM/ECF”) filings, case and statute citations, attachments, and exhibits.

During the initial phase of the pilot program, the court will be issuing a limited number of entries and orders containing hyperlinks. The hyperlinks may be page-specific. For instance, an order may contain a hyperlink to a specific page of a specific affidavit, which will be accessible with one click. Access to court-issued documents will continue to be available via the Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) email system.

The next, and most important, phase of the pilot program will involve a small group of attorneys e-filing documents with hyperlinks. When utilized by attorneys, hyperlinks in briefs and other court filings will provide quick, easy, and pinpoint access to particular sections of a case, or to specific filings in the court’s record, adding another level of persuasion to their writing. Hyperlinking will also be a great benefit to the court, allowing members of the judiciary and their staff to quickly and easily review case-supporting materials.

March 7, 2014

Supreme Court Grants Review for Four Intellectual Property Lawsuits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review the judgments of several Courts of Appeals in four intellectual property disputes. The cases included two patent cases (regarding joint-infringement liability and indefiniteness invalidity), a copyright case (concerning public performances), and a case which may have implications under trademark law (whether a Lanham Act claim is barred by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act).

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., Docket No. 12-786, is a patent case involving technology for managing web images and video. Appellate attorneys for Limelight Networks brought the case to the Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, in the case of method patents, multiple parties could be found to jointly infringe on a patent. The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held by a 6-5 vote that “all the steps of a claimed method must be performed in order to find induced infringement, but that it is not necessary to prove that all the steps were committed by a single entity.”

The question raised for review by the Supreme Court is whether a defendant may be liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even if none has committed direct infringement under § 271(a). Patent attorneys for technology companies including Google Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Oracle Corporation, Red Hat, Inc., and SAP America, Inc. filed a brief in support of Limelight.

March 6, 2014

Patent Office Issues 127 Patents To Indiana Citizens in February 2014

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 127 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2014, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

PAT. NO.		Title
D700,366		Wall panel
D700,365		Wall panel
D700,364		Wall panel
D700,333		Intraspinous process spacer implant
8,659,374		Solenoid coil with reverse turn

February 28, 2014

PC Ruehl Engineering Sues AM General for Patent Infringement of Humvee Frame Rail Assembly

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Indiana and Wisconsin patent attorneys for Phillip C. Ruehl of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin (“Ruehl”) and PC Ruehl Engineering, Inc. of Wisconsin (“PC Ruehl”) filed patent infringement litigation in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that AM General LLC of South Bend, Indiana infringed Boxed Frame Member and Method for Manufacture, Patent No. 8,484,930 B2 (the “‘930 Patent”), which has been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

From 1969 to 2001, Ruehl was employed as an automotive frame chassis engineer. In his various positions, including as a manager of product design, Ruehl’s responsibilities included contributing to the designs of many light truck and sport utility vehicle frames.

Since the early 1980s, AM General has manufactured for the United States military, and eventually for the militaries of many other countries around the world, a High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (or HMMWV, also known as the Humvee).

In November 2004, an employee of AM General allegedly contacted Ruehl to inquire if Ruehl was interested in consulting on a project to upgrade the frame rails for AM General’s Humvee line of trucks. The employee described the frame rail project objectives to Ruehl and sent drawings to Ruehl showing the current side rail design.

From December 2004 through February 2005, Ruehl indicates that he studied the drawings and began to consider ways to meet AM General’s objectives so that he could add value if and when AM General decided it wanted to retain him as a consultant. He contends that he was neither under contract with AM General nor was he being paid or otherwise compensated by AM General during this time.

Ruehl states in his complaint that he began to consider several potential solutions which he believed to be the most efficient means of solving the stated challenges. He sketched up many of these potential solutions so that he would remember each and be able to explain how he would proceed with each idea if he were asked. One of the new solutions Ruehl conceived of and sketched was a design that solved many of the unique dimensional and quality problems that AM General was experiencing with its current frame rail design (the “Invention”).

AM General allegedly was never invoiced and never paid Ruehl for the work he did during this preparation period. Instead, Ruehl states that AM General specifically told him that the rail design program itself was tentative, and that if it did go forward, he would not be “on board” and under contract until he had met with representatives of AM General and signed additional documents at AM General’s Michigan facility.

In February 2005, having allegedly already conceived of the Invention, PC Ruehl received from AM General a purchase order dated February 24, 2005 for “engineering support for HMMWV frame rail feasibility study.” Under this purchase order, AM General asked Ruehl to provide engineering support for a feasibility study and stated that PC Ruehl would be paid $150 per hour for Ruehl’s efforts. Ruehl signed the purchase order on behalf of PC Ruehl.

In March 2005, Ruehl drew a more detailed, presentable, and buildable sketch illustrating the Invention in its preferred embodiment, and had the owner of a Milwaukee-area prototype shop confirm its manufacturability, witness it, and agree to build a small “proof-of-concept” sample. Ruehl states that he did not bill, and was not paid by, AM General for this work.

Ruehl then brought the Invention to a meeting with AM General. Before beginning the substance of the meeting, Ruehl states that he (on behalf of PC Ruehl) and AM General signed a Mutual Confidentiality Agreement. This agreement provided that all confidential information disclosed by Ruehl to AM General and by AM General to Ruehl would “remain the property of [the] Disclosing Party[.]” “Confidential Information” was defined in the agreement as “[a]ny information that has value to the Disclosing Party and is not generally known to its competitors,” and specifically included “ideas, concepts, plans,…drawings,…products, processes[.]” Moreover, the agreement stated, “Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as granting or conferring to Receiving Party any patent rights or licenses from Disclosing Party either expressly or by implication[.]”

Following this agreement, Ruehl worked with AM General to provide engineering support services for the frame rail feasibility study. Ruehl was paid for this work pursuant to the February 2005 purchase order. Ruehl also provided additional engineering support services to AM General under an April 2005 purchase order. Ruehl contends that AM General never paid him or PC Ruehl for the transfer of ownership of Ruehl’s Invention.

On November 1, 2005, Ruehl filed a patent application on the Invention, Provisional Patent Application No. 60/732,451. Ruehl followed that application with a non-provisional patent application, Patent Application Serial No. 11/279,321, on April 11, 2006.

AM General filed its own patent application on Ruehl’s Invention, filing Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 60/764,045 on February 1, 2006, and non-provisional patent application Serial No. 11/670,217, on February 1, 2007.

On November 1, 2005, the day that Ruehl filed the provisional patent application, he informed AM General of the filing and of his expectation of receiving royalties for the use of his Invention. Conversely, AM General has purportedly advised Ruehl that it is AM General’s position that Ruehl had an obligation to assign his rights in the Invention to AM General.

On July 16, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘930 Patent to Ruehl. Ruehl now contends that AM General has incorporated Ruehl’s Invention into the frame rail assembly it is now using for its Humvee which it is manufacturing and selling to the United States Military and to others.

At issue in this Indiana patent litigation are the following:

• Count I: Infringement of the ‘930 Patent, and
• Count II: Breach of Contract.

Ruehl and PC Ruehl, via patent counsel, ask the court for a judgment that AM General has directly infringed and continues to infringe the ‘903 Patent; damages, including treble damages; a judgment that AM General’s infringement has been willful; an injunction enjoining AM General from infringing the ‘930 Patent; a declaration that this case is exceptional; costs and fees.

Practice Tip: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provides for the recordation of assignments of applications, patents, and registrations. The patent assignment abstract of title shows that an interest in this patent was assigned from Ruehl to AM General in 2008. In 2010, another assignment of this patent was executed from AM General to Ruehl. In 2011, an assignment from AM General to itself was filed to correct error. Finally, in 2013, a second assignment to correct error, this time to and from Ruehl, was executed.

February 27, 2014

James Dean, Inc.’s Indiana Trademark Infringement Litigation Against Twitter Removed to Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Illinois and Missouri trademark attorneys for James Dean, Inc. of Indiana sued in Indiana state court alleging that Twitter, Inc. of California infringed the trademark James Dean, which has been issued by the U.S. Trademark Office by allowing the registration of the Twitter handle @JamesDean. The case was removed from the Superior Court of the County of Hamilton, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana.

Plaintiff James Dean, Inc. filed a trademark complaint against Twitter, as well as the fictitious persons, John Doe Defendants 1-5 Company, in an Indiana state court. In the complaint, Plaintiff alleged that it is the exclusive owner of the name, likeness, voice, right of publicity and endorsement, worldwide trademarks, copyrights, and other intellectual property including but not limited to visual and aural depictions, artifacts, memorabilia, and life-story rights, and/or trade dress of the late movie star James Dean.

James Dean, Inc. further alleges that Twitter has allowed the registration and operation of a Twitter account, using the handle @JamesDean, located at https://twitter.com/JamesDean, which is purportedly in violation of Plaintiff’s rights.

In the complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark lawyer, James Dean, Inc. asserted nine causes of action against Twitter:

• Count I – Trademark Infringement Under Section 32(1) or 3(A) of the Lanham Act;
• Count II – False Endorsement Under Lanham Act § 43(A);
• Count III – Indiana State Statutory Right of Publicity;
• Count IV – Common Law Right of Publicity;
• Count V – Common Law Unfair Competition;
• Count VI – Unjust Enrichment;
• Count VII – Conversion;
• Count VIII – Deception; and
• Count IX – Indiana Crime Victims’ Act.

For relief, James Dean, Inc. sought damages, including treble damages, costs, and attorney’s fees as set out in the Indiana Right of Publicity Statute, Lanham Act and other statutes. In addition, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief.

Twitter removed the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal-question jurisdiction) and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction). To support the former basis for federal jurisdiction, Twitter noted federal questions inherent in the filing of a claim under the Lanham Act. Twitter also claimed supplemental jurisdiction for the remaining claims under Indiana law.

To support the latter basis for jurisdiction in an Indiana federal court, Twitter asserted that the two prongs for diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction were met. First, James Dean, Inc. is a citizen of Indiana, as it has alleged that it is incorporated under the laws of the State of Indiana with its principal place of business in Indiana, while Twitter claims to be a citizen of two states: Delaware and California. Second, while Twitter “strongly contests liability and does not believe Plaintiff is entitled to any relief whatsoever,” it indicated that, were liability to be found, the amount in controversy could exceed $75,000, given that James Dean, Inc. is suing for “all damages” allowed by the applicable statutes, which can include actual damages, treble damages, punitive damages, statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip:

James Dean was born on February 8, 1931, in Marion, Indiana. He grew up in Fairmount, Indiana, about 60 miles northeast of Indianapolis. Dean starred in East of Eden, Rebel Without a Cause and Giant, receiving two Academy Award nominations for Best Actor.

In 1955, Dean died in an automobile accident. As a result of the nearly 60 years that have passed since his death, it is unlikely that those who follow @JamesDean believe that the tweets have been written by James Dean himself. Nonetheless, celebrity licensing agency CMG Worldwide, based out of Carmel, Indiana, is attempting to recover the James Dean Twitter account.

CMG, which also represents such celebrity images as Marilyn Monroe, Jackie Robinson and Babe Ruth, has attempted “on numerous occasions” to make Twitter take action to block and identify owners of various unauthorized accounts. Those accounts could give the impression, it says, that the users have permission from the estates of the celebrities or CMG and “result in immeasurable and irreparable damage.”

Finally, most of the James Dean trademarks that were registered by the U.S. Trademark Office have been either abandoned or cancelled. It will be interesting to see to what degree this fact influences the court, should liability be established and a calculation of damages be appropriate.

February 26, 2014

One Number Sues Google in Indiana for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent infringement litigation was commenced by a patent attorney for One Number Corporation of Anderson, Indiana. The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that Google, Inc., of Mountain View, California, infringed One Number’s Contact Number Encapsulation System, Patent No. 8,611,511 (the “‘511 patent”), which has been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

At issue in this patent litigation are the respective intellectual property rights of One Number and Google in single-phone-number telephone services. Such services allow a phone call made to one number to be transferred to multiple other phone numbers.

One Number asserts that Google has infringed and is still willfully infringing the ‘511 patent by making, selling and using a system that embodies One Number’s patented invention. The service claimed to infringe upon the ‘511 patent is Defendant’s Google Voice technology. The patent-in-suit was issued on December 17, 2013 and has been assigned to One Number.

One Number asks for judgment in its favor against Google, a final injunction against the continuing infringement, an accounting for damages, interest, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: This is not the first Indiana patent litigation that One Number has instituted against Google relating to the Google Voice application. At least one similar complaint was filed in March 2010, although that complaint pertained to U.S. Patent Nos. 7,680,256 and 7,440,565. Google responded, among other ways, by seeking reexamination of One Number’s patents. This approach met with some success but was apparently insufficient to dissuade One Number from pursuing further patent litigation.