Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

December 17, 2011

Organic Seed Growers Bring Innovative Patent Challenge Against Monsanto

New York, NY – Earlier this year, patent attorneys for a group of 60 organizations and farmers, including the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, filed a patent lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against agriculture giant Monsanto Company of St. Louis, Missouri. The plaintiffs are farmers who do not want their organic seeds contaminated by the transgentic or genetically modified seeds that are produced and patented by Monsanto. The feared contamination occurs when organic seeds come into contact with genetic material from transgentic seeds through natural pollination processes, such as the wind blowing transgentic pollen to a organic farm nearby . The plaintiffs allege that, given Monsanto’s reputation for vigorously defending its patents, they have brought “this action to protect themselves from ever being accused of infringing patents on transgenic seed.” Their complaint begins: “Society stands on the precipice of forever being bound to transgenic agriculture and transgenic food. Coexistence between transgenic seed and organic seed is impossible because transgenic seed contaminates and eventually overcomes organic seed. ” The organic farmers seek a declaratory judgment that all of Monsanto’s transgentic seed patents are invalid as injurious to public health and for numerous other reasons.

Monsanto has filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a justiciable case or controversy and therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. Monsanto also states that it has issued a public statement declaring that its patent attorneys will not file patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who’s crops are inadvertently contaminated by its patented seeds. Monsanto is being represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Seth Waxman.

Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in late August so a decision could be expected at any time. An amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiffs has also been filed.

Practice Tip: Monsanto is an aggressive litigant in defending its intellectual property rights and has sued numerous Indiana farmers. Monsanto recently won the appeal of the Southern District of Indiana‘s decision against an Indiana farmer in patent infringement lawsuit, which Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News blogged about here: US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Affirms the Southern District Court of Indiana’s Decision Holding Indiana Farmer Infringed Soybean Seed Patents.
Continue reading

December 16, 2011

Now Pending: Appeal of Southern District’s Dismissal of False Patent Marking Suit and Award of Costs to Roche Diagnostics

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – An appeal is now pending of Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the Southern District of Indiana‘s grant of a motion to dismiss in a qui tam patent false marking case. Intellectual property attorneys for David O’Neill, Promote Innovation LLC of Clarendon Hills, Illinois had filed a patent infringement lawsuit alleging that Roche Diagnostics of Indianapolis, Indiana, was marking its ACCU-CHEK® product packages with patents that were expired. The case was filed qui tam. The ACCU-CHEK® product line is diabetes blood glucose monitoring kits. The following expired patents alleged to wrongfully appear on the packaging of various products: 4,891,319 Protection of proteins and the like, 4,924,879 Blood lancet device and 4,999,582 Biosensor electrode excitation circuit, which have been issued by the US Patent Office. This was originally filed in the Northern District of Illinois and was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana in July of 2010. Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News blogged about the case here: O’Neill Sues Roche Diagnostics for False Patent Marking.

In June, Judge Pratt granted Roche’s motion to dismiss. Judge Pratt found that the complaint failed to allege patent false marking as a matter of law. The court found that the plaintiff failed to allege intent to deceive, which must be specifically plead and supported by factual allegations. The Court found the allegations of deceptive intent were similar to those in the Federal Circuit Court recent opinion, In re BPLubricants USA Inc., – F.3d -, 2011 WL 873147 (Fed. Cir. March 15, 2011) which had failed as a matter of law in that case. Therefore, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.

The plaintiffs have filed an appeal. In addition, Roche had requested an award of costs of defending the action. In August, Judge Pratt awarded Roche $10,040.09 in costs. The plaintiffs have filed challenges to this award in the district court, and Magistrate Baker is currently reviewing this award.

Practice Tip: This appeal may present one of the first opportunities for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals to invoke the patent reform legislation that was passed and signed earlier this year. The new law is expected to result in the immediate dismissal of most patent false marking cases.
Continue reading

December 14, 2011

Coach, Inc. Files Federal Trademark and Copyright Infringement Lawsuits Against The Treasure Box, Inc. for Infringements of Merchandise.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, IN – Trademark lawyers for Coach, Inc. of New York, New York filed a trademark and copyright infringement suit in the Northern District of Indianaalleging The Treasure Box, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana infringed the Coach’s registered trademarks and copyrights, including the copyrighted works known as the “Coach Design Elements” including the SIGNATURE C DESIGNS, Registration No. VAu1-046658, COACH 70^th ANNIVERSARY SNAPHEAD PRINT AND Registration No. VA1-010-918, COACH CLOVER DESIGN, which have been registered by the US Copyright Office, and approximately fifty trademarks that have been registered by the US Trademark Office.

The complaint alleges that the Treasure Box has advertised, sold, or offered for sale handbags, wallets, key chains, earrings and sunglasses bearing the Coach marks without authorization from Coach. The complaint states that on October 25, 2011, a Coach representative visited The Treasure Box store in Elkhart, Indiana and purchased a handbag, wallet and key chain bearing the Coach marks.. The representative also saw 25-30 additional items for sale in the store that bore the Coach marks, all of which were counterfeit items. The complaint makes claims of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, trademark dilution, unfair competition, forgery and counterfeiting. Coach seeks an injunction, damages of $2,000,000 per counterfeit mark, actual and punitive damages, costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: Coach’s latest compliant is very similar to several others it has recently filed in Indiana, which Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News has blogged and that are linked below.
Continue reading

December 13, 2011

The St. Joe Company Sues Epcon Community et al for Trademark Infringement of the Watercolor Mark.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark attorneys for The St. Joe Company of Watersound, Florida filed a trademark infringement suit in the Southern District of Indianaalleging Epcon Community Franchising, Inc. of Dublin, Ohio, Property Group One, Ltd., Sherri Meyer, and Watercolors Owners Association, Inc. of McCordsville, Indiana, infringed trademark registration no. 2,480,515, 2,532,581, 2,626,297, 2,713,757, and 3,434,972, known as the “Watercolor Registrations” registered with the US Trademark Office.

The complaint states that St. Joe owns the Watercolor marks and uses the marks in association with a variety of goods and services, including real estate development, recreational services, hotel services and clothing. According to the complaint, in 2009 St. Joe became aware that Epcon was planning to use WATERCOLORS to identify an Indiana real estate development and sent a letter to Epcon demanding that it cease using the WATERCOLORS name. Epcon’s franchisee, Property Group, was the entity actually using the WATERCOLORS name. The complaint states that the defendants agreed to stop using the WATERCOLOR name over a 6 month transition period. At the end of the 6 months, the defendants chose the name AQUARELLES as the new name for the Indiana real estate development project. The complaint states that AQUARELLES is French for WATERCOLORS and that the defendants have not ceased to use the name WATERCOLORS in association with the development. St. Joe’s subsequently demanded the defendants cease using the registered marks, but the defendants refused. The complaint states the defendants continue to use the Watercolors marks to this date and maintain a website at www.watercolorsinfishers.com. The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, common law infringement, common law unfair competition, breach of contract and tortuous interference with a contractual relationship.

Practice Tip: An interesting issue may be the role of a real estate title insurance policy and whether the policy covers claims for trademark infringement related to the name of a real estate development. As shown by Exhibit L, the Defendant Homeowner Association’s title insurance company was engaged in efforts to negotiate a settlement.
Continue reading

December 12, 2011

Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms that It May Hear Legal Malpractice Claims Involving Patent Issue

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, DC – A recent decision in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in a legal malpractice claim involving a patent issue may have an impact on a recently filed Indiana case alleging patent attorneys committed legal malpractice, which was filed by Purdue Research Foundation late last month.

In Byrne v. Wood, Herron & Evans LLP, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a summary judgment in favor of the law firm Wood, Herron & Evans, and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. The plaintiff sued the law firm for legal malpractice for failing to secure a patent that was broad enough to secure his invention of a grass and weed trimmer. The plaintiff claimed that due to the law firm’s failure, he later lost a patent infringement lawsuit against Black & Decker. The court below granted summary judgment for the law firm, based in part on its decision that Mr. Byre was not an expert witness.

The appellate court also briefly took on the question of whether the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear legal malpractice claims, typically arising out of state law, when a patent issue is intertwined. The Court, citing Davis v. Brouse McDowell, L.P.A., 596 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2010), confirmed that it did have jurisdiction over this case. However, the court acknowledged that other courts had disagreed.

The opinion is designated “non-precedential.” This was an appeal from the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Practice Tip: The basis of the legal malpractice claims in the Purdue case are substantially different that here, however, this case confirms that in most situations involving a patent issue is appropriate for the federal courts to hear legal malpractice cases.
Continue reading

December 9, 2011

Wine & Canvas Development Sues YN Canvas & Art Uncorked for Trademark Infringement of the WC Marks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – A trademark infringement lawsuit filed in Hamilton County Circuit Court has been removed to the Southern District of Indiana. Trademark lawyers for Wine & Canvas Development, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a recent trademark infringement suit in Hamilton County, Indiana in alleging Theodore Weisser and Christopher Muylle of Indiana, YN Canvas CA, LLC of Nevada, Art Uncorked and www.ArtUncorked.com, infringed trademarks WINE & CANVAS, COOKIES & CANVAS, PAINTING WITH A COCKTAIL TWIST, LIFE IS TOO SHORT FOR BLANK WALLS, UNLEASE YOUR INNER PICASSO, and CRUISE AND CANVAS that are registered with US Trademark Office. This case was removed to the Southern District of Indiana on December 2, 2011.

The trademarks at issue here, known as the WC Marks, are associated with Wine & Canvas’s business model. The complaint states that Weisser was an employee of Wine & Canvass and that Wiesser, on behalf of Wine & Canvas, entered a licensing and franchise negotiation with Muylle. The complaint states that Wiesser and Muylle, however, then entered certain agreements without Wine & Canvas’s knowledge and misled Wine & Canvas about the agreements. When Wine & Canvas discovered the issue, it demanded the defendants cease using the WC Marks. However, the defendants continued to sell products and services using the WC marks. The complaint further states that the defendants have threatened to “expose” the Plaintiff “to hatred, contempt, disgrace and/or ridicule or otherwise unlawfully injure” Wine & Canvas. The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, trademark dilution, sale of counterfeit items, unfair competition, breach of contract, fraud, and damages under the Indiana crime victims act. The complaint seeks a declaratory judgment, temporary and permanent injunction, damages, costs, attorney fees and for a writ of attachment.

Practice Tip: The complaint appears to largely make state law claims that come out of a failed attempt to create a California franchise of Wine & Canvas. The complaint paints a picture of the defendants essentially stealing the business ideas of Wine & Canvas and opening their own entity, rather than operating the California business as a franchise. While these contract-type disputes are typically appropriately filed in state court, the fact that the plaintiff also makes trademark infringement claims resulted in the case being removed to federal court. Under the supplemental federal jurisdiction doctrine, the district court will be able to hear both the state law and federal law claims since it would clearly have subject matter jurisdiction over the trademark claim.
Continue reading

December 8, 2011

Indiana District Court’s Verdict for Alcon Laboratories in Patent Infringement Suit Over Eye Medication Now Pending on Appeal

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – A patent infringement judgment from the Southern District of Indiana will be reviewed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In May, Chief Judge Richard L. Young of the Southern District of Indiana issued a verdict and judgment in favor of plaintiffs Alcon Research Ltd., Alcon Laboratories, Inc., both of Fort Worth, Texas and Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. (f/k/a Kyowa Hakko Kogyo Co., Ltd.) of Tokyo, Japan, after a bench trial on the plaintiff’s patent infringement claims against Apotex, Inc., of Ontario, Canada and Apotex Corp. Weston, Florida. Alcon filed a complaint alleging Apotex infringed patent no.5,641,805, TOPICAL OPHTHALMIC FORMULATIONS FOR TREATING ALLERGIC EYE DISEASES, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

Chief Judge Young presided over a bench trial April 26, 2010 to May 7, 2010, and final arguments were presented to the court on August 3, 2010. The Court found that plaintiffs had “proven, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Defendants’ generic equivalent of Plaintiffs’ patented allergy topical ocular medication, Patanol®;, infringed claims 1-8 of the ‘805 patent[,]” and that the defendant failed to show, by preponderance of evidence, that the patent claims were invalid. The court also found that the defendants failed to prove, by preponderance of evidence, that the ‘805 patent is unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.

Apotex has appealed the case to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (docket number 2011-1455). Apotex’s brief was filed on October 3, 2011, and Alcon’s brief is due on December 23, 2011.

Practice Tip: One of the defenses raised by Apotex was to claim the patent was unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Apotex claimed that one of the inventors of the ‘805 failed to disclose results of certain tests and other data in the patent application. Apotex claimed the inventor as well as the attorney who filed the patent application violated their duty of candor to the PTO, which is imposes pursuant federal regulations 37 C.F.R. § 1.56(c). Alcon, however, presented evidence that the tests in question were believed to be inconclusive and that the inventor simply forgot about another test. Under the totality of circumstances, the court found that a finding of deceptive intent was not warranted. The court, therefore, declined to find that the patent should not be enforceable under the theory of inequitable conduct.

In addition, the court held that Apotex could not raise an additional theory of invalidity – invalidity for lack of a written description – until after the trial. The court found that the late disclosure had prejudiced the plaintiff and therefore refused to consider the new theory.
Continue reading

December 6, 2011

Indiana Patent Attorneys Obtain 196 Patents for Indiana Companies in November, 2011

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 196 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in November, 2011:

	PAT. NO.	Title
1	D649,640	Femoral box cut guide
2	D649,639	Combination modular femoral provisional prosthesis with cut guide
3	D649,638	Tibial depth resection stylus
4	D649,635	Modular handle for surgical instruments
5	D649,634	Tibial impaction tool

December 5, 2011

Wheaton Van Lines Sues Unigroup and Mayflower Container Services for Trademark Infringement of “We Move Your Life”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark attorneys for Wheaton Van Lines, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed trademark infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Unigroup, Inc. and Mayflower Container Services, LLC of Fenton, Missouri infringed trademark registration no. 2,607,246 for the mark, WE MOVE YOUR LIFE, which is registered with the US Trademark Office.

The complaint alleges that since 1997 Wheaton has used the phrase “We Move Your Life” as an advertising slogan and obtained a federally registered trademark of the phrase in 2002. The complaint states that the defendants are using a confusingly similar slogan “Your Life on the Move” and have created an internet site at www.yourlifeonthemove.com. Wheaton alleges that “Your Life on the Move” is confusing similar to “We Move Your Life” and that customers are likely to confuse the two. Wheaton states that the defendants are benefiting from the goodwill Wheaton has established as connected to its trademarked slogan. The complaint notes that Wheaton contacted the defendants and asked them to discontinue use of “Your Life on the Move.” The defendants failed to discontinue. The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. Trademark lawyers for Wheaton are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, an award of profits, damages, costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: The Plaintiff alleges that personal jurisdiction over the Defendants exists because “Defendants have advertised and continues (sic) to advertise moving service on the Internet to inform residence of this State that it will take orders or bookings for such services from residence of this State.” This seems unlikely to obtain personal jurisdiction. Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this website, has repeatedly obtained dismissal of trademark infringement cases where the only basis for personal jurisdiction was maintaining a website. (See for example the Mice Direct and Joy Honeymoon cases.)
Continue reading

December 2, 2011

SoftMaker and SEG Sue Third Scroll Copyright and Trademark Infringements of Computer Software Products.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – A trademark and copyright infringement case filed in the Southern District of California has been transferred to the Southern District of Indiana. Intellectual property attorneys for SoftMaker and SEG, both of Nuremberg, Germany have filed a trademark and copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of California alleging that Third Scroll of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed trademark registration no. 3,051,159 for the mark SOFTMAKER and trademark registration no. 3,104,173 for the mark TEXTMAKER registered by the US Trademark Office. The case was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana on November 29.

The plaintiffs are software development companies. The complaint states the suit is based on the defendant’s production, importation and sale of hacked copies of the plaintiff’s software bearing the plaintiff’s trademarks. The complaint alleges that the defendants offered pirated copies of the plaintiff’s software online, including the programs Textmaker®, Planmaker®, and Softmaker Presentations®. The plaintiff states that its software is protected by U.S. copyright laws and international treaties recognizing copyrights. The copyrighted software also bears the plaintiff’s trademarks. The complaint makes claims of copyright infringement, “circumvention of copyright protection measures,” trademark infringement and counterfeiting, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.

Practice Tip: This case was originally filed in the Southern District of California. The only allegation of a connection to California in the complaint is that defendant’s website was accessible there. The defendant succeeded in getting the case transferred to Indiana, the domicile of the defendant company.
Continue reading