By

 

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Justice and National Crime Prevention Council have launched a new website NCPC.jpgdesigned to educate the public about intellectual property theft. The site focuses on four types of criminal intellectual property theft: counterfeit drugs, pirated products, fake consumer goods, and gangs and organized crime. The site provides background on the extent of the intellectual property theft in the United States and the impact on the economy. For example the site states “More than 250,000 more people could be employed in the U.S. automotive industry if it weren’t for the trade in counterfeit parts.”

The website is part of a larger campaign by the Department of Justice to raise public awareness about intellectual property theft. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holdergave a speech earlier this week to launch the campaign. Attorney General Holder stated “For far too long, the sale of counterfeit, defective, and dangerous goods has been perceived as “business as usual.” But these and other IP crimes can destroy jobs, suppress innovation, and jeopardize the health and safety of consumers.”

Practice Tip: Intellectual property attorneys may find the new website’s links to resources as well as instructions on where to report intellectual property theft useful.

By

 

The US Trademark Office issued the following 169  trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in November, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

Reg.Number  Mark Click to View
1 4,064,989 PRAYER CHAIR VIEW
2 4,064,974 WORLD’S LARGEST BMX STORE VIEW
3 4,064,973 THE BEST IN BMX VIEW
4 4,064,960 TRAUMA TECHNICIANS, LLC VIEW
5 4,063,223 WAITER ON THE WAY VIEW

Continue reading

By

 

New Albany, IN – Copyright lawyers for Jeral Tidwell of Kentucky filed a copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of Indianaalleging VSJ, Ltd of the United Kingdom and Raw International, LLC d/b/a Nitro USA of Valencia, California infringed the copyrighted work INK ALCHEMY which has been registered by the US Copyright Office.

The complaint states that Mr. Tidwell isThumbnail image for InkAlchemy.jpg an artist who creates markets and sells various images, including the copyrighted work, Ink Alchemy, which he created in 2008. Mr. Tidwell saw the defendant’s display at a trade show in Indianapolis in February 2011 and saw that the defendant’s were using his copyrighted work on motorcycle helmets without his authorization. Mr. Tidwell then discovered that the defendants were marketing helmets with the infringing images on their website as well. The complaint makes one claim of copyright infringement and seeks an injunction, damages, profits, attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: The complaint states that “venue” is appropriate in the Southern District of Indiana because the defendants have been conducting business in Indiana and specifically points to a website of the defendants that is accessible online. This sounds more like a personal jurisdiction argument, rather than a venue argument.
Continue reading

By

 

Lafayette, IN – Attorneys for the Purdue Research Foundation (“PRF”) of West Lafayette, Indiana have file a suit against the law firm of Morrison & Foerster, LLP alleging that Morrison & Foerster filed a patent application without PRF’s authorization, specifically for patent PCT2009/060273 and misappropriated trade secrets in the course of filing this patent application.

PRF filed the original complaint in Tippecanoe County Circuit Court on October 7, seeking a permanent injunction to prevent Morrison from continuing the patent application, on which Morrison listed itself and PRF as the co-applicants. The original complaint alleges that Morrison continued to breach its fiduciary duties to PRFPRF.jpg through continuing to prosecute the patent application. Morrison filed to have the case removed to federal court, arguing that the case involved the federal questions of the inventorship of the claimed invention under the ‘273 patent.

Morrison’s removal notice notes that PRF is currently involved in related lititgation against CoMentis Incorporated, who is Morrison’s client. In that lawsuit, PRF alleges that CoMentis improperly disclosed trade secrets, which are covered by PRF’s patents, when it filed the ‘273 patent application. Morrison states that this new case “is really an attempt by PRF to enjoin or otherwise interfere with an inventor’s (CoMentis’s) attempt to prosecute a patent application.”

Practice Tip: In this case, PRF has alleged that Morrison owed it a fiduciary duty since Morrison filed the patent application and listed PRF as a co-applicant. Morrison disputes that it owed a fiduciary duty to PRF and states that any existence of a fiduciary duty would be governed by the Code of Federal Register, thus creating a federal question. In addition to this federal question, Morrison states PRF’s complaint is really an “inventorship” dispute, which is also a federal question.
Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis IN – The United States District Court of the Southern District of Indiana has published a Notice of Amendment to Local Rules regarding all civil local rules. The Local Rules Advisory Committee has invited public insd_seal2.jpgcomment concerning the proposed amendments through December 15, 2011.

The proposed amendment will replace the numbering system of the rules, but leaves the local rules largely substantively unchanged. The Northern District of Indiana has recently released similar proposed local rule changes, which Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News has blogged.

Please send comments in writing or via e.mail to the following:
Local Rule Comments
Office of the Clerk
105 U.S. Courthouse
46 East Ohio Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204
or via email: LocalRules@insd.uscourts.gov

Continue reading

By

 

Evansville; IN – Copyright attorney for Joe Hand Promotions of Feasterville, Pennsylvania filed a copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging James C. Tosti d/b/a Sam & Jimmys Ho Bo Jungle Bar and JimSam, LLC, and unknown business entity d/b/a Sam & Jimmy’s HO BO Jungle Bar of Evansville, Indiana has illegally intercepted and broadcast Ultimate Fighting Championship 106: Tito Ortiz v. Forest Griffin II,JoeHandPicture.jpg a broadcast to which Joe Hand owned exclusive national broadcast rights.

The UFC fight at issue here was broadcast on November 21, 2009. Copyright attorneys have made claims both against the bar as a business entity and seeking personal liability claims against the owner. The complaint alleges one count of copyright infringement in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, one count of copyright infringement 47 U.S.C. § 553, and one count of conversion. Copyright attorneys for Joe Hand are seeking statutory damages of $150,000 as well as costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: Joe Hand Promotions is a frequent litigant and has brought several cases this year against defendants alleged to have illegally intercepted and/or broadcast UFC fights. Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News has previously blogged on the cases below:

  • Joe Hand Promotions Sues Lawrenceburg, Indiana Bar for Showing UFC Fight Without Authorization
  • Joe Hand Promotions Sues Beerbelly’s over Interception of Broadcast Signal
  • Joe Hand Promotions Sues Longwell and Pitt Stop Pub & Grill for Intercepting UFC Broadcast

Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis; IN – Copyright attorneys for J & J Sports Productions, Inc. of Campbell, California filed seven separate copyright infringement suits in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that seven Indianapolis restaurants illegally broadcast a fight on November 14, 2009, specifically “Firepower: Manny Pacquiao v. Miguel Cotto, WBO Welterweight Championship Fight Program” a copyrighted work to which J&J Sports Productions owns exclusive national broadcast rights. The seven restaurants are Fandango’s Night Club, Taqueria Jalisco, El Sol Azteca, El Taco Torro, Rea Night Club, Moctezuma Restaurant and Pollos Los Reyes.

Picture.jpgThe complaints are nearly identical in each case. Copyright attorneys have made claims both against the restaurants and personal liability claims against the owners. Each group of defendants is accused one count of copyright infringement in violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605, one count of copyright infringement 47 U.S.C. § 553, and one count of conversion. Copyright attorneys for J&J are seeking statutory damages of $150,000 as well as costs and attorney fees.

In addition to these seven lawsuits, J&J filed eighty-seven other lawsuits in the district courts around the country alleging illegal broadcast of the copyrighted fight in question here between November 1 and November 14, 2011.

Practice Tip: All of these lawsuits were filed on the eve of the two year anniversary of the broadcast that the defendants are alleged to have illegally broadcast. When Congress passed the Cable Communication Act, a statute of limitations was not included. Some federal courts have determined that a two year statute of limitation is appropriate while other federal courts have used a three year statute of limitations.
Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – The Southern District of Indiana has dismissed a patent infringement lawsuit finding a lack of personal jurisdiction over a California company accusing of patent infringement. Patent lawyers for AirFx LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging J.D. Braun, of Los Angeles, California, doing business as Goldenstate Custom Cycles, Dr. V-Twin, Inc. of Sherman Oaks, California, infringed Patent No. 7,559,396 B2,AirFXPicture.jpg Motorcycle air suspension system, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News blogged about the case when it was filed in July.

The California defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. Patent attorneys for AirFX had argued that the Indiana district court had personal jurisdiction because the company had a website that was accessible in Indiana and listed an Indiana store where its products could be purchased. Judge William T. Lawrence, writing for the court, held that “the mere existence of nationally-accessible websites is a poor foundation on which to base personal jurisdiction.” Thus the court dismissed the case with prejudice.

Practice Tip: This case reiterates that simply having a website that is accessible within a district does not create personal jurisdiction. In order to achieve personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff must establish “minimum contacts” with the district.
Continue reading

By

 

Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 124 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in October, 2011:

PAT. NO. TITLE
1 D647,603 Shower arm 
2 D647,601 Bath set 
3 D647,600 Faucet 
4 D647,599 Faucet 
5 8,046,625 Distributed fault tolerant architecture for a healthcare communication system 

Continue reading

By

 

Newark, NJ – Patent attorneys for Howmedica Osteonics Corp. Mahwah, New Jersey Stryker.jpgand Stryker Ireland Limited of Cork, Ireland filed a patent infringement suit in the District of New Jerseyalleging DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. of Warsaw, Indiana infringed patent no. 6,475,243, Acetabular cup assembly with selected bearing; which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The complaint states that Howmedica and Stryker are joint assignees of the ‘243 patent. The complaint alleges that DePuyDepuy.jpg is currently marketing two products that infringe the ‘243, specifically the Pinnacle® and Duraloc® Acetabular Cup Systems. The complaint also alleges that by offering these products for sale, DePuy causes or encourages others to infringe the ‘243 patent by creating medical literature and providing training to healthcare providers about its infringing products and methods. The complaint seeks a finding that DePuy’s products infringe the ‘243 patent, an injunction, and damages.

Practice Tip: The plaintiffs have brought this case in New Jersey District Court against an Indiana company. The complaint states that personal jurisdiction over the Defendant is based upon the “Defendant has infringed Plaintiff’s patent in this district, regularly conducts business within this district, and its activities have targeted this district.” These are fairly generic and non-specific allegations to give rise to personal jurisdiction. If DePuy challenges jurisdiction, the plaintiffs may have to demonstrate more specific facts to successfully establish personal jurisdiction.
Continue reading

Contact Information
Indiana Intellectual Property: IP Litigation, Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights
  • Seventh Circuit
  • Northern District of Indiana
  • Southern District of Indiana
Paul B. Overhauser
Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Greenfield
18 E Main St #202
Greenfield, IN 46140
Phone: 317.467.9100
Fax: 866.283.8549
Indianapolis
101 W Ohio St #2000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.891.1500
Fax: 866.283.8549

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design