Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

November 21, 2011

J & J Sports Productions Sues Seven Indianapolis Restaurants For Copyright Infringement of WBO Welterweight Championship Fight.

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.

The 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

November 17, 2011

Southern District Dismisses Patent Infringement Case over Motorcycle Suspension for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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, 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

November 16, 2011

Indiana Patent Attorneys Obtain 124 Patents for Indiana Companies in October, 2011

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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

November 15, 2011

Howmedica Osteonics Corp. and Stryker Ireland Ltd. Sues DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. for Patent Infringement of a Surgical Implant Used in Hip Replacement Procedures

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Newark, NJ – Patent attorneys for Howmedica Osteonics Corp. Mahwah, New Jersey and 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 DePuy 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

November 14, 2011

Trademark Registrations Issued to 103 Indiana Companies in October, 2011

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The US Trademark Office issued the following 103 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in October, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

	Reg. Number	Mark	Click to View
1	78,075,000	JOHN DILLINGER	LIVE
2	78,146,072	SOFT FOCUS	LIVE
3	78,100,577	DREAMS & CO.	LIVE
4	78,150,292	FASHIONCODE	LIVE
5	78,092,649	ALPHA WIRE CABLE DESIGN CENTER	LIVE

November 11, 2011

Congress Considers Bill To Give Law Enforcement More Tools to Target Online Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The United States House of Representatives is considering a bill directed as providing law enforcement more tools to stop illegal online file sharing and copyright infringement. The bill, titled the “Stop Online Piracy Act,” was introduced by Representative Lamar Smith of Texas on October 26, 2011. The bill would authorize the Department of Justice to seek a court order requiring alleged infringers as well as domain names and websites to immediately cease any activities that are intellectual property criminal offenses. The bill would also create a new mechanism for seeking limited injunctive relief against the owners of domain names and websites to stop infringement occurring through their sites and domains. The bill also expands the definition of criminal copyright infringement to include public performance of copyrighted work by digital transmission or making work intended for commercial dissemination available on a computer network. The bill is also being called the E-PARISITE Act (“the Enforcing and Protecting American Rights Against Sites Intent on Theft and Exploitation Act”).

The bill is drawing criticism from a number of corners. Specifically, some critics have noted that the bill would allow the government or private parties to shut down entire websites, not just infringing content. A report from John Moe of NPR’s Marketplace, quotes extensively from Professor Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School, who stated ““What’s remarkable about this provision is that it would allow the government and in many cases private parties to come into court, get a temporary restraining order without the participation of the accused website and shut down not just the infringing material, but the whole website.”

The bill was referred to the House Judiciary subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet, of which Indiana Congressman Mike Pence is a member.

November 10, 2011

Eli Lilly & Company Sues Yanchep Veterinary Clinic, Proprietary Limited Company, for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis IN – Trademark lawyers for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a trademark infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Yanchep Veterinary Clinic, Proprietary Limited Company, Petsvetshop, Proprietary Limited Company,, Paul Sorensen and Dr. Cymantha Sorensen, all of Yanchep, Australia infringed trademark registration no. 3,370,168 for the mark COMFORTIS, which has been registered in the US Trademark Office.

The COMFORTIS mark is used by Lilly’s Elanco Animal Health Division in connection with the manufacturing and sales of flea-control products Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for lilly.jpg for dogs available only through a veterinarian’s prescription. Lilly maintains a website that instructs on the safe use of the product, but does not sell the product online. Lilly sells the product worldwide, including in Australia. The complaint alleges that the defendants are directly selling Comfortis in the United States through their websites. The complaint alleges that the defendants are selling the Australian version of Comfortis, which does not comply with various FDA requirements including that it only be sold by a licensed veterinarian. The complaint states that Lilly sent the defendants a letter in March 2010 demanding that they cease their sales of Comfortis. The defendants stopped selling Comfortis to United States customers for a brief period, but then resumed. The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement, unfair competition, cybersquatting, and Indiana state law unfair competition. Lilly is seeking an injunction, damages, the transfer of domain names, and for the defendants to send a letter to all U.S. customers who bought Comfortis from the defendants instructing that the product should not be used.

Practice Tip: All of the defendants here are Australian citizens or companies. Expect them, if they file an appearance at all in the case, to raise issues of jurisdiction.

November 9, 2011

Update: Coach Trademark Infringement Suit against Novelty Inc. Has Settled

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – A trademark infringement case in the Southern District of Indiana has recently settled. In May 2010, intellectual property counsel for Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc., both of New York, NY, had filed an infringement suit alleging Novelty, Inc. of Greenfield, IN, has infringed numerous COACH trademarks which have been registered with the U.S. Trademark Office, as well as infringed copyrighted design elements and product trade dress. The case was blogged about by Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News. The case has recently been dismissed from the court’s docket with a notice that an undisclosed settlement had been reached.

Coach’s trademark attorneys had accused Novelty of offering products bearing source-identifying indicia and design elements which are “studied imitations” of the plaintiffs’ intellectual property. Novelty failed to file an answer to the complaint on time, and Coach obtained a default judgment in August 2010. Novelty then successfully petitioned the court to set aside the default judgment, arguing that it had not answered the complaint because settlement discussions were ongoing. The parties apparently had a discovery dispute relating to the extent to which a protective order concerning confidential information should be in place and whether certain disclosures should be limited to “attorney eyes only.” In July, Magistrate Baker sided with Coach in the discovery dispute noting “The Defendant has not shown sufficient cause for an “attorney’s eyes only” provision, and Defendant’s other objections, while not unreasonable, are not more compelling than Plaintiffs’ proposal.” The case has now been settled.

Practice Tip: In this case, Novelty argued that the default judgment should be set aside because settlement negotiations were ongoing at the time. Although Novelty successfully had the default set aside, other courts have not allowed this excuse for failing to file an answer or seek an extension of time. See U.S. v. Topeka Livestock Auction, Inc., 392 F.Supp. 944 (D.C. Ind. 1975). This illustrates the importance of complying with the deadline for answering a complaint, even if settlement seems likely.

This case was assigned to Chief Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 1:10-cv-00615-RLY-TAB.

November 8, 2011

Northern District of Indiana Rolls Out Proposed Changes to Local Rules

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, IN – The Northern District of Indiana has published proposed changes to the local rules. The proposed changes would affect many rules, however, are not intended to change the substance of the local rules. Rather, the changes are proposed in order to simplify and clarify the language of the rules. The court has released “Guiding Principles” to the revisions, stating the goals of the revisions include: conforming to the style, organization, format and terminology of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to follow generally accepted American-English sentence construction. The numbering system of the local rules will also be changed slightly under new proposal.

The public and bar are invited to comment on the proposed local rule changes through a link provided on the Court’s website.

November 7, 2011

Eli Lilly & Co. Loses Appeal in British Supreme Court Over Patent Dispute Over Gene Sequence

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

London, U.K. – The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has ruled against Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly & Company in a patent dispute. Lilly had challenged the validity of the patent of Human Genome Sciences, Inc., of Rockville, Maryland that covers the gene sequence of a protein called Neutrokine-α. Lilly had challenged the patent based on the fact that there is no known use of the protein. Thus, Lilly argued, the gene sequence was not patentable due to a lack of industrial application.

According to the Indianapolis Business Journal, Lilly continues to maintain the patent is invalid. The IBJ quoted a Lilly statement as stating “Human Genome Sciences seek to foreclose a whole area of research in a way that is not only harmful to the industry, but would ultimately and unjustifiably hinder the future development of new medicines.”

Practice Tip: The Court’s decision was based upon the European Patent Convention and United Kingdom patent doctrine requiring a patentable invention be susceptible to industrial application, which is similar to the U.S. patent doctrine of utility. The Court’s decision here holds that the U.S. doctrine of utility creates a higher bar to patentability that the E.U. and U.K. doctrine. The opinion explicitly rejected U.S. cases on the doctrine, including Brenner v Manson, 383 U.S. 519 (1966) and in re Fisher, 421 F.3d 1365 (2005).