By

 side by side.JPG

Indianapolis, IN – Brandon S. Judkins of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit alleging Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation of New York, New York infringed Patent No. D591,090, FURNITURE ARTICLE, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. The patent in question is a design patent of a table.

The complaint alleges that Polo Ralph Lauren is importing, making, using, selling or offering for sale tables that infringe Mr. Judkin’s patent. Specifically, Mr. Judkins alleges that he has seen infringing tables at Macey’s and Carson Pirie Scott locations in Indianapolis. The complaint states that Polo Ralph Lauren is using the tables to display apparel at the stores. Mr. Judkins, an attorney, is representing himself in this case. Mr. Judkins seeks an injunction, declaratory judgment, damages, and costs.

This case has been assigned to Chief Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:11-cv-00661-RLY-DML.

Practice Tip: In 2008, the Federal Circuit clarified the test for infringement of design patents in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In that case, the court adopted the “ordinary observer” test to replace the “point of novelty” test. In the complaint here, the patented design appears to be pretty basic. The plaintiff may face an uphill battle.
Continue reading

By

 

Alexandria, VA – The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently announced its First Full Action Interview Pilot Program, which, unlike a previous test program, applies to all areas of technology.

Under this program, if an eligible utility patent applicant electronically files a request prior to the first Office action on the merits, he or she must be granted an interview with the patent examiner assigned to the case. Traditionally, the grant of such a preliminary interview was with the discretion of the examiner.

To be eligible, the subject patent application must not have more than three independent claims and twenty or fewer total claims that are directed to a single invention.

Continue reading

By

 

Hammond, IN – Copyright lawyers for WB Music Corporation and six other music companies filed a copyright infringement suit alleging Langel’s, Inc. of Highland, Indiana infringed three copyrighted songs. Specifically, the songs at issue are: VOGUE by Madonna, FALLIN by Alicia Keys, and HEART OF ROCK AND ROLL by Huey Lewis, all of which have been registered by the US Copyright Office. WB Music has also filed the claims against Rodney D. Langel, the president of Langel’s, Inc.

The complaint alleges that Langel’s owns and operates Rodney’s Sports Bar and Langel’s Pizza in Highland, Indiana. WB alleges that the three songs at issue were performed at these establishments without license from the copyright owners in May 2008. The plaintiffs in this suit are the owners of the rights to these songs. WB Music and the others allege that Langel’s Inc. and Mr. Langel had been warned by the American Society of Composers, Artists, and Publishers (ASCAP) about its liability for copyright infringement. The complaint makes three claims of copyright infringement pursuant 17 U.S.C. § 501.

Practice Tip: In this case, the plaintiffs have sued Mr. Langel, the president of Langel’s, Inc., personally. Copyright laws allow an officer of a corporation to be held liable for the corporation’s copyright infringement if the officer contributes to the infringement by inducing or encouraging the infringement. An officer can also be liable for copyright infringement if the officer supervises the infringing conduct and has a direct financial benefit from the infringement.

This case has been assigned to Judge Theresa Springmann and Magistrate Judge Paul Cherry in the Northern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 2:11-cv-00166-TLS-PRC.
Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Tissue Extraction Devices, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit alleging Hologic, Inc. of Bedford, Massachusetts and Suros Surgical Systems, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed Patent No. 7,749,172, PNEUMATIC CIRCUIT, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The patent infringement complaint alleges that Jeff Schwindt, owner of Tissue Extraction Devices, invented the technology at issue, which is apparently a hand-piece used by doctors who are performing breast biopsies. Mr. Schwindt assigned the patent rights to Tissue Extraction Devices. The hand-piece allows the doctors to remove a tissue sample for biopsy. According to the complaint, Schwindt worked together with Suros to further develop the hand-piece. Schwindt, however, is the owner of the patent on the hand-piece. Suros introduced breast biopsy systems that included the hand-piece to the market under the names ATEC and EVIVA. Suros is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hologic. Tissue Extraction claims these two systems infringe upon the patent owned by Schwindt. Tissue Extraction’s patent infringement attorneys have requested a declaratory judgment that the patent has been infringed, damages, and attorney fees.

This case has been assigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 1:11-cv-00628-TWP-TAB.

Practice Tip: Based on the complaint, this lawsuit appears to be the result of a dispute between an inventor and another party who participated in some way in the development or marketing of the invention. This case illustrates the importance of having a clear agreement regarding intellectual property rights before parties begin working together to invent, develop and market a product.
Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – This week Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney of the Southern District of Indiana is presiding over a jury trial of a copyright infringement lawsuit. The case is Harvest Scents & Traders LLC v. KMI International Corporation. The trial began on Monday, May 2, continued through last week, and resumed on Monday. According to the latest information available on PACER, the trial continues today.

Copyright attorneys for Harvest Scents, of Indianapolis, filed this copyright infringement lawsuit in March 2008. The complaint alleges that KMI, an Illinois company, has sold and distributed products that contained material that Harvest Scents has copyrighted. There are six works at issue that registered by the US Copyright Office:

Willow Tree, registration number VA 1-380-918

Primitive Pear Collection, registration number VA 1-421-622

Primitive Wood Button Collection, registration number VA 1-421-623

Baskets-n-Berries Collection, registration number VA 1-424-839

Homespun Collection, registration number VA 1-421-620

Roughsawn Collection, registration number VA 1-424-205

The trial began following several recent rulings on evidentiary matters by Judge McKinney. On February 28, 2011, Judge McKinney denied KMI’s motion in limine to preclude Harvest Scents from introducing evidence at trial of its products that it had not deposited with the US Copyright Office when it submitted its copyright application. KMI had argued that “the introduction of this evidence will invite the jury to find that KMI infringed on unregistered derivative works, unduly prejudicing KMI because Harvest Scents may not bring suit based on infringement of unregistered works, 17 U.S.C. § 411.” The court rejected this argument and allowed the evidence at trial. The court explained, “Direct copying of the registered work is not necessary to infringe, so long as the protected elements are copied. See JCW Invs., Inc. v. Novelty Inc., 482 F.3d 910, 914 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting that the elements of infringement include “copying of constituent elements”); see also KnowledgeAZ, Inc., 617 F. Supp. 2d at 789.” This ruling is available here.
Continue reading

By

 

Washington, DC – As a nonprecedential disposition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an order denying an attempt by TiVo, Inc., EchoStar Corporation, related EchoStar affiliates, and Dish Network Corporation to settle, following a decision on appeal, their long-running patent dispute.

At issue is certain video recording technology, such as that employed in digital video recorders (DVRs), allowing DVR users to watch one program while another is recorded. Following a trial at which it was held liable for infringement and permanently enjoined from making or selling infringing products, EchoStar modified its product and continued to sell it. TiVo brought a contempt action, and the trial court found EchoStar in contempt because the modified product violated the injunction by not being “colorably different” from the infringing version.

The contempt ruling was appealed. On April 20, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued a rare en banc (the full court, rather than just a panel) decision which would have required EchoStar and Dish Network pay $90 million in damages to TiVo. Importantly, that opinion provided new rules for courts to utilize in contempt proceedings involving infringing products which have been modified following issuance of an injunction.

The parties reached a settlement on April 29th and, informing the Federal Circuit of this on May 2nd, they asked the court to dismiss the appeal. At that point, the Federal Circuit had not issued a mandate to the trial court implementing the appellate decision. However, in the latest order, the Federal Circuit, again ruling en banc, succinctly refused to grant the parties’ request. Citing decisions by sister federal courts of appeal, the Federal Circuit noted that dismissing the case would essentially vacate the prior en banc opinion, which is “neither required nor a proper use of the judicial system.”

Practice Tip: Regardless of what type of wrong is alleged, if parties to a case on appeal reach a settlement before the court issues a decision, they have a duty to inform the court of the agreement.
Continue reading

By

 

New York – The New York Times reported earlier this week on Righthaven, LLC, a company that has sued hundreds of bloggers for copyright violation. The N.Y. Times story profiles one such blogger, Brian Hill, a 20 year-old North Carolina resident, who was sued by Righthaven after he used a photo of an airport security pat-down on his blog. Righthaven has filed over 250 copyright infringement lawsuits since its founding in 2010, including 24 in March 2011. According to reports, its business model is to purchase assignments of copyrights from newspapers and similar organizations and then search for infringing web postings to sue their publishers.

A Google search on Righthaven reveals that there are numerous websites devoted to condemning Righthaven, calling the company “a bottom feeding legal outfit” and “copyright trolls.” As the N.Y. Times story reported, copyright attorneys have questioned whether the fair use doctrine might protect some of the bloggers sued by Righthaven. The Media Bloggers Association has filed an amicus curiae brief support the rights of the bloggers and raising First Amendment issues. Other attorneys have accused Righthaven of fraud, according to a report from the Las Vegas Sun.

Practice Tip: Although Righthaven has not filed any copyright infringement lawsuits in Indiana district courts to date, this story illustrates the importance of ensuring that a web blogger has rights to use all materials that are posted on the blog. This story brings forth yet again the continuing controversies surrounding copyrights and the Internet.

By

 

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Eli Lilly & Company of Indianapolis successfully blocked the release of generic versions of the anti-depression drug Cymbalta until the expiration of Lilly’s patent for the drug. Last week, Judge Tonya Walton Pratt of the Southern District of Indiana entered an order blocking eight competitor drug companies from releasing their generic versions of Cymbalta until Lilly’s patent expires. Lilly had been involved in this patent infringement lawsuit since 2008. The competitor drugs companies must also agree to notify the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that they will not seek approval for their generic drugs until Lilly’s patent expires. The patent at issue, Patent No. 5,023,269, which has been issued by the US Patent Office, is due to expire in June 2013, but may be extended.

According to the Indianapolis Business Journal, Lilly reported $2.77 billion in U.S. sales of Cymbalta in 2010. Lilly faces the expiration of several important revenue-generating patents in the next few years, including Cymbalta, Zyprexia, and Humalog.

The case was Eli Lilly & Company v. Wockhardt Limited et al., case number 1:08-cv-1547-TWP-TAB in the Southern District of Indiana before Judge Tanya Walton Pratt

Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, Indiana – In a patent infringement case, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the Southern District of Indiana has denied defendants’ request to strike the report of an expert that the plaintiff had attached to a brief. The expert’s report contained a “readily-available summary of the infringement allegations.” The defendants had cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) as grounds to strike the expert’s report. The court in its order, however, noted that the Rule cited only applied to pleadings, not briefs, and therefore, was inapplicable. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff had submitted the report for a limited purpose and “The Court will, therefore, only consider the report for that limited purpose, and only to the extent authorized by Federal Circuit precedent.”

This is a patent infringement case involving industrial wood veneer technology. The patent litigation attorneys of Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this site, represent Capital Machine Company in this litigation. The Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News Blog has previously blogged about the case. There are six patents at issue, all of which have been issued by the US Patent Office:

5,562,137 Method and Apparatus for Retaining a Flitch for Cutting

5,694,995 Method and Apparatus for Preparing a Flitch for Cutting

5,701,938 Method and Apparatus for Retaining a Flitch for Cutting

5,819,828 Method and Apparatus for Preparing a Flitch for Cutting

5,678,619 Method and Apparatus for Cutting Veneer from a Tapered Flitch

7,395,843 Method and Apparatus for Retaining a Flitch for Cutting

The Case No. is 1:09-cv-00702-JMS-DML, and the Order is below.
Continue reading

By

 

The US Trademark Office issued the following 166 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in April, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

Reg. Number Mark Click to View
1 3,950,940 COR-NOC-ULAR THIS IS WHAT THE INDIANS USED BEFORE THEY HAD BINOCULARS. ANTIQUE AND COLLECTIBLE View
2 3,950,752 INTROCOMM View
3 3,950,619 TPNA View
4 3,950,576 WHEN YOUR SELF CAN’T FIND YOUR ESTEEM View
5 3,950,574 I AM ENOUGH View

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