Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

March 10, 2011

U.S. Senate Passes Patent Reform Bill

Washington, D.C. – Yesterday the United States Senate passed a landmark patent reform bill that will adopt a first-inventor-to-file system. Senate Bill 23 will also create an independent funding system and create a post-grant review process. The Senate has been looking at patent reform since 2005. Indiana Senators Dan Coats and Richard Lugar both voted in favor of the bill, which passed 95-5.

The bill now goes to the U.S. House of Representatives, where it will first be heard by the Judiciary Committee. The chairman of the judiciary committee, Representative Lamar Smith, has already made favorable comments about the bill. In a press release, he stated “Adopting a first-inventor-to-file standard creates certainty about patent ownership and makes it easier for American innovators to apply for patents around the world. The post-grant review process helps to reduce frivolous lawsuits filed by holders of weak or overbroad patents. And allowing for the third party submission of prior art helps prevent bad patents from being granted in the first place. These are just a few of the many provisions for which there is widespread support.”

March 10, 2011

Italian manufacturer Tecnomatic files patent, trademark and other claims against Pendleton’s Delco Remy over component for hybrid electric vehicles.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, IL– Intellectual property attorneys for Italian company Tecnomatic have filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois making patent ownership, trademark infringement and other claims against automotive part company Delco Remy of Pendleton, Indiana as well as Delco Remy of Mexico and other parties. The technology at issue is High Voltage Hairpin stator winding technology that is a component of electric motors for hybrid electric vehicles. Tecnomatic alleges that it shared its technology in anticipation of a possible joint venture and that Remy breached confidentiality agreements made as part of that proposal. Tecnomatic further alleges that Remy used its confidential technology to gain business and federal grants and attempted to file patent applications with the US Patent Office without crediting Tecnomatic as inventors.
Continue reading

March 4, 2011

91 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in February, 2011

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The US Trademark Office issued the following 91 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

	Reg. Number	Mark	Click to View
1	3,923,232	MAVIZON	View
2	3,923,208	AQUAFORMS	View
3	3,923,095	AFCDEALER.COM	View
4	3,922,801	{Design}	View
5	3,922,604	PRIMEFIT	View

March 3, 2011

Indiana Patent Attorneys Obtain 88 Patents for Indiana Companies in February, 2011

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 88 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in February, 2011:

	PAT. NO.	Title
1	D633,194	Fan blade
2	D633,193	Fan blade
3	7,894,872	Computer assisted orthopaedic surgery system with light source and associated method
4	7,893,408	Methods and apparatus for ionization and desorption using a glow discharge
5	7,892,849	Reagent stripe for test strip

March 1, 2011

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Stanford University Patent Ownership Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – On February 28, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, a patent ownership case that has implications for Indiana patent attorney. Under the Bayh-Dole Act,35 U.S.C. §§ 200-212, institutions using federal funding to perform research gain patent rights to inventions created through the federally-funded research. In this case, an inventor performed some research while he worked for Stanford University and had signed a patent ownership assignment agreement with Stanford. The inventor later left this employment and performed further research, culminating in an invention, while employed by Roche. He had also signed a patent assignment agreement with Roche. The question is now whether Stanford or Roche has patent rights to his invention.
Continue reading

February 28, 2011

Knauf Insulation Limited sues CertainTeed Corporation for patent infringement of fiberglass insulation products

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Knauf Insulation Limited of the United Kingdom has filed a patent infringement suit alleging CertainTeed Corporation of Valley Forge, Pennsylvania infringed Patent No. 7,854,980, FORMALDEHYDE-FREE MINERAL FIBRE INSULATION PRODUCT, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. Knauf Insulation USA is based in Shelbyville, Indiana where it employs 500 workers.

Knauf’s patent attorneys allege that CertainTeed makes and offers for sale a product known as “CertainTeed Sustainable Insulation” that infringers at least one of the claims of Knauf’s patent. According to coverage by the Indianapolis Star, Knauf’s patented technology allows it to make insulation with using formaldehyde. Knauf is seeking a declaratory judgment that CertainTeed has infringed the patent, injunction, damages and attorneys’ fees. According to Inside Indiana Business, CertainTeed has responded by publicly denying the allegations.

This case has been assigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 1:11-cv-00300-TWP-DML.
Continue reading

February 28, 2011

Mary E. Hining sues Rebecca L. Gregg for copyright infringement of artwork sold on Etsy.com

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Last week Mary E. Hining, Pro Se, of Durham, NC filed a copyright infringement suit against Rebecca L. Gregg of Indianapolis in the Southern District of Indiana. Ms. Hining alleges that Ms. Gregg sold painted glassware on Etsy.com, a website where artists offer their work for sale, in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 501. Ms. Hining owns Copyright Registration No. VA0001718592, which copyrighted work HAND-PAINTED GLASSWARE DESIGNED BY MARYWIBIS ALSO KNOWN AS MARYELIZABETHARTS. The copyright is registered by the US Copyright Office.

Ms. Hining creates and sells champagne tasting glasses with hand painted leaves and branches of various types of trees on Etsy.com under the name marywibis. She has copyrighted her work and registered the copyright with the US Copyright Office. In the complaint, which Ms. Hining filed on her own and with out the assistance of a copyright attorney, Ms. Hining alleges that Ms. Gregg offers for sale on Etsy.com glasses that are virtually identical and that infringe upon Ms. Hining’s copyright. Ms. Gregg offers the glasses under the name gnome292. Ms. Hining is seeking an injunction and damages.

February 23, 2011

Joe Hand Promotions Sues Lawrenceburg, Indiana Bar for Showing UFC Fight Without Authorization

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis – Last week, copyright attorneys for Joe Hand Promotions, a Pennsylvania corporation, filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against the owners of an Indiana bar who alleged displayed an Ultimate Fight Championship fight without authorization.

Ursula and Guenter Grote operate the Grote Trading Post and Gus’s Sports Bar in Lawrenceburg, Indiana. Joe Hand Promotions owns exclusive rights to distribute the Ultimate Fight Championship television broadcast on March 3, 2009, UFC broadcast #96. The complaint, filed in the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that the Grotes displayed the fight in their bar without authorization from Joe Hand Promotions. According to the complaint, Joe Hand’s copyright attorneys are unsure whether the Grote’s used satellite or cable television network to show the fight. The copyright attorneys therefore allege that the Grotes violated either 47 U.S.C. § 605(a) or 47 U.S.C. § 553. Joe Hand is seeking damages of up to $110,000, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Most Satellite signal providers employ encryption to limit reception to certain groups, such as paying subscribers. If an individual has a “residential” agreement with a satellite provider, this does not give them the right to display the performance in a public setting like a bar or restaurant. This is the third copyright infringement lawsuit making similar claims that Joe Hand Promotions has filed in the Southern District of Indiana since 2010.

The case has been assigned to Chief Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate William G. Hussmann. The docket number is 4:11-CV-016-RLY-WGH.
Continue reading

February 22, 2011

ChaCha Search, Inc. sues HTC America for trademark infringement of CHACHA mark for Smart Phone

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark lawyers for ChaCha Search, Inc. of Carmel, Indiana filed a trademark infringement suit alleging HTC America, Inc. of Washington state, a subsidiary of the HTC Corporation of Taiwan. ChaCha Search alleges that the defendants infringed the ChaCha trademark. ChaCha Search owns the mark and design “ChaCha” registered with the US Trademark Office with registration numbers 3,217,653; 3,217,654 and 3,501,101 for the CHACHA mark.

ChaCha Search has developed a search engine system where mobile phone users call in to an operator who provides answers to the user questions. ChaCha Search has registered the ChaCha mark in relation to this search service. In the complaint trademark attorneys filed last week, ChaCha Search alleges that HTC plans to begin offering a similar search service as part of a smart phone and that HTC plans to use the name and mark ChaCha for the smart phone. According to Yahoo! News, HTC revealed plans to release the phone at the Mobile World Congress trade convention in February. ChaCha Search’s trademark attorneys made claims for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), trademark dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c), and common law unfair competition. ChaCha Search is seeking an injunction and damages.

This case has been assigned to Judge William T. Lawrence and Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 1:11-cv-00262-WTL-MJD.
Continue reading

February 21, 2011

Indiana’s Southern District Court, Not Arkansas District Court, Will Hear Brandt Grain Cart Trademark Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Rulings by district courts in Indiana and Arkansas have ensured that the Southern District Court of Indiana will decide a longstanding trademark dispute over a mark used in agricultural machinery. Last week, the Southern District Court declined to transfer Brandt Industries Limited (BIL) v. Pitonyak Machinery Corporation (PMC) to the Eastern District of Arkansas, and the Eastern District Court of Arkansas has transferred its version of the case to Indiana’s Southern District Court.

On July 6, 2010, attorneys for BIL filed a trademark infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana seeking a declaratory judgment regarding rights to the trademark.

The next day, July 7, trademark attorneys for PMC filed suit in the Eastern District of Arkansas, making a nearly identical trademark infringement claims. Indiana Intellectual Property Lawyer Blog previously wrote about the case here: https://www.iniplaw.org/2010/07/brandt-industries-sues-for-a-d.html#more. PMC then sought transfer of the Indiana case to Arkansas federal court, arguing that all the witnesses were in Arkansas and therefore Arkansas would be a more convenient location for the trial. PMC, based in Carlisle, Arkansas, also argued that Indiana did not have a significant connection to the litigation. BIL is a Canadian company. BIL, however, listed numerous Indiana locations where products with the disputed trademark are sold. The rulings by the two district courts last week settle this dispute over which court will hear the case.

Practice Tip: This case illustrates the importance of being the first party to file a lawsuit when there is a trademark dispute about a product sold in multiple jurisdictions. Certainly, PMC’s argument that it will be inconvenient for it to litigate in Indiana since it is located in Arkansas is well taken. However, inconvenience to PMC was not a sufficient reason for the district courts to transfer the case to Arkansas. Had attorneys for PMC filed the trademark dispute in their preferred court before BIL filed the Indiana case, PMC may have been able to avoid litigating in an inconvenient location.