Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

April 17, 2020

Cook Medical Granted New Trial Due to Prejudicial Error

Indianapolis, Indiana – Cook Medical was granted a new trial after the Honorable Richard L. Young, a judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, admitted to errors in allowing inadmissible evidence to be presented to the jury by counsel for Plaintiff, Tonya Brand.

Ms. Brand was implanted with a Cook Celect® Inferior Vena Cava Filter (“Cook IVC Filter”) prior to undergoing a complex spine surgery in March 2009. The next month, imaging was taken that showed the filter perforating Ms. Brand’s IVC in multiple places and that one of the filter’s “struts” was hooked on a bone spur. The Cook IVC Filter later fractured in three places in just over two years after its initial placement. A piece of the Cook IVC Filter emerged through Ms. Brand’s thigh. After a failed attempt by Ms. Brand’s doctor to retrieve the filter in July 2011, the doctor and Ms. Brand elected to leave the fractured Cook IVC Filter in place until it was removed in 2015. Ms. Brand filed a products liability suit in November 2014 and was awarded a jury verdict in the amount of $3 million on February 1, 2019.

A new trial may be granted if the trial was not fair to the moving party or if the improper admission of evidence has a “substantial influence on the jury” and the result was “inconsistent with substantial justice.” The main piece of evidence objected to by Cook was Brand’s trial exhibit 1913 (“PX-1913”). This exhibit was an email chain between Cook employees including multiple instances of hearsay and a table with details of 27 deaths associated with Cook IVC Filters. The Court on review found Ms. Brand’s injuries were not substantially similar to those patients listed on the table and the emails contained inadmissible hearsay and therefore PX-1913 was improperly admitted. Further, Ms. Brand’s counsel relied heavily on the connection between the Cook IVC Filter and death based on PX-1913 which was found to be inappropriate and prejudicial on review. Finally, the Court found “a jury could have just as easily found in Cook’s favor.” and because this trial was so close it, “is more likely to have been affected by errors.” Therefore, the Court granted Cook’s Motion for New Trial.

April 16, 2020

Bonanza Steak & BBQ Sued for Alleged Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Broadcast Music, Inc., one of six Plaintiffs in this copyright infringement case, claims to license the public performance rights for 14 million copyrighted musical compositions (the “BMI Repertoire”). The other five Plaintiffs claim to each own at least one copyright in the musical compositions at issue which include “Free Bird,” “Me And Bobby McGee,” and “Midnight Rider.”

Defendant Scott County Restaurants, Inc. (“Scott”) allegedly owns and operates Bonanza Steak & BBQ (“Bonanza”) in Seymour, Indiana. According to the Complaint, Defendant Michael P. Everhart (“Everhart”) is an officer of Scott and is responsible for the activities and operations of Bonanza. Apparently, the musical compositions at issue in this case were each played at Bonanza on at least one occasion. Plaintiffs claim to have reached out to Defendants over 40 times regarding the necessity for Defendants to purchase a license for public performance before filing this suit seeking damages for willful copyright infringement.

The case was assigned to District Judge Tanya W. Pratt and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District and assigned Cause No. 4:20-cv-000006-TWP-DML.

April 9, 2020

Car Seat Manufacturer Sued Again for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiffs, Esther A. L. Verbovszky (“Verbovzsky”) and Hug Me Joey, LLC (“Hug Me Joey”), less than a year after voluntarily dismissing a similar lawsuit, have once again filed a complaint against Defendant Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. d/b/a Maxi-Cosi (“Dorel”) claiming patent infringement. According to the Complaint, Verbovzsky strives to design and invent products to abate breathing and digestive issues in small infants during transport. Verbovzsky further claims to be the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,467,840 (the ‘840 Patent”) for “Child’s Car Seat Insert.” As the founder and CEO of Hug Me Joey, Verbovzsky allegedly licensed the ‘840 Patent to Hug Me Joey for the manufacturing of the Hug Me Joey child’s car seat insert (the “HMJ Insert”).

Apparently Dorel manufactures car seats, including 22 models that were nam ed in the Complaint as the “Accused Products”. Plaintiffs claim each of the Accused Products that are manufactured and/or sold by Dorel infringe the ‘840 Patent due to the “infant insert”, “insert cushion(s)”, “insert pillow”, “body pillow”, or “body insert pillow” that is stated to come with each car seat. The Plaintiffs believe the infringement by Dorel to be willful and knowingly. Threfore, they are seeking treble damages and a finding that this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285, respectively.

The case was assigned to District Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman in the Southern District and assigned Case 1:20-cv-00061-RLY-MPB.

April 8, 2020

Competing Jewelry Companies in Court Again over Alleged Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Sheryl Lutz-Brown (“Sheryl”), the principal for Plaintiff, Corlinea, is a graphic designer and creator of copyrighted jewelry designs. In 2016, Sheryl claims to have developed a unique work entitled “HEARTY LOVE Design” that incorporated the word “love” into a heart shape design with one continuous line. Shortly after the “HEARTY LOVE Design”, it appears Sheryl created the “Heartlines Love Pendant” which was a heart-shaped pendant with the word “love” incorporated into the design with a continuous line. Sheryl registered both of these designs and they were assigned U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. VAu 1-301-361 and VAu 2-093-049 (the “Registered Copyrights”), respectively. Corlinea claims to own both of the Registered Copyrights by assignment.

Corlinea and Defendant, Shah Diamonds, Inc. d/b/a Shah Luxury (“Shah”), are no strangers in litigation as Corlinea previously sued Shah in a similar lawsuit in 2018. The parties in that case entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement and Release and the case was voluntarily dismissed. Less than one year after Shah signed the previous Settlement Agreement and Release, Corlinea claims it discovered Shah was once again offering infringing jewelry for sale on its website.

Corlinea claims Defendants, Spath Jewelers, Inc. and Showcase Jewelers, LTD are also offering infringing jewelry for sale on their respective websites. Due to the allegedly intentional copying of the Registered Copyrights, Corlinea is seeking damages for Federal Copyright Infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501 and breach of the Settlement Agreement and Release from the 2018 lawsuit.

April 3, 2020

Cravin Vapes Sued for Alleged Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Plaintiff, CravinVapes, LLC, claims Defendants, Michael McClellan and Indiana Vapes, LLC infringed its U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,714,661 (the “‘661 Mark”). Apparently, CravinVapes had previously licensed the ‘661 Mark to non-party, Lee Eddy (“Eddy”) in connection with his operation of an E-liquid business shop. It was noted when Eddy sold his store to Defendants, Eddy’s license agreement with CravinVapes was not transferable as part of the sale. However, CravinVapes claims Defendants opened an E-liquid store and have continued the use of the ‘661 Mark on the sign for the storefront. Plaintiff also claims Indiana Vapes LLC held themselves out to the public as a CravinVapes location on Facebook. While CravinVapes claims it gave McClellan an opportunity to sign a license agreement with it on August 17, 2018, it appears he refused to do so.

Just over a year after being offered the license agreement, Defendants were allegedly sent a cease and desist letter on November 13, 2019. According to the Complaint, after further discussions between the parties, Defendants removed the exterior sign with the ‘661 Mark from their storefront in December 2019, but have continued to use the ‘661 Mark on Facebook. CravinVapes is seeking an injunction and damages related to trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.

The case was assigned to Judge Holly A. Brady and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins in the Northern District of Indiana and assigned Case 1:19-cv-00546-HAB-SLC.

April 3, 2020

Patent Office Issues 237 Patents To Indiana Citizens March 2020

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 237 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in March 2020, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign patent searches, patent applications and assists with enforcing patents via infringement litigation and licensing.

	Patent No.	Title
1	D0879918	Faucet spout
2	D0879917	Faucet handle
3	D0879916	Faucet handle
4	D0879915	Faucet handle
5	D0879914	Faucet
6	D0879892	Basketball backboard support arm
7	D0879724	Contact wafer
8	D0879639	Combined hanging basket and wind chimes
9	D0879599	Wall-engaging device for a gate
10	D8079544	Multipurpose solar drying tray assembly

April 2, 2020

188 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in March 2020

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Overhauser Law Offices the publisher of this site, assists with U.S. and Foreign Trademark searches, Trademark Applications and assists with enforcing Trademarks via Infringement Litigation and Licensing.

	Reg. Number	Word Mark
1	6018989	SYNCAGE EVOLUTION
2	6018774	EXCAVATOR
3	6018440	THREEFOLD
4	6018439	THREEFOLD
5	6018438	THREEFOLD
6	6018411	THREEFOLD
7	6018289	AUTOBIOCOMEDY
8	6018261	T-PAL
9	6018178	KITCHIO
10	6018176	KITCHIO

April 2, 2020

Court Enters Temporary Restraining Order to Protect Trade Secrets

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – The United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana entered a Temporary Restraining Order against Darkhorse Cargo, Inc. (“Darkhorse”) and its employees (collectively “Defendants”) regarding trade secrets and confidential information of Plaintiff, RC Trailers, Inc. (“RC”).

RC manufactures and distributes cargo and specialty trailers throughout the United States. According to RC, it expends a lot of time, effort, and expense to maintain dealer and vendor relationship using trade secrets and confidential business information. RC claims it uses confidentiality provisions in its employee handbooks, passwords, disclaimers on confidential communications, and o

RC’s former president, Defendant Bryan Johnson (“Johnson”), ended his employment with RC in September 2018 and signed an agreement that contained non-solicitation and non-recruitment covenants that expired one year later. After Johnson’s departure, he claims many RC employees were unhappy to see him leave and wanted to work for him elsewhere. In the spring of 2019, RC promoted Defendant Joseph Kiefer (“Kiefer”) from CFO to acting General Manager. Kiefer claims that RC employees were talking about wanting Johnson to open his own trailer company prior to Kiefer terminating his employment with RC in June 2019. Prior to his leaving RC, Kiefer allegedly tried to recruit RC’s sales professional to join Darkhorse, indicating the business would be started by Kiefer and Johnson in the near future. RC claims that unbeknownst to it, Kiefer deleted the post-employment restrictions in his non-compete agreement before signing and returning it to RC upon his departure.

March 26, 2020

Motion to Disqualify: Patent Law Firm Tries to Cap Bottle Cap Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

This suit is over the design of two bottle caps.

Plaintiff, Closure, claims it designed the bottle cap on the left, and Defendant, Novembal, got a patent on the bottle cap on the right. But Closure claims that it, not Novembal is the actual “inventor” of the bottle cap design. Perhaps fearing that Novembal was about to file suit, Closure in its home turf of New Jersey and trying to gain a home court advantage, took the initiative and sued Novembal in Indiana. Its Complaint sought to “correct the inventorship” of Novembal’s patent and to prevent Novembal from enforcing the patent against Closure. That suit is reported here: Closure Systems International Sues Novembal USA Seeking Correction of Inventorship. Not surpisingly, Novembal asserted a counterclaim for patent infringement.

The twist is that in the infringement counterclaim, Novembal seeks a broad injunction. So broad, that it would prevent not just Closure, but some of Closure’s customers from infringing the patent. In its counterclaim, Novembal seeks:

A permanent injunction enjoining CSI and its employees, agents, successors, partners, officers, directors, owners, shareholders, principals, subsidiaries, related companies, affiliates, distributors, dealers, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them . . . from making, importing, promoting, offering, or exposing for sale, or selling the CSI Production Closures, or any other closures with designs confusingly similar to the claimed design of Novembal’s ‘442 patent.

One company that apparently gets its bottle caps from Closure is Nestle, one of the biggest sellers of bottled water. So far, no big deal. Except, Nestle is represented by the blue chip Washington DC patent law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner. Finnegan happens to be the same law firm that represents Novembal in the suit with Closure. So Finnegan is attempting to get an injunction for one client (Novembal) that would apply to another client, Nestle. Continue reading

March 23, 2020

Indiana Supreme Court Holds Liquidated Damage Provisions are Unenforceable Penalties

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court on both issues on appeal in the case of American Consulting, Inc. d/b/a American Structurepoint, Inc. (“American”) versus Hannum Wagle & Cline Engineering, Inc., d/b/a HWC Engineering, Inc. (“HWC”), Marlin A. Knowles, Jr., Jonathan A. Day, David Lancet, and Tom Mobley, originally filed in the Marion County Superior Court.

Knowles, Day, Lancet, and Mobley were all previous employees of American. Mobley was granted summary judgment in his favor in the trial court so claims against him were not discussed on appeal. Each of the employees signed contracts precluding them from hiring or employing other American employees. These contracts each had clauses for liquidated damages upon breach set at 50% of the employee’s pay during the twelve months prior to the breach for Knowles and 100% of the employee’s pay during the twelve months prior to the breach for Day and Lancet.