Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

March 1, 2019

Patent Office Issues 144 Patents To Indiana Citizens in February 2019

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.

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 144 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2019, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

	Patent No.	Title
1	D0841343	Robe hook
2	10,217,530	Patient-specific cutting block and method of manufacturing same
3	10,216,767	Management method and system for implementation, execution, data collection, and data analysis of a structured collection procedure which runs on a collection device
4	10,215,195	Vibration isolation system for a fan motor
5	10,215,182	Plastic fan shroud and cone assembly and method

March 1, 2019

167 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in February 2019

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 167 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2019 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.	Word Mark
5,687,964	LOWE LOGISTICS
5,688,011	DOWNTOWN INDY INC.
5,687,986	FIXKNEE
5,687,970	THE MEXICANA COLLECTION
5,686,138
5,686,137	IGNITE

March 1, 2019

Defendant DriverReach bolsters Motion to Dismiss patent infringement suit by citing recent CAFC ruling.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN– Tenstreet’s patent infringement complaint against DriverReach was previously discussed here. In its Complaint, Tenstreet accuses DriverReach of infringing Patent No. 8,145,575 (“the ‘575 patent”) for “Peer to Peer Sharing of Job Applicant Information”. DriverReach previously moved to dismiss the suit arguing that the asserted patent was invalid. Dkt-14 Motion to Dismiss

On February 26, 2019, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued it decision in University of Florida Research Foundation, Inc. v. General Electric Company, No. 2018-1284. In that case the Federal Circuit found that the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,062,251 (“the ’251 Patent”) were not patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. This was because the Federal Circuit stated that automating “‘pen and paper methodologies’ to conserve human resources and minimize errors”, is not patentable. Specifically, a patent claim using terms like “receiving” data, “converting” the data into a specific format, “performing at least one programmatic action” on the data, and “presenting results,” was just an abstract idea because it was a “quintessential ‘do it on a computer’ patent: it acknowledges that data . . . was previously collected, analyzed, manipulated, and displayed manually, and it simply proposes doing so with a computer.”

In addition, the Federal Circuit rejected the University of Florida’s argument that the “converting” limitation claimed a specific improvement to existing technology. The court said that neither “the patent, nor its claims, explains how the drivers do the conversion.”

February 11, 2019

Supreme Court Finds Secret Sales are Prior Art Under the AIA

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the Federal Circuits’ Decision for the Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA case regarding “secret sales” as prior art under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). In their Opinion, the Court held that given the pre-AIA precedent that even “secret sales” could invalidate a patent, the same “on sale” language in the AIA provisions should be given the same presumption. Further, the addition of the phrase “or otherwise available to the public” does not allow the Court to conclude that Congress intended to alter the meaning of “on sale,” but instead, means that 35 U.S.C. § 102 could be applied to other non-delineated situations.

Helsinn Healthcare (“Helsinn”) produces a treatment utilizing the chemical palonestron to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. During the development of this product, Helsinn entered into two separate and confidential agreements with MGI Pharma, Inc. (“MGI”) giving MGI the right to distribute, promote, sell, and market a 0.25 g dose of palonosetron in the United States. While the dosage was kept confidential, the agreements were reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission. About two years later, in January 2003, Helsinn filed their provisional patent application covering a 0.25 mg dose of palonestron. Helsinn went on to file four patent applications claiming priority to the January 2003 provisional application, with its fourth patent application being filed in 2013 and being subject to the AIA. This fourth patent application led to the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 (the “‘219 patent”).

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively “Teva”) sought approval to market a generic 0.25 mg palonosetron product. Helsinn, in turn, filed suit against Teva for infringement of the ‘219 patent. Teva claimed that the ‘219 patent was invalid under the AIA because the invention was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).

February 1, 2019

179 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in January 2019

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 179 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2019 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.	Word Mark
5,666,680	ORBIT
5,666,614	CODA EVOLUTION
5,663,224	MONSER ANALYTICS
5,661,539	FORLORN HOPE
5,661,468	CREATE SOMETHING DELICIOUS

February 1, 2019

Patent Office Issues 171 Patents To Indiana Citizens in January 2019

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 171 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2019, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

	Patent No.	Title
1	D0839493	Latch clip for a door assembly of an animal enclosure
2	D0839492	Clip for a door assembly of an animal enclosure
3	D0839391	Faucet handle
4	D0839390	Faucet
5	D0839139	Compartment lid

January 31, 2019

Indiana Trademark Litigation: CribCulture, LLC of Indianapolis Sued for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Baby Merlin Company of Uwchland, Pennsylvania originally filed suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Defendants, CribCulture, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana and Isaiah Blackburn of Westfield, Indiana infringed its rights in the United States Trademark Registration Nos. 4,271,544, 3,486,179, and 5,006,620 (the “Registered Marks”) for marks including the MAGIC SLEEPSUIT. Since then, the case has been transferred to the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff is seeking punitive and monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Baby Merlin’s founder conceived of or invented the MAGIC SLEEPSUIT® (the “Sleepsuit”), a swaddle-transition-sleep-product, in 2002. The Sleepsuit helps babies from three months to nine months sleep better by keeping them cozy and secure while transitioning from a swaddle to traditional sleep clothing. A mother, also a pediatric physical therapist, designed and created the Sleepsuit at issue in this case for her own children. After success with her own babies, the Baby Merlin Company was created, and it began selling the Sleepsuit in 2008.

Plaintiff claims that in 2017, Defendants copied key features of the Sleepsuit and introduced a competing product while unlawfully using the Registered Marks or marks similar to the Registered Marks. In one example of misuse, Defendants used “Baby Merlin Sleep Suit” in a blog post on their website that included a link to Baby Merlin’s website. In another example of confusingly similar uses, Defendants uses the word “SLEEPSUIT” on their packaging using a larger font for that word than any other word on the package. Further, Baby Merlin claims Defendants have used a variety of false and misleading statements about their product and Baby Merlin’s products in their advertising.

January 30, 2019

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Attorney Bell Files Lawsuit Against Embassy Suites Management LLC

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff and Attorney, Richard N. Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Embassy Suites Management LLC (“Embassy”) infringed his rights to the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo” registered on August 4, 2011 with the US Copyright Office, Registration No. VA0001785115. Plaintiff is seeking actual and statutory damages, costs, reasonable attorney’s fees, and other relief deemed just and proper.

Bell, an attorney and professional photographer, has filed many copyright infringement cases to enforce his intellectual property rights. The photograph of the Indianapolis skyline in this case was taken in March 2000 and first published on the internet on August 29, 2000. Plaintiff is and has been the sole owner of the copyright and has published and licensed for publication the photograph in compliance with copyright laws.

Embassy used the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo on its website it created to advertise its Indianapolis business. Bell claims Embassy took the photograph from the internet without his permission. As it did not disclose the source of the photograph, Plaintiff claims Defendant willfully and falsely claimed that it owned the copyrights of all images on its website. Bell is seeking judgment declaring Defendant infringed his rights under the common law and the Federal Copyright Act.

January 29, 2019

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Design Basics, Files Against Another Indiana Home Builder

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Design Basics, LLC, Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant Chrisandy, Inc d/b/a Sierra Homes and Sierra Home Builders, of Porter County, Indiana infringed on its copyrighted Architectural Works. Plaintiff is seeking actual damages, direct and indirect profits, statutory damages, temporary and permanent injunctions, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

A home design company, Design Basics creates, markets, publishes, and licenses single-use home floor plans. Each plan takes between fifty-five and ninety hours to design and draft the necessary construction drawings. Design Basics claims they have fallen victim to mass piracy after making their plans widely available on their own website and on other plan broker websites, and because of that, they have filed many lawsuits in Indiana to protect their intellectual property.

In December 2015, Design Basics discovered multiple houses constructed by Defendant that appeared to be copied from the five floor plans at issue in this case. Those copyrighted plans include Paterson, Bayley, Lancaster, Hancock Ridge, and Hartley (the “Copyrighted Works”). Design Basics currently owns the Copyrighted Works and was the sole owner of all right, title, and interest in the Copyrighted Works at all relevant times. Plaintiff alleges Defendant violated 17 U.S.C. § 1202 by removing Design Basics’ copyright management information. They further allege copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 106.

January 24, 2019

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Indiana Home Builder Sued for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Design Basics, LLC, Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Blum Construction, Inc., of Valparaiso, Indiana infringed its copyrighted Architectural Works. Plaintiff is seeking, actual damages, direct and indirect profits, statutory damages, temporary and permanent injunctions, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

The Plaintiff has been involved in designing, marketing, and licensing architectural works for over twenty years. Design Basics’ licenses include more than just simple floor plans as they are complete sets of construction drawings that the builder and/or crew working on the home can modify to meet customer’s needs. For the two copyrighted plans at issue in this case, Design Basics has earned more than $21,049.00 in the past ten years.

In recent years, Design Basics has filed a large number of lawsuits claiming copyright infringement for its home designs in Indiana. While researching for one of these cases, the Director of Business Development for Design Basics discovered a home in Valparaiso that looked to have been copied from one of Design Basics’ plans. The Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s plans entitled “The Executive,” “The Executive 2,” and “The Annie” infringe on its U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. VA 467-639 and VA 542-680 (the “Copyrighted Works”). Design Basics is seeking damages for removal of copyright management information and copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1202 and 17 U.S.C. § 106, respectively.