By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Secure Cam, LLC of Sheridan, Wyoming originally filed suit in the Northern District of California alleging that Defendant, Project Nursery, LLC of San Francisco, California infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,257,158, (“the ‘158 Patent”) for “System for Transmitting Video Images over a Computer Network to a Remote Receiver”. As of June 21,SecureCam-BlogPhoto-236x300 2018 this case has been transferred to the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff is seeking damages, costs, expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant’s face recognition readers and license plate recognition cameras that they manufacture, import into the United States, or offer for sale, and/or sell infringe at least Claim 12 of the ‘158 Patent. Other products alleged to infringe the ‘158 Patent include: Project Nursery 5” HD Dual Connect Wi-Fi Baby Monitor System, Project Nursery 4.3 Baby Monitor System with 2 Digital Zoom Cameras, Project Nursery Video Baby Monitor System with Digital Zoom Camera, Project Nursery 5” High Definition Baby Monitor System with 1.5” Mini Monitor, Project Nursery 4.3” Baby Monitor System with 1.5” Mini Monitor, and Project Nursery 4.3” Baby Monitor System. In the Complaint, plaintiffs point out seven separate elements included in the allegedly infringing products that are all elements in Claim 12 of the ‘158 Patent.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, LTD. of Hyderabad, Telagana, India, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc,. a NewLilly-v-Reddy-BlogPhoto3-181x300 Jersey corporation, infringed its rights in U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 Patent”).

The ‘209 Patent at issue here is a method patent for administering pemetrexed disodium, a chemotherapy drug, with vitamins, the combination of which is marketed as ALITMA® by Lilly. This invention helps to solve the toxicity issue in chemotherapy patients being treated with pemetrexed. The particular regimen of vitamin  and folic acid are important for the pretreatment of these patients. As of December 2015, Dr. Reddy’s informed Lilly that it had submitted a FDA New Drug Application for a product that would be marketed as a competing product to ALITMA®.

The first issue the Court had to decide was whether Lilly was barred from asserting the doctrine of equivalents under prosecution history estoppel. The Court held that Lilly had not surrendered the equivalent in question because their decision to use the choice pemetrexed salt was tangential to the reasons for the amendment. The choice to narrow was simply to overcome a rejection in view of a prior art article about a different antifolate, methotrexate.

Continue reading

By

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 151 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in June 2018, 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 D0821294 Tire
2 10008830 High-voltage extender for connecting a spark plug to a high-voltage source
3 10008375 Systems and methods for analyzing an extracted sample
4 10008374 Systems and methods for transfer of ions for analysis
5 10007592 Debugging non-deterministic embedded systems

Continue reading

By

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

Registration No.  Word Mark Click To View
5492269 M TSDR
5503233 NEED TO PARK TSDR
5504962 NEMACOAT TSDR
5502752 MAKING ORDINARY EXTRAORDINARY TSDR
5502668 MARBLE-RITA TSDR
5502660 ONE STEP MUD MAT STOPS DIRT AND WATER IN ITS TRACKS! TSDR

Continue reading

By

Eli Lilly & Company and its subsidiary, Elanco US Inc., both of Greenfield, Indiana, filed suit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that Arla Foods, Inc. USA of Denmark, and Arla Foods Production LLC a Delaware Corporation used false advertising and unfair businessLilly-v-Arla-BlogPhoto-233x300 practices in regards to Arla brand cheeses.

In 2017, Arla Foods launched a $30 million advertising campaign focused on expanding its cheese sales in the U.S. These advertisements included ads featuring a seven-year-old girl describing recombinant bovine somatotropin (“rbST”), an artificial growth hormone used to treat cows, as a type of monster. The ads implied that milk from cows that were treated with rbST was unwholesome and unnatural, therefore not good for your family.

Elanco makes the only FDA-approved rbST supplement, marketed under the name Posilac®. After the Arla campaign launched, Elanco filed suit alleging that Arla was in violation of the Lanham Act and simultaneously moved for a preliminary injunction with supporting copies of ads, evidence that a major cheese distributor decreased its purchasing of rbST in response to the ad campaign, and scientific literature pertaining to rbST’s safety. The district judge issued the requested injunction and later modified the injunction to cure technical deficiencies.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana  – Stone Basket Innovations, LLC of Austin, Texas, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas which was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Cook Medical, LLC of Bloomington, Indiana, infringed Patent No. 6,551,327 (“‘327 Patent”), Endoscopic Stone Extraction Device with Improved Basket, issued by the US Patent Office.Stonebasket-BlogPhoto-300x204

The initial Complaint for this case was filed on April 8, 2015. Defendant served their invalidity contentions in October 2015 and deposed the ‘327 patent’s inventor in January of 2016. During the deposition, the inventor stated in regards to an addition to overcome an examiner’s rejection, “I realize there is nothing novel about it.” Defendant then petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review (IPR) of all the claims. The District Court case was stayed pending the outcome of the petition for an IPR based off a joint motion.

After the IPR was instituted in September 2016, Plaintiff offered to license the ‘327 patent to Defendant for $150,000.00. Negotiations fell through and the settlement did not occur. Plaintiff then filed a motion requesting an adverse judgment in the IPR proceeding in December 2016 and moved to dismiss the District Court case with prejudice, both of which were granted.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney for Plaintiff, Linda Matlow of Chicago, Illinois filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Rodgers Broadcasting Corp. of Richmond, Indiana, infringed its rights to the “Parr Photo” registered on December 7, 2011 with the U.S. Copyright Office, Registration Number VAu 1-085-861. Plaintiff is seeking actual and/or statutory damages, costs, attorney’s fees, an injunction, and any other relief as is just and proper.

Plaintiff’s Attorney, Bell, has filed many lawsuits on his own behalf asserting copyright infringement in Indiana federal courts. Bell has been unsuccessful as a plaintiff in many of his own infringement cases and has been ordered to pay the Defendant’s fees as a result. See:

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff took the photograph in question in the 1980’s and proceeded to register the photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2011. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant infringed on her copyright when its subsidiary KMIX 106.9 published the photograph on their Twitter account in 2017.

Continue reading

By

Venice-BlogPhoto-208x300Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Venice, P.I. had filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that many anonymous Defendants, as listed below, infringed the Plaintiff’s copyright:

Continue reading

By

Phocatox-BlogPhoto-300x81Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Phocatox Technologies, LLC of Carmel, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Jerry D. Wiersig of Foley, Alabama, Todd M. Hoffman of Edmond, Oklahoma, BioClean Remediation, LLC of Foley, Alabama, and BioClean Remediation, LLC of Edmond Oklahoma infringed the rights in United States Trademark Registration No. 3,351,509 for “BioSweep”.  Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief and judgment, including statutory damages and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff operates under the business name “BioSweep” and manufactures and licenses odor removal and decontamination equipment. The name “BioSweep” is trademarked by the Plaintiff under registration No. 3,351,509.

Continue reading

By

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 209 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in May 2018, 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 9983254 Wireless power line sensor
2 9983221 In-vitro diagnostic analysis method and system
3 9983213 Identification of subjects being susceptible to anti-angiogenesis therapy
4 9983192 Method and device for assigning a blood plasma sample
5 9983140 Method and device for detecting an analyte in a body fluid

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 – 2024, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design