Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

October 25, 2017

The USPTO Denies Petition filed by Neptune Generics, LLC in Challenge to Indiana-based Eli Lilly’s Patent

Petitioner, Neptune Generics, LLC had filed a petition with the United States Patent and Trademark Offices against Eli Lilly & Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, challenging the validity of patent no. 7,772,209, Antifolate combination therapies, which has been issued by the USPTO. This patent covers intellectual property embodied in Alimta®, a drug therapy used for the treatment of various types of cancer.

Lead Petitioner Neptune Generics, LLC is a Chicago, Illinois-based pharmaceutical company that focuses on increasing access to affordable medications. Defendant Eli Lilly is a multinational pharmaceutical company based in Indianapolis. Other petitioners joined in the case are Apotex, Inc, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Fresenius Kabi USA, and Wockhardt Bio AG.

October 23, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Infringement of Patent for Furnace Cooling Pipes Alleged Against Foreign Defendants

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indiana Patent Litigation: Infringement of Patent for Furnace Cooling Pipes Alleged Against Foreign Defendants

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Amerifab, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, MELTER, S.A. a Mexican corporation; DE C.V., GERDAU AMERISTEEL CORPORATION, a Florida corporation; GERDAU S.A., a Brazilian corporation; and RAVAGNAN S.P.A., an Italian corporation infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,330,269 (“the ‘269 Registration”) for “Heat Exchange Pipe with Extruded Fins”. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Amerifab, Inc. manufactures equipment to be used in a variety of industrial machinery, including heat transfer equipment. Defendant Melter manufactures heat transfer equipment, pressure vessels, and markets in North America. Defendant Gerdau Ameristeel recycles scrap steel into products for the construction, industrial, agricultural, and automotive industries in North America. Gerdau Ameristeel is a wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Gerdau, which operates subsidiaries primarily throughout South America. Defendant Ravagnan allegedly operates primarily out of Italy and South America, and specializes in design and construction of industrial plant and pressure vessels. Defendant Ravagnan is alleged the majority shareholder of Defendant Melter, and the two companies share facilities and employees.

October 20, 2017

Patentability of Amended Claims in IPR the Burden of the Petitioner’s Issue, Not the Patentee

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

A 7-4 of the en banc decision of the Federal Circuit concludes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board improperly requires a patent owner in an inter partes review (IPR) to show that proposed amended patent claims are patentable before a motion to amend those claims will be granted,

In an unusually opinion, the deeply divided the Court produced five opinions, none of which had enough backers to constitute the opinion of the Court. The most thoughtful opinion was 68 pages opinion, but only agreed upon by five of the judges. It concluded 5-6 that the statute unambiguously prohibited imposing on the patentee a burden of showing patentability, requiring no deference to the PTAB rule under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). However, the opinion picked up two additional votes of Judges Dyk and Reyna, who concurred in the result based on an alternative rationale conceding the ambiguity of the statute but nonetheless denying deference to the PTAB rule.

May 31, 2017

Supreme Court Provides Relief to “Exhausted” Buyers of Printer Cartridges

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The US Supreme Court has good news for people that are tired of paying high prices for printer cartridges – the fine print of the “license agreement” in the boxes that prohibits you from refilling the cartridges is no longer effective.

In Impression Products Inc. v. Lexmark International, Inc., U.S., No. 15-1189, 5/30/2017, the Court decided that when a patentee decides to sell—whether on its own or through a licensee—that sale exhausts its patent rights, regardless of any post-sale restrictions the patentee purports to impose, either directly or through a license, Chief Justice Roberts wrote for a unanimous Court. As for international exhaustion, he observed that “nothing in the text or history of the Patent Act shows that Congress intended to confine that borderless common law principle to domestic sales.” Justice Ginsburg concurred in the general exhaustion decision as to domestic sales, but dissented as to international exhaustion.

Background

Lexmark makes and sells patented ink cartridges for its printers. It sell cartridges under one plan that permits buyers to use them as they wish, and under a “Return Program” plan that provides a discounted price. The Return Program plan limits buyers to a single use of the cartridge and requires the cartridges to be returned to Lexmark for recycling.

Lexmark filed infringement suits against many makers of after-market ink cartridges for Lexmark printers, most of which settled. In the action against Impressions, the district court entered a stipulated judgment, holding that Lexmark’s patent rights in cartridges first sold in the United States were exhausted, but the rights were retained for cartridges first sold abroad.

In a 10-2 en banc decision, the Federal Circuit held that, where the patentee’s sale is subject to a single-use/no-resale restriction that is lawful and clearly communicated, the sale does not confer resale or reuse authority to a buyer or downstream buyers. It also held that the patentee’s sale or authorization to sell a U.S. patented article abroad does not authorize the buyer to import the article and sell and use it in the United States.

The Federal Circuit decision was taken for review by the Supreme Court.

U.S. Sales

The Supreme Court concluded that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights the moment it sold its patented cartridges in the United States under the Return Program. While they may be clear and enforceable under contract law, the single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark’s contracts with customers do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell, according to the Court.

May 23, 2017

Indiana’s TC Heartland Wins Patent Case in US Supreme Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

TC Heartland LLC of Carmel, Indiana won a precedent-setting victory in the US Supreme Court in its patent infringement suit with Kraft Foods. The US Supreme Court held that the term “resides” in 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) for determining venue patent suits refers only to the State of incorporation.

Overruling the Federal Circuit’s decision in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990), the Court concluded that 2008 and 2011 revisions to the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. §1391 did not modify the meaning of “resides” in Section 1400(b) to include personal jurisdiction for corporate defendants. This issue was resolved by a 1957 Supreme Court decision, and nothing in the later legislation indicates that Congress intended to overturn that decision, the Court concluded.

Background

May 8, 2017

Patent Office Issues 196 Patents To Indiana Citizens in April 2017

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 196 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in April 2017, 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	D784,862	Gas spring end members
2	D784,728	Towel bar
3	9,635,106	Identifying one or more peer devices in a peer-to-peer communication
4	9,634,545	Component for an electric machine
5	9,633,976	Systems and methods for inter-chip communication
6	9,632,514	Electronic shower system
7	9,632,080	Diagnostic multi-layer dry phase test strip with integrated biosensors (“electrostrip”)
8	9,631,916	Component including structures for determinant loading
9	9,631,773	Shipping container having a flame retardant layer and a thermal blocking layer
10	9,631,707	Multi-speed transmission

May 3, 2017

177 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in April 2017

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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
5191375	OCHO RIOS	TSDR
5191370	BASECAMP	TSDR
5191305	AGRINOVUS INDIANA	TSDR
5191044	BLUE FIRE FUSION	TSDR
5191043		TSDR
5190953	LEASING AN ANGEL	TSDR

April 13, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Indianapolis Hair Accessory Merchant Sued for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Her Imports f/k/a EZJR, Inc. sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement, trademark dilution and trade dress infringement. The lawsuit names Her Hair, Inc., an Indianapolis hair-extension merchant, as Defendant.

Plaintiff markets and sells wigs, hairpieces and hair accessories. It claims ownership of two trademarks, U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4,631,694 for the word mark “HER IMPORTS” and 5,048,646 for “HER IMPORTS” and design. Both trademarks have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff contends that Defendant designed and used a similar mark, asserting that it was intentionally crafted “for the sole purposes of imitating Plaintiff’s Trademark, causing actual confusion among the general public, and attempting to pass itself off as being associated with the Her Imports brand.” Plaintiff further states that Defendant’s trademark has caused actual customer confusion. Defendant’s mark was registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under Reg. No. 5,144,514.

Plaintiff further accuses Defendant of copying its “unique store interior trade dress,” comprising black and white Damask wallpaper along with red trim, in Defendant’s store.

In this Indiana lawsuit, filed by trademark attorneys for Plaintiff, the following claims are made:

Count I: Mark Cancellation 15 U.S.C. § 1064
Count II: Trade Dress Infringement 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) (as to the Store Interior)
Count III: Dilution by Blurring — 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (as to Plaintiff’s Trademark)
Count IV: Dilution by Blurring — 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c) (as to Plaintiff’s Store Interior Trade Dress)
Count IV: [sic] Recovery of Profits, Damages, Costs, and Attorneys’ Fees Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)
Count VI: Destruction of Infringing Articles 15 U.S.C. § 1118
Count VII: Injunctive Relief 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1)

Plaintiff seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief, the cancellation of Defendant’s trademark, damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

April 12, 2017

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Again in Federal Court to Defend Alimta Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a federal lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement. Defendants are Actavis LLC of Parsippany, New Jersey; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. of North Wales, Pennsylvania; and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. of Petach Tikva, Israel.

At issue is a patent for Antifolate Combination Therapies, Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 patent”) which has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. This patent covers intellectual property embodied in Alimta®, a drug therapy used for the treatment of various types of cancer.

In a complaint filed by an Indiana patent litigator, Lilly states that Defendants filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic equivalents of ALIMTA® prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent. It asserts that this filing constitutes and/or will constitute infringement of the ‘209 patent, active inducement of infringement of the ‘209 patent, and contribution to the infringement by others of the ‘209 patent.

Lilly seeks, inter alia, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

April 10, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: IHOP and Applebee’s Sued on Allegations of Infringement of Splenda Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Heartland Consumer Products LLC and TC Heartland LLC, of Carmel, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, dilution and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, the Indiana State Trademark Act, and the common law of the State of Indiana.

At issue are trademarks covering Splenda®-brand sweetener, which has been approved for use in over 80 countries and used in more than 4000 products globally. In this Indiana litigation, Heartland claims that some or all of the following trademarks have been infringed: 1544079, 3346910; 4172135, 4165028, 4301712, 4172136, 4165029,4122311, 4187229, 4202774, 4230392, 4238101, 4106164, 4664653, and 4744600. These trademarks have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, Heartland claims ownership of the following pending applications for United States Trademark Registration Serial Nos. 86865337, 87012521, and 87010504.

Defendants in the lawsuit are DineEquity, Inc., Applebee’s Franchisor LLC, Applebee’s Restaurants LLC, Applebee’s Services, Inc., International House of Pancakes, LLC f/k/a International House of Pancakes, Inc., IHOP Franchising LLC, IHOP Franchise Company, LLC and IHOP Franchisor LLC. Plaintiff asserts that all Defendants have a principal place of business in Glendale, California. They are accused of leading customers to believe that they offer Splenda-brand sweetener when they do not. Plaintiff contends that instead of American-made Splenda, the product offered to the customers is, in fact, “a lower-quality product of China.”

Indiana trademark attorneys for Heartland sued in federal court. They assert:

Count I: Common Law Trademark Infringement and Trademark Infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
Count II: False Designation of Origin under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
Count III: Unfair Competition
Count IV: Trademark Dilution under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)
Count V: Trademark Dilution under I.C. 24-2-1-13.5
Count VII [sic]: Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief
Count VIII: Corrective Advertising Damages

Plaintiff asks the court for injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. They also seek various types of damages, including actual, statutory, punitive and treble damages.