Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

March 11, 2024

Red Hex Rivalry: Valcrum Hubcaps vs. Dexter’s Fortress

In Cyprus, Texas, Valcrum, LLC (“Valcrum”), a company specializing in trailer and axle market products, is engaged in a legal dispute with Dexter Axle Company, LLC (“Dexter”) from Indiana over trademark and trade dress infringement regarding a hubcap design.

According to court documents, Valcrum has developed a reputation for innovative hubcaps designed for 8,000-16,000-pound trailer axles. These hubcaps are identified by their distinct features, including a “signature red hex bezel with a hexagonal outer perimeter and an inner diameter.” Valcrum claims to have begun establishing trademark and trade dress rights for this design as early as late 2018.

The dispute arises from Valcrum’s allegation that Dexter, a manufacturer and distributor of axle and trailer accessories, has copied Valcrum’s hubcap design, including the distinctive red hex bezel, to market its own product called the “Fortress” hubcap. Additionally, Valcrum contends that Dexter breached a Mutual Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA) by allegedly using confidential information, such as Valcrum’s customer list, to its advantage.

March 8, 2024

Protecting Quality: Nutramax Laboratories Takes Legal Action Against Alleged Unauthorized Resale

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. (“Nutramax”) have recently begun legal proceedings against CNB Retailers, LLC, Brett Hart, and Christina Miller (“Defendants”) alleging unauthorized resale of Nutramax products. The suit involves allegations concerning trademark infringement, unfair competition, and interference with contractual agreements.

Nutramax Labs and Nutramax Vet, entities headquartered in South Carolina, are known for their development and distribution of health supplements tailored for companion animals. Court documents state that the trademarks associated with Nutramax, such as NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES and PROVIABLE, are widely recognized within the industry. Nutramax products are sold through authorized retailers which may have online or brick-and-mortar locations.

The crux of Nutramax’s grievance lies in Defendants’ purported unauthorized sales of Nutramax products, notably on Amazon.com, under the seller account name “UniversalExports.” In addition to the accused products bearing the NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES and PROVIABLE trademarks, Nutramax asserts that the products being distributed by Defendants differ materially from those authorized by Nutramax, thus failing to meet the requisite quality standards. These requirements include proper storage conditions to maintain product quality and providing customer support and knowledge about Nutramax products.

March 7, 2024

Patent Office Issued 312 Patents to Indiana Entities in January 2024

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 312 patents to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2024:

Patent Number	Patent Title
US 11886208 B2	Electronic user interface for electronic mixing of water for residential faucets
US 11884752 B2	Inhibited non-pregelatinized granular starches
US 11883335 B2	Medical products storage device including access control
US 11884467 B2	Degradable materials and packaging made from same
US 11883110 B2	Sensor-based shoulder system and method

March 5, 2024

204 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Entities in February 2024

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 204 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2024 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration Number

Wordmark

7309930	AIRFEET
7298640	PERQ CONVERT
7317144	ENVIRON
7302107	PAINT & DECORATING RETAILER
7308828
7312041	KIRKWOOD CANDLE BAR

March 4, 2024

This is Garbage! Photographer Battles Circle City Broadcasting Over Alleged Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Defendant Circle City Broadcasting, LLC d/b/a WISH-TV, is being sued by Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski over alleged copyright infringement. Sadowski is a photojournalist from New Jersey, who has been published in numerous popular newspapers and magazines. While he holds the licenses to his photographs, court documents explain that Sadowski allows entities to purchase a one-time-use license for themselves.

According to the complaint, in 2019, Sadowski created and copyrighted a photograph titled “062219garbagetruck4CS,” depicting the bustling streets of New York City. In 2021, Circle City Broadcasting purportedly published Sadowski’s work on their website, without obtaining the necessary licensing. It is alleged that not only did they display the image without consent, but they also cropped out Sadowski’s copyright management information, potentially infringing upon his rights.

Despite Sadowski’s supposed attempts to resolve the matter amicably, Circle City Broadcasting purportedly failed to address the issue satisfactorily. Consequently, Sadowski pursued legal action to address the alleged willful infringement.

March 1, 2024

Precision and Clarity in Patent Claims: A Case Study of CAFC’s Ruling on U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In a recent CAFC ruling on U.S. Patent No. 9,361,658, owned by Mantissa Corporation, the court addressed the issue of claim definiteness in the context of an infringement dispute with First Financial Corporation and First Financial Bank, N.A. The case focused on interpreting terms like “transaction partner” and “OFF” within the patent claims. The district court, relying on expert testimony, found “transaction partner” indefinite, a decision challenged by Mantissa. However, the CAFC majority emphasized intrinsic evidence from the patent itself, highlighting the term’s absence in the original specification and rejecting Mantissa’s argument that a person of ordinary skill would understand it as a seller. The court declined to address the construction of “OFF” due to jurisdictional constraints. Judge Schall dissented, arguing for a broader interpretation of “transaction partner” based on the specification’s references to multiple parties involved in transactions.

Ultimately, the CAFC’s ruling highlights the importance of precision and clarity in patent claims. It emphasizes the intrinsic evidence as a primary source for claim interpretation and underscores the significance of ensuring that claim terms are adequately defined within the patent specification itself. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role that claim definiteness plays in the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.

Opinion

February 26, 2024

Franchise Freeze-Out: Baskin-Robbins vs. Blue Moo

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC (“Baskin-Robbins”) v. Blue Moo Ice Cream Inc. (“Blue Moo”) is a breach of contract and trademark infringement suit involving Plaintiff Baskin-Robbins/BR IP Holder, a well-known franchisor in the ice cream industry, and Defendants Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc., and Robert Holocher.

According to the complaint, Baskin-Robbins entered into franchise agreements with Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. for the operation of Baskin-Robbins franchises in the greater Indianapolis area. However, Baskin-Robbins claims the termination of the agreements ensued due to Blu Moo’s repeated failure to fulfill financial obligations to Baskin-Robbins, triggering a series of legal actions.

The crux of the case revolves around Blu Moo’s alleged unauthorized use of Baskin-Robbins’ intellectual property, including trademarks and trade dress, after the termination of franchise agreements. Baskin-Robbins claims to have given clear instructions to cease operations and de-identify the restaurants, but Blu Moo purportedly continued to operate, sparking Baskin-Robbins’ claim of irreparable harm to their brand reputation and goodwill.

February 23, 2024

USPTO’s Clarification on Human Ingenuity in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently provided crucial clarification on the patentability of inventions facilitated by artificial intelligence (AI). The announcement, made on February 12th, has significant implications for intellectual property (IP) law and innovation in the rapidly evolving realm of AI technology.

The USPTO’s guidance delineates the conditions under which patents will be granted for AI-assisted inventions, emphasizing the indispensable role of human ingenuity in the innovation process. According to the new directive, patents can encompass AI-assisted inventions “for which a natural person provided a significant contribution.” This pivotal criterion underscores the agency’s commitment to fostering innovation while maintaining a balance that avoids undue restrictions on future developments.

The emergence of artificial intelligence has precipitated novel challenges in IP law, prompting inquiries into the patentability of inventions produced with AI assistance. While U.S. courts have determined that AI systems themselves cannot be patent holders for fully AI-generated inventions, the issue of human involvement in AI-assisted inventions remained unresolved until now.

February 19, 2024

Paws, Patents, and Proceedings: The case of Kennels & Kats v. Delomo

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Plaintiff Excelencia Importing Pty Ltd. d/b/a Kennels & Kats (“K&K”) brought forth a complaint against Defendant Jinping Leng d/b/a Delomo (“Defendant”). The core allegation was that the Defendant, through inequitable conduct, obtained U.S. Patent No. D827,946 for a “Pet Grooming Glove,” a design that was allegedly already in circulation in the United States before the patent application. The complaint contended that the Defendant deliberately failed to disclose this information to the USPTO during the patent’s prosecution.

The legal action claimed that the Defendant’s failure to disclose prior art during the patent prosecution process was intentional. K&K, an online retailer specializing in pet supply products, alleged that the Defendant was fully aware of the materiality of the omissions, which rendered the design in the Asserted Patent unpatentable. The complaint suggested that, had the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) been aware of this information, the patent would not have been granted.

The complaint further asserted that the Defendant, despite knowledge of the invalidity of the Asserted Patent, made false infringement claims to Amazon against K&K. This action resulted in the suspension of K&K’s Amazon listings, causing immediate harm to its business. The ramifications of such suspension on an online retailer’s revenue and reputation are substantial, especially given Amazon’s market dominance.

February 16, 2024

Copyright Originality Upheld: Seventh Circuit’s Decision in UIRC-GSA Holdings v. William Blair

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

On January 12, 2024, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, in the matter of UIRC-GSA Holdings v. William Blair, upheld a district court’s ruling to award summary judgment and attorneys’ fees in favor of Blair. The issue revolved around copyright infringement claims brought by UIRC-GSA Holdings against William Blair, a financial services company. UIRC-GSA Holdings (hereafter referred to as UIRC) alleged that Blair copied certain documents used in bond offerings, which UIRC claimed copyright protection over. Blair prevailed at summary judgment, and the district court awarded attorneys’ fees under the Copyright Act. UIRC appealed, arguing that the district court erred in ruling that UIRC lacked the requisite originality for valid copyrights in the documents and in awarding fees to Blair.

The case involved UIRC, a company managing properties leased to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA), seeking capital by pooling GSA properties and offering bonds. UIRC produced key documents for this process, including a private placement memorandum (PPM) and an indenture of trust, largely adapted from documents by the Idaho Housing and Finance Association, with the addition of some new language. The legal issue concerned the originality and copyrightability of UIRC’s documents, as copyright law requires works to be independently created with some degree of creativity to qualify for protection.

The district court ruled in favor of Blair, finding that UIRC’s documents lacked the necessary originality for copyright protection. The court noted that UIRC had extensively copied language from documents prepared by the Idaho Housing and Finance Association. Additionally, the court found that the new text added by UIRC consisted primarily of facts, fragmented phrases, or language dictated by functional considerations, which are not eligible for copyright protection.