Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

July 29, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Lilly Sues Australian Seller of Gray-Market Veterinary Products

Indianapolis, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana and Novartis Tiergesundheit AG of Basel, Switzerland filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Plaintiffs offer pet medications, such as flea-control and heartworm treatments, for sale in the U.S. and other countries worldwide. Among these medications are the following trademarked products, which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office:

ELANCO, registration number 710,473
COMFORTIS, registration number 3,370,168
INTERCEPTOR, registration number 2,015,850
CAPSTAR, registration number 2,510,863

TRIFEXIS, registration number 3,944,743

Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Scott Martin d/b/a Best Value Pet Supplies of Queensland, Australia and various unknown “Doe” Defendants infringed the trademarks at issue by selling in the U.S. trademarked products that were intended for sale in other countries via their website, www.bestvaluepetsupplies.com.

Plaintiffs contend that these products are materially different from products intended for sale in the U.S., citing differences such as different units of measure as well as non-U.S. addresses and telephone numbers listed on packaging as contact information.

In this Indiana trademark lawsuit, the following counts are alleged:

• Count I: Trademark Infringement in Violation of Section 32 of the Lanham Act
• Count II: Unfair Competition in Violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act
• Count III: Unfair Competition in Violation of Indiana Common Law

Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ conduct was willful and ask the court to order equitable relief, as well as the payment of compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs of this litigation.

July 27, 2016

Patent and Copyright Law: Supreme Court to Review Cases on Patent Laches and Copyrightability

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a patent case on the law of laches (SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, U.S., No. 15-927) and a case on the copyrightability of cheerleader uniforms (Star Athletica, L.L.C. v. Varsity Brands, Inc., U.S., No. 15-866).

Specifically, the question presented in SCA is:

“Whether and to what extent the defense of laches may bar a claim for patent infringement brought within the Patent Act’s six-year statutory limitations period, 35 U.S.C. § 286.”

July 25, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Creator of Architectural Designs Files Two New Copyright Lawsuits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Southern District of Indiana – Copyright lawyers for frequent litigant Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed two additional intellectual property lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement.

Plaintiff is engaged in the business of creating, marketing, publishing and licensing the use of architectural works and technical drawings of those works. Defendants are Indiana home designers and homebuilders.

The first lawsuit lists Defendant as T.K. Constructors, Inc. of St. Delaware County, Indiana. In the second lawsuit, two Defendants are listed, Regal Homes of Southern Indiana, L.L.C. of Warrick County, Indiana and The Home Plan Co., LLC of Vanderburgh County, Indiana.

Each Defendant is charged with the violation of a single copyrighted work. Design Basics asserts that T.K. Constructors, Inc. violated the copyright Design Basics’ “Lancaster” plan, which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration Nos. VA 371-204, 694-094 and 756-041.

Defendants in the second lawsuit are accused of violating a copyrighted work titled “Briarwood,” which was registered under Reg. Nos. VA 624-144, VA 726-369 and VA 624-143. This complaint lists eight counts, four asserting “Non-Willful Copyright Infringement” and four alternatively asserting “Willful Copyright Infringement.”

Defendants in each lawsuit are accused of having infringed the copyrighted architectural works by “copying, publishing, distributing, advertising, marketing, selling and/or constructing in the marketplace” various works, such as plans, drawings and houses, that were copied or otherwise derived from Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.

Plaintiff seeks damages, equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

July 22, 2016

Indiana Patent Law: Court Rules on Invalidity of Patent for Obviousness

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, Indiana – In the matter of Berry Plastics Corporation v. Intertape Polymer Corporation, Judge Richard L. Young of the Southern District of Indiana ruled on Defendant Intertape’s motion to reconsider the court’s conclusion of patent invalidity on the grounds of obviousness.

This Indiana patent litigation, filed in January 2010, sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,476,416 (the “‘416 patent”). Plaintiff Berry Plastics Corp. sued competitor Intertape Polymer Corp., which owns the ‘416 patent.

In the complaint, Berry asked the federal court to rule that it had not infringed the patent-in-suit, titled Process for Preparing Adhesive Using Planetary Extruder. In the alternative, it asked that the court rule that the patent was invalid and unenforceable. Among the reasons cited for this proposed conclusion were assertions that Intertape had engaged in improper conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and that the patent was invalid as obvious.

The court held a jury trial in November 2014. The jury found, inter alia, that the ‘416 patent was not obvious. After the trial, the court heard additional argument on the issue of the validity of the patent and ruled for Berry, holding that the patent-in-suit was invalid as obvious.

In this recent entry, the court rules on Intertape’s motion to reconsider on the grounds that the court had ruled too broadly, inadvertently invalidating the entire patent instead of addressing only the asserted claims presented at trial. The court held that it was permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) to modify its previous order (“[A]ny order or other decision … that adjudicates fewer than all the claims …does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims …. “). It also concluded that, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, it had the authority to enter judgment against a party after a jury trial as long as “a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.”

The court first held that certain dependent claims had not been challenged as invalid at trial and, consequently, the court had no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of those claims. On these claims, it granted the motion to reconsider.

Regarding those dependent claims that had been asserted at trial, the court evaluated the evidence and testimony presented and concluded that the dependent claims added no patentable subject matter but were instead simply obvious selections of prior art used in an ordinary way. Consequently, the court denied Intertape’s motion to reconsider.

July 21, 2016

Copyright Office Tribunal Proposed as Alternative for Small Copyright Claims

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – Reps. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and Tom Marino (R-Pa) proposed legislation to create an alternative forum to facilitate the adjudication of “small” copyright claims.

H.R. 5757, titled the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act of 2016, would establish a Copyright Claims Board (“CCB”) within the U.S. Copyright Office. Adjudication with the CCB is intended to be simpler and less expensive than proceeding in federal court. These cases would be heard by a CCB panel of three Copyright Claims Officers. Adjudicating in the CCB forum would be voluntary and respondents could opt out.

The jurisdiction under CASE would be limited to civil claims of copyright infringement of $30,000 or less in damages. The CCB would also be authorized to hear claims of abusive takedown notifications under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

July 20, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Design Basics Files Three New Indiana Copyright Lawsuits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Northern District of Indiana – Copyright lawyers for Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed three intellectual property complaints in the Northern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement.

Plaintiffs are in the business of creating, marketing, publishing and licensing the use of architectural works and technical drawings of those works. Defendants are Indiana home designers and homebuilders.

Defendant in the first lawsuit is Miller Builders Inc. of St. Joseph County, Indiana. In the second lawsuit, two Defendants are listed, Citation Homes, Inc. and Citation Partners, LLC d/b/a Citation Partners, both of Tippecanoe County, Indiana. Defendants in the third lawsuit are Sky Hill Homes, Inc., By Larry Myers d/b/a Sky Hill Homes; Sky Hill Enterprises, LLC; Fall Creek Homes, Inc.; Fall Creek Development Corp. and Barry Light, all of Allen County, Indiana. W. L. Martin Home Designs LLC of Jacksonville, Florida joined as a second Plaintiff in the Sky Hill litigation.

Design Basics asserts that Miller Builders violated the copyright of a single work titled “Plan No. 2244 – Standley,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Certificate Nos. VA 434-218 and 752-162.

Defendants in the Citation and Sky Hill lawsuits are accused of violating multiple copyrighted works. Design Basics contends that Citation Defendants infringed copyrights in the following works:

Title Registration Certificate Nos.
Plan No. 1330 – Trenton VA 314-016, 694-094 & 756-041
Plan No. 1380 – Paterson VA 314-024 & 694-094
Plan No. 1748 – Sinclair VA 371-214, 694-094 & 726-353
Plan No. 1752 – Lancaster VA 371-204, 694-094 & 756-041

Design Basics and Martin Home Designs list numerous allegations of copyright infringement in the lawsuit against the Sky Hill Defendants:

Title Registration Certificate No.
Plan No. 1019 – Hazelton VA 314-029, 726-355 & 694-093
Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista VA 282-203 & 752-162
Plan No. 1551 – Logan VA 344-872 & 752-162
Plan No. 2219 – Shannon VA 434-181, 752-162 & 1-950-217
Plan No. 2235 – Albany VA 1-929-121, 434-219 & 756-041
Plan No. 2281 – Ingram VA 434-179, 752-162 & 1-3340447752
Plan No. 3577 – Bennett VA 682-208, 682-207, 694-095 & 710-605
Plan No. 4642 – Ackerly VA 1-302-564
Plan No. 8013 – Gabriel Bay VA 729-243 & 729-218
Plan No. 8031 – Robins Lane VA 729-280 & 729-256
Plan No. 8103 – Deer Crossing VA 726-352 & 726-446
Plan No. 8524 – Elgin VA 1-074-917 & 1-077-469

Defendants in each lawsuit are accused of having infringed the copyrighted architectural works by “copying, publishing, distributing, advertising, marketing, selling and/or constructing in the marketplace” various works, such as plans, drawings and houses, that were copied or otherwise derived from Plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.

Plaintiffs seek damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

July 18, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Eye 4 Group Sues Over Use of Eyefourgroup.com

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Eye 4 Group, LLC Corporation (“E4G”) of Fishers, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. Defendants are Indianapolis Signworks, Inc. (“ISW”) of Indianapolis, Indiana and Andrew Chapman of Carmel, Indiana, the owner of ISW.

Plaintiff E4G is in the business of graphic design, sign manufacturing, metal fabrication, promotional material and apparel. It owns a registration for the trademark EYE 4 GROUP, Reg. No. 4,694,655, which has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It has also an application for the registration of a second trademark for EYE 4, pending under Serial No. 87/018,205.

E4G states that Defendant ISW is a direct competitor in the business of making signs as well as associated tools and products. E4G, which owns and operates the website eye4group.com, contends that ISW has used the internet domain name “eyefourgroup.com” and, in doing so, has infringed E4G’s intellectual property. E4G asserts that Defendants’ actions constitute a knowing infringement of its trademark rights and that those actions were intentional, willful and in bad faith.

In this Indiana lawsuit, Plaintiff alleges direct and contributory trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act; dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act; violations of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and related wrongdoing under Indiana state law.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary relief, including punitive damages, attorney fees and costs of the litigation.

July 14, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Ligchine Asks Federal Court to Declare That It Has Not Infringed

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Ligchine International Corporation of Floyds Knob, Indiana initiated a patent lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement. Defendant is Somero Enterprises, Inc. of Houghton, Michigan.

This federal lawsuit is in response to a June 2016 letter sent to Ligchine by patent lawyers for Somero. In this letter, Somero asserted that Ligchine was engaged in the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale and/or distribution of concrete screeding machines containing a “Paver/Superflat Combo Screed Head that includes a powered roller option.” Somero contended that such conduct infringed Somero’s patent rights in U.S. Patent Nos. 9,234,318 and 9,353,490, which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Somero threatened litigation if the alleged infringement did not cease.

Ligchine asserts that it has not infringed either patent and asks the court for a declaration of non-infringement for each of the two patents-in-suit. It also asks the court to order reimbursement of its costs of the lawsuit, including attorneys’ fees.

July 11, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Infringement of Patented Video Equipment Asserted in VOXX Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for VOXX International Corp. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement.

Plaintiff VOXX manufactures and supplies consumer electronics in the automotive, audio and consumer-accessory industry, including developing products sold under the Klipsch® and RCA® brands.

At issue in this Indiana litigation are patents that relate to overhead video units that can be mounted to the ceilings of vehicles as well as video units that are located in the headrests of vehicles. These patents have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as Patent Nos. 7,653,345; 8,255,958; 9,114,745 and 9,348,368.

VOXX contends that Defendant Johnson Safety, Inc. of San Bernardino, California has infringed these patents, asserting both direct and indirect infringement.

In a complaint filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, VOXX asks the federal court for a judgment of infringement of the four patents-in-suit, injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’ fees and costs of the litigation.

July 8, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Alleges Infringement, Sues Generic Drugmakers

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent lawyers for Plaintiffs Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, Eli Lilly Export S.A. of Geneva, Switzerland and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd. of West Melbourne, Australia initiated patent infringement litigation in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendants are Apotex Corp. of Weston, Florida and Apotex Inc. of Ontario, Canada. Both companies manufacture, market and distribute generic pharmaceutical products. This lawsuit was initiated in response to an Abbreviated New Drug Application submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval to market a generic version of Lilly’s Axiron®, a prescription testosterone product used to treat males for conditions associated with a deficiency or absence of endogenous testosterone.

Defendants are accused of infringing Plaintiffs’ intellectual property rights in seven patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; 8,993,520; 9,180,194 and 9,289,586.

In a 28-count complaint, filed by Indiana patent attorneys for Plaintiffs, 21 counts of patent infringement are listed, including a count of direct infringement, a count of inducement to infringe and a count of contributory infringement for each of the seven patents-in-suit. The remaining seven counts seek declaratory judgment of infringement of each of the seven patents.

In addition to relief for the wrongdoings alleged in the 28 counts, Plaintiffs seek reimbursement of the costs and attorneys’ fees associated with this lawsuit.