The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 173 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in April 2015, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:
| Patent No. | Title | |
| D728,184 | Bag holder | |
| D727,732 | Baked goods box | |
| D727,713 | Clip for an animal housing | |
| 9021539 | Leakage location methods | |
| 9020878 | Intelligent airfoil component surface inspection | |
| 9020669 | Hybrid vehicle driver coach | |
| 9020262 | Symbol compression using conditional entropy estimation |
Washington, D.C. – Register of Copyrights Maria A. Pallante yesterday announced the launch of the U.S. Copyright Office’s Fair Use Index, which is designed to provide the public with searchable summaries of major fair use decisions. The Index was undertaken in support of the 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement prepared by the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator within the Executive Office of the President.
Although not a substitute for legal advice, the Index is searchable by court and subject matter and provides a helpful starting point for those wishing to better understand how the federal courts have applied the fair use doctrine to particular categories of works or types of use, for example, music, internet/digitization, or parody.
“The doctrine of fair use has been an essential aspect of our copyright law for nearly 175 years,” said Pallante, “but it has too often been a mystery to good-faith users who seek more detail about its application. It has been a pleasure coordinating this practical and important resource with the U.S. Intellectual Property Coordinator’s office.”
The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 155 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in April 2015 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| Reg. Number |
Word Mark | Click To View |
| 4715442 | INDIANA GRAND RACING & CASINO | View |
| 4727755 | FLEXSHADE | View |
| 4727476 | TPG | View |
| 4727465 | SMARTPARCEL | View |
| 4727415 | CHILLMODE | View |
| 4727372 | BOTTLED ARTIST | View |
| 4727350 | NCA | View |
| 4727073 | JACOBS & BRICHFORD | View |
| 4727064 | BEST WINTER HATS | View |
| 4726917 | STEAM COUTURE | View |
Hammond, Indiana – An intellectual property attorney for J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“J & J Sports”) of Campbell, California filed two federal lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana, both alleging illegal interception of a cable signal for the Floyd Mayweather, Jr. v. Robert Guerrero, WBC Welterweight Championship Fight Program (“Program”). One lawsuit named Jorge Zamora, individually and d/b/a El Sombrero Bar of East Chicago, Indiana. The other lawsuit named JP & P, Corporation and Jose L. Gonzalez, individually, both d/b/a Michigan Avenue Bar and Grill of Hammond, Indiana.
J & J Sports states that it is the exclusive domestic commercial closed-circuit distributor of the Program. It has sued multiple Defendants, both individually and doing business as commercial entities, under the Communications Act of 1934 and The Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. Specifically, Defendants have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the Program at issue on May 4, 2013 without an appropriate license. A count of conversion is also included.
Plaintiff has sued two Defendants as individuals, alleging that they had the right and ability to supervise the activities of the commercial establishments that allegedly engaged in the illegal interception. J & J Sports asserts that the activities that they supervised included the unlawful interception of Plaintiff’s Program. J & J Sports contends that the individual Defendants specifically directed the employees of the restaurants to unlawfully intercept and broadcast Plaintiff’s Program at the commercial establishments or, if they did not, that the actions of the employees of the restaurants are directly imputable to the Defendants sued as individuals by virtue of their purported responsibility for the activities of their respective restaurants. In the second lawsuit, a corporate Defendant has also been sued. This lawsuit also lists “Loida Chavarria as a Defendant in paragraph 10, although she has not been listed as a Defendant in the caption of the complaint.
In both of these interception complaints, the intellectual property attorney for J & J Sports listed the following counts:
• Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605
• Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 553• Count III: Conversion
J & J Sports asks for damages, as well as costs and attorneys’ fees.
Washington, D.C. – The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit heard an appeal in the matter of Ineos USA LLC v. Berry Plastics Corporation. It affirmed the decision reached by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Case No. 3:13-cv-00017, regarding the infringement of Patent No. 6,846,863 (the “‘863 patent), which was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Ineos holds the ‘863 patent, which was directed to polyethylene-based compositions which could be used to form shaped products, such as screw caps for bottles. In a patent lawsuit filed in Texas, Ineos accused Berry Plastics of infringing its ‘863 patent.
Berry Plastics moved for summary judgment that the asserted claims were anticipated independently by various prior art references, including U.S. Patent No. 5,948,846. Prior art incorporated a lubricant to allow the cap to glide better, which facilitated unscrewing the cap. However, in addition to increasing usability, the prior chemical formulations also imparted a bad odor and flavor to food products stored in contact with them. Ineos’ ‘863 patent claimed to have solved this problem by modifying the proportions of polyethylene, lubricants, and additives.
The district court ruled in Berry Plastic’s favor, holding that the ‘863 patent was invalid as anticipated by prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (2006).
Ineos appealed from the district court’s ruling. The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding that Ineos had failed to show that the range claimed by the ‘863 patent was “critical to the operability of [Ineos’] invention.”
The Supreme Court on March 24, 2015, held that a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision should be given issue preclusion effect when the usages it adjudicated are materially the same as those before a district court. B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., U.S., No. 13-352, 3/24/2015.
Reversing an Eighth Circuit decision, the Court found no categorical reason why issue preclusion can never apply. The same likelihood of confusion standard applies for both registration and infringement, Justice Alito explained, even if the TTAB and the district court do not always consider the same usages. A concurring opinion was filed by Justice Ginsburg, who stressed that preclusion will not apply for a great many TTAB decisions. Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Scalia) dissented, objecting to the presumption of preclusion for adjudicating agencies. The Court’s decision is consistent with the position taken in an AIPLA amicus brief filed in this case.
Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent lawyer for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana; Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. of Parsippany, New Jersey; and Ube Industries, Ltd of Yamaguchi, Japan (collectively “Lilly”) sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Lupin Ltd. of Mumbai, India and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland infringed Patent Nos. 8,569,325, titled Method of Treatment with Coadministration of Aspirin and Prasugrel and 8,404,703, titled Medicinal Compositions Containing Aspirin, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.
This lawsuit adds another two new Defendants, Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively “Lupin”), to Lilly’s Indiana patent litigation efforts. In these “Effient” patent-infringement lawsuits, the Lilly group of Plaintiffs alleges infringement of its pharmaceutical product Effient. The patents at issue in the Lupin litigation are Effient-related patents 8,404,703 “Medicinal Compositions Containing Aspirin,” (the “‘703 patent”) and 8,569,325 “Method of Treatment with Coadministration of Aspirin and Prasugrel” (the “‘325 patent”).
This complaint asserts patent infringement arising out of the filing by Lupin of an Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”) with the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of two pharmaceutical products – Effient 5mg and Effient 10mg tablets – prior to the expiration of the ‘703 patent and the ‘325 patent. These patents cover two Effient products and/or methods of using Effient products and for which Lilly claims an exclusively license.
Effient products were approved by the FDA for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in certain patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are to be managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, or angioplasty). Effient products contain prasugrel hydrochloride, which is also known as 5-[(1RS)-2-cyclopropyl-1-(2-fluorophenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridin-2-yl acetate hydrochloride or 2-acetoxy-5-(alpha-cyclopropylcarbonyl-2-fluorobenzy1)-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridine hydrochloride, and is covered by the ‘726 patent.
The instructions accompanying Effient products state that patients taking Effient products should also take aspirin. The use of Effient products in combination with aspirin for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with ACS who are to be managed with PCI is allegedly covered by the claims of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.
Lupin is accused of planning to infringe the patents-in-suit by including with its products instructions for use that substantially copy the instructions for Effient products, including instructions for administering Lupin’s products with aspirin as claimed in the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.
Plaintiffs contend that Lupin knows that the instructions that Lupin intends to include with its products will induce and/or contribute to others using those products in the allegedly infringing manner set forth in the instructions. Moreover, the Lilly Plaintiffs also contend that Lupin specifically intends for health care providers, and/or patients to use Lupin’s products in accordance with the instructions provided by Lupin and that such use will directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents. Thus, state Plaintiffs, Lupin’s actions will actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.
The complaint, filed by an Indiana patent attorney, lists four counts:
• Count I: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703
• Count II: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703
• Count III: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,569,325• Count IV: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,569,325
Plaintiffs ask the court for judgment:
• That Lupin has infringed the ‘703 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of one or more claims of the ‘703 patent;
• That Lupin has infringed the ‘325 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of one or more claims of the ‘325 patent;
• That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B), Lupin be permanently enjoined from making, using, selling or offering to sell any of its accused products within the United States, or, where applicable, importing accused products into the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents;
• That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the effective date of any approval of the Lupin ANDA under § 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(j)) shall not be earlier than the later of the expiration dates of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions;
• If Lupin commercially makes, uses, sells or offers to sell any accused product within the United States, or, where applicable, imports any accused product into the United States, prior to the expiration of either of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions, that Plaintiffs be awarded monetary damages for those infringing acts to the fullest extent allowed by law and be awarded prejudgment interest based on those monetary damages;
• That the case be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285;
• That the ‘703 patent remains valid and enforceable;
• That the ‘325 patent remains valid and enforceable; and
• That Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.
Indianapolis, Indiana – Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore recommended that Judge William T. Lawrence deny Malibu Media’s motion for fees and sanctions against two Defendants and copyright lawyer Jonathan Phillips.
This Indiana federal lawsuit involves allegations of the use of BitTorrent to illegally download copyrighted adult films. Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC of Malibu, California initiated copyright litigation in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Charles and Kelley Tashiro, husband and wife, violated its intellectual property rights by downloading copyrighted videos without authorization.
On the morning of a scheduled evidentiary hearing in the matter, attorney Phillips, who at the time represented both husband and wife, learned of Mr. Tashiro’s intent to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid testifying about certain matters. The defense attorney for the Tashiros advised the court that, as a result, a conflict of interest between husband and wife had arisen and that he would be withdrawing as the defense attorney for Mr. Tashiro. As a result, the court postponed that day’s hearing.
Malibu Media subsequently filed a motion asking the court for sanctions, seeking to hold Mr. Tashiro and his copyright attorney jointly and severally liable for the costs and fees incurred in its preparations for the postponed hearing. Malibu Media contended that the defense lawyer’s failure to recognize the conflict of interest between the two Defendants in a timely manner had required Malibu Media to incur unnecessary expenses for the evidentiary hearing. More specifically, Malibu Media contended that it incurred several thousand dollars in unnecessary fees, travel expenses, and other costs. It sought to recover those fees, expenses, and costs 1) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37; 2) under 28 U.S.C. § 1927; 3) through an exercise of the court’s inherent authority; and 4) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.
Magistrate Judge Dinsmore first concluded that FRCP 37 was inapplicable, as it was generally appropriate for “disputes or misconduct during discovery” and the delay of the evidentiary hearing had not resulted from discovery misconduct.
Plaintiff’s claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 was also rejected. That section provides that the court may order costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of an attorney’s unreasonable or vexatious expansion of the proceedings in litigation.
Malibu Media asserted that this section applied because the copyright attorney’s failure to timely recognize a conflict of interest between the husband-and-wife Defendants failed to meet the standard of care required of attorneys. The court disagreed, stating that the case had involved no incompatibility of the copyright Defendants’ positions, as both had steadfastly asserted that neither had infringed any of Malibu Media’s copyrighted material and that no evidence had been destroyed. Consequently, the defense attorney’s belief that he could provide concurrent representation to both Defendants was neither unreasonable nor vexatious and, thus, relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 was unavailable.
Moreover, the court explained, even had § 1927 applied, it provided recompense only for the excess costs and fees incurred – those that would not have been otherwise necessary. Because much of the material prepared by intellectual property counsel for Malibu Media would likely prove useful later in the litigation, those costs and fees had not been incurred unnecessarily.
Magistrate Judge Dinsmore also rejected Malibu Media’s argument that the court should sanction Mr. Tashiro and the defense attorney under the inherent authority that the court holds to manage its affairs through the sanctioning of a party that has abused the judicial process. The court had already determined during its analysis under § 1927 that the defense attorney had acted neither unreasonably nor vexatiously. Thus, a sanction against the defense attorney for abuse of process was similarly found to be improper. The court also declined to hold that Mr. Tashiro’s decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights was an abuse of judicial process.
The court then addressed Malibu Media’s contention that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 authorized sanctions in this case. It concluded that, as the rule authorized the imposition of sanctions only in matters regarding scheduling conferences or other pre-trial conferences, it did not apply to the evidentiary hearing at issue in this request for sanctions.
Finally, Magistrate Judge Dinsmore recommended to Judge Lawrence that Malibu Media’s motion, which had been filed without the required statement showing that Plaintiff’s attorney made reasonable efforts to confer with opposing counsel prior to filing the motion for sanctions, be denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-1(g).
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently announced the release of the Patent Application Alert Service. This system provides customized email alerts to the public for free when patent applications of interest are published. Additionally, the system offers direct access to the published applications that meet users’ search criteria.
After receipt of these customized email alerts, the public may identify prior art for “pre-issuance” submission into these applications. The pre-issuance submission process was established under the America Invents Act and, to date, the Office has received more than 2,600 submissions across all technologies. More information on the pre-issuance submission program and how members of the public can participate can be found here.
The idea for the patent application alert service came from a public roundtable held at the USPTO in April 2014 where the USPTO solicited input regarding the use of crowdsourcing and pre-issuance submissions to identify relevant prior art. The USPTO expects that this new service may be used to enhance the quality of examination and issued patents.
Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently announced the latest winners of the Patents for Humanity program. The Patents for Humanity program was launched by the USPTO in February 2012 as part of an Obama administration initiative promoting game-changing innovations to solve long-standing development challenges.
“As innovation and economic progress have made the world increasingly connected, more and more industries are realizing that their technologies can improve lives everywhere,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Michelle K. Lee. “The experiences of businesses across industries have shown that helping the less fortunate can go hand in hand with developing commercial markets, and that humanitarian entrepreneurship provides new opportunities for those with vision to pursue them.”
The Patents for Humanity Award is the top award for applicants best representing the Patents for Humanity principles. Award recipients will receive public recognition at an award ceremony sponsored by the USPTO. They will also receive a certificate to accelerate certain matters before the USPTO: a patent application, ex parte reexam, or an ex parte appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Inter partes matters and other post-grant proceedings may not currently be accelerated. Honorable mentions will receive accelerated examination of one patent application and a featured write-up on the USPTO website. A portion of honorable mentions may be awarded for the best up-and-coming technologies.
