Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

April 2, 2015

Patent Office Issues 181 Patents To Indiana Citizens in March 2015

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 181 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in March 2015, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

PAT. NO.		Title
D725,756		Shower wall
D725,754		Tub
D725,741		Handheld shower
D725,581		Vehicle console portion
D725,411		Furniture piece
D725,409		Bedrail apron
8996878		Controlling an analysis system of biological samples
8996258		Vehicle safety system having methods and apparatus configurable for various vehicle geometries
8994932		Multimodal platform for nonlinear optical microscopy and microspectroscopy
8994396		Variation-tolerant self-repairing displays

March 30, 2015

U.S. Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker Announces Russell Slifer as Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker announced the appointment of Russell Slifer as the next Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). Slifer left his role as the Director of the USPTO’s Rocky Mountain Regional Office in Denver. He began his new duties at USPTO headquarters in Alexandria, VA, on the day of the announcement.

While Director of the USPTO’s Denver office, which opened on June 30, 2014, Slifer served as the agency’s primary liaison with the innovation community in the Rocky Mountain Region. He was actively engaged in education and outreach initiatives, empowering the USPTO to develop programs, policies, and procedures to meet the needs of the Rocky Mountain West innovation community.

“Russell has an impressive track record of success across several disciplines and will be a tremendous asset to the USPTO,” said Secretary Pritzker. “His leadership will be instrumental in the USPTO’s efforts to foster economic growth and promote American innovation by reducing the patent application backlog and enhancing patent and trademark quality. I look forward to working with Russell in his new role, along with Director Lee and the rest of the USPTO team.”

March 27, 2015

Indiana Trade Secret Litigation: Precision Drone Sues Channel Masters for Misappropriating Trade Secrets

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana intellectual property lawyers for Precision Drone, LLC of Hamilton County, Indiana (“Precision”) commenced trade secret litigation in Hamilton County Superior Court alleging that Channel Masters, LLC of Wisconsin (“Channel”) breached its contract with Precision by improperly misappropriating and revealing trade secrets belonging to Precision.

Precision designs, engineers, manufactures and sells drones for use by farmers to monitor crops. It also develops and sells related software. Defendant Channel connects companies offering products to dealers of those products.

According to the complaint, in September 2014, Precision engaged Channel to sell the PaceSetter™ Drone to dealers of such products. To assist in Channel’s sales efforts, Precision provided Channel with equipment and training, some of which Precision contends is protected by Indiana trade secret law. As part of the sales agreement that the parties entered into, Precision states that Channel was prohibited from disclosing any of Precision’s confidential information without written authorization. The agreement also prohibited Channel from adversely interfering with Precision’s customers and prospective customers.

Plaintiff Precision alleges that, while Channel was working for Precision, it was also promoting and selling crop-imaging drones offered by AgriImage, a company that competes with Precision. Plaintiff also contends that Channel used Plaintiff’s images and training manual to demonstrate the competing AgriImage drones.

Precision claims copyright protection for the website that it uses to promote and advertise its products, as well as contending that at least one of its images was improperly displayed at a trade show by Channel, but the complaint listed no overt assertion of copyright infringement. The complaint, filed by Indiana intellectual property attorneys for Precision, instead alleges the following:

• Count I: Breach of Contract

• Count II: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

Precision seeks judgment in its favor including damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Indiana copyright lawyers for Channel have removed the case to the Southern District of Indiana, arguing that such a removal is proper based both on federal question jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship.

March 26, 2015

Patent Law: Maintaining Your Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

All utility patents that issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) from applications filed on or after December 12, 1980 are subject to maintenance fees, which must be paid to maintain the patent in force. Information regarding which patents are subject to maintenance fees and the time of payment for maintenance fees is found in Chapter 2500: Maintenance Fees of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure.

Maintenance fees are due three times during the life of a patent, and may be paid without surcharge at:

• Three to three and a half years after the date of issue for the first payment;

March 25, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Competing Indiana-Based RV Manufacturers Head to Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC (“Heartland”) of Elkhart, Indiana initiated a patent lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., (“Gulf Stream”) of Nappanee, Indiana infringed Patent Nos. 7,278,650; 7,878,545 and 8,162,352, each of which is titled “Travel Trailer Having Improved Turning Radius,” and which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Heartland manufactures recreational vehicles (“RVs”), including a type of travel trailer referred to as fifth-wheel travel trailers. Plaintiff contends that many of these fifth-wheel travel trailers incorporate and use one or more of the inventions of the patents-in-suit.

Gulf Stream allegedly manufactures RVs with some similar characteristics. These trailers are marketed under the names Canyon Trail, Sedona, and Ridgeline.

Heartland has sued Gulf Stream in federal court, claiming that Gulf Stream has infringed its patents. At issue are three patents: United States Patent Nos. 7,278,650; 7,878,545 and 8,162,352. According to Heartland, these patents “involve designs and technology relating to turning radius issues typically found in fifth wheel travel trailers, particularly when being towed by short-bed pick-up trucks, and Plaintiff’s Patents help avoid corner collisions between travel trailers and short-bed pick-up trucks, by changing the shape of the fifth wheel cap and/or chassis, as compared with prior caps and chassis.”

In its complaint, filed by Indiana patent lawyers, a single count – Patent Infringement – is alleged. That count covers all three patents-in-suit.

Plaintiff asks for a declaration of infringement of one or more claims of all three patents; equitable relief, including a permanent injunction; damages for the alleged infringement of the patents-in-suit; a declaration that any infringement was willful and increased damages, up to and including treble damages; and a declaration that the case is “exceptional” and, pursuant to that, an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses.

March 23, 2015

Copyright Law: Jury Finds “Blurred Lines” Infringes Copyright; Awards $7.3 Million

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Los Angeles, California – The eight-person jury in the highly publicized trial over the song “Blurred Lines” concluded that Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke had infringed the copyright of Marvin Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up” and awarded almost $7.4 million to Gaye’s family.

The 2013 smash hit “Blurred Lines” has been the subject of copyright infringement litigation for about a year and a half. The family of Gaye, who was known at the peak of his career as the Prince of Motown, privately approached Williams and Thicke with allegations of copyright infringement. Nona and Frankie Gaye, two of Gaye’s children, contended that “Blurred Lines” infringed Gaye’s 1977 hit “Got to Give It Up.” Copyright attorneys for Williams and Thicke responded by filing a lawsuit under the Declaratory Judgment Act, asking the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California to declare that they had not infringed. The Gaye family countersued, asking for more than $25 million for the copyright infringement that was alleged.

Over the eight-day trial, copyright lawyers for Thicke and Williams emphasized two points in particular. First, they argued, any protection under copyright law extended only to the compositional elements in the sheet music for “Got to Give It Up.” Other elements of “Blurred Lines,” such as the percussion and the singing, they contended, were not protected by the copyright issued by the U.S. Copyright Office.

March 20, 2015

Indiana Trademark News: Indiana Brewer Settles Trademark Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Munster, Indiana – The parties in this dispute were two beer makers, Three Floyds Brewing Company of Munster, Indiana and White Flame Brewing Company of Hudsonville, Michigan, both of which recently manufactured an imperial stout that each named “Black Flame.”

Three Floyds, Indiana’s second-largest brewer, made its Black Flame as a limited-run beer. Microbrewer White Flame, which opened in 2012, also produced a limited run of 600 bottles of a beer called Black Flame. White Flame’s version, which is aged in maple syrup bourbon barrels, was made to celebrate the company’s third anniversary.

White Flame learned of the Three Floyds beer in February and e-mailed Three Floyds to discuss the identically named beers. Bill White and Andy Steenbergen of White Flame later drove to Indiana to meet with Three Floyds.

March 19, 2015

Indiana State Law: Trademarks – Not Just a Federal Matter

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

In addition to protection under federal trademark law, trademarks can be protected under the state law of Indiana.

What does the Indiana Trademark Act protect?

The Indiana Trademark Act (I.C. §24-2) protects words, phrases, symbols or designs, or any combinations thereof when they are used to distinguish the source of the goods or services rendered by one party from the goods or services of another party. Marks are checked against other marks registered in Indiana, but not against corporate, fictitious, or assumed names. It is the duty of the applicant to perform these searches.

March 18, 2015

Member Of Megaupload Conspiracy Pleads Guilty to Copyright Infringement Charges and is Sentenced to One Year in U.S. Prison

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

A computer programmer for the Mega copyright piracy conspiracy, Andrus Nomm, 36, of Estonia, pleaded guilty recently in connection with his involvement with Megaupload.com and associated piracy websites. He was sentenced to a year and a day in federal prison for conspiring to commit felony copyright infringement.

Assistant Attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division, U.S. Attorney Dana J. Boente of the Eastern District of Virginia and Assistant Director in Charge Andrew G. McCabe of the FBI’s Washington Field Office made the announcement. U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady of the Eastern District of Virginia accepted the guilty plea and imposed the sentence.

“This conviction is a significant step forward in the largest criminal copyright case in U.S. history,” said Assistant Attorney General Caldwell. “The Mega conspirators are charged with massive worldwide online piracy of movies, music and other copyrighted U.S. works. We intend to see to it that all those responsible are held accountable for illegally enriching themselves by stealing the creative work of U.S. artists and creators.”

March 16, 2015

Indiana Trade Secret Law: Court Declines to Enter Protective Order Stipulated by Parties

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – In the matter of CCT Enterprises, LLC v. Kriss USA, Inc., trade secret lawyers for the parties agreed to a protective order and submitted it to the court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). United States Magistrate Judge Susan Collins of the Northern District of Indiana denied the parties’ request for a protective order, holding that the proposed order was overly broad and, thus, invalid.

Magistrate Judge Collins first noted that Rule 26(c) allows the court to enter a protective order for good cause shown. For material to be protected, it “must give the holder an economic advantage and threaten a competitive injury…business information whose release harms the holder only because the information is embarrassing or reveals weaknesses does not qualify for trade secret protection.”

In the parties’ proposed order, no categories of material were provided to restrict what discovery materials would be treated as confidential. Instead, it allowed either party “in good faith” to deem any discovery materials to be confidential. Magistrate Judge Collins held that this was overbroad and that a protective order must extend only to “properly demarcated categor[ies] of legitimately confidential information.” Moreover, a mere assertion of harm to a litigant’s competitive position would not suffice but rather “the motion must explain how.” Consequently, the court held that because a showing of good cause had not been made, the proposed protective order could not issue.

The court also noted that the proposed order provided that it would continue to be binding after the conclusion of the litigation, thus implying that the court would retain jurisdiction after the lawsuit had been resolved. The court refused to enter an order that would have such an effect. Instead, it suggested that the parties should agree contractually among themselves for the return of sensitive documents.