Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

February 3, 2015

Federal Agencies Seize Over $19.5 Million in Fake NFL Merchandise During ‘Operation Team Player’

Phoenix, Arizona – Federal officials teamed with the National Football League (NFL) Thursday to announce the results of a nationwide law enforcement effort aimed at combatting counterfeit sports merchandise.

Speaking at a NFL news conference, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Sarah R. Saldaña, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Director of Field Operations William K. Brooks, and NFL Counsel Dolores F. DiBella discussed the results of the initiative, dubbed “Operation Team Player.”

This year’s operation began immediately following the conclusion of Super Bowl XLVIII and targeted international shipments of counterfeit merchandise as it entered the United States. Authorities identified warehouses, stores, flea markets, online vendors and street vendors selling counterfeit game-related sportswear and tickets throughout the country.

February 2, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly in Court Again Asserting Infringement of Alimta

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) of Indianapolis, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (“Fresenius”) of Lake Zurich, Illinois infringed the patented product ALIMTA®, Patent No. 7,772,209, which has been registered by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lilly is engaged in the business of research, development, manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products worldwide. Fresenius is in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling generic drug products.

ALIMTA, which is licensed to Lilly, is a chemotherapy agent used for the treatment of various types of cancer. ALIMTA is composed of the pharmaceutical chemical pemetrexed disodium. It is indicated, in combination with cisplatin, (a) for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, or (b) for the initial treatment of locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. The drug is also indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy. Additionally, ALIMTA is used for maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after four cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. One or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 patent”) cover a method of administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need thereof that also involves administration of folic acid and vitamin B12.

This Indiana patent infringement lawsuit arises out of the filing by Defendant Fresenius of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of ALIMTA prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Fresenius included as a part its ANDA filing a certification of the type described in Section 505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 55(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), with respect to the ‘209 patent, asserting that the claims of the ‘209 patent are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of Fresenius’ ANDA products.

In its patent infringement complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, Lilly states that Fresenius intends to engage in the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, marketing, distribution, and/or importation of Fresenius’ ANDA Products and the proposed labeling therefor immediately and imminently upon approval its ANDA filing, i.e., prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Lilly asserts that Fresenius’ actions constitute 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 asserts that, in a prior case, 10-cv-1376-TWP-DKL, the court rejected Fresenius’ challenges to the validity of certain claims of the ‘209 patent. Accordingly, states Lilly, Fresenius should be estopped from challenging the validity of those claims of the ‘209 patent in the instant litigation.

Lilly lists a single count in this lawsuit – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 – and asks the court for:

a) A judgment that Fresenius has infringed the ‘209 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of the ‘209 patent;

b) A judgment ordering that the effective date of any FDA approval for Fresenius to make, use, offer for sale, sell, market, distribute, or import Fresenius’ ANDA Product, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, be not earlier than the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;

c) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Fresenius, and all persons acting in concert with Fresenius, from making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing Fresenius’ ANDA Product, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, or the inducement of or contribution to any of the foregoing, prior to the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;

d) A judgment declaring that making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing of Fresenius’ ANDA Product, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, prior to the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, infringes, will infringe, will actively induce infringement of, and/or will contribute to the infringement by other of the ‘209 patent;

e) A declaration that this is an exceptional case and an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

f) An award of Lilly’s costs and expenses in this litigation.

January 30, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Archetype Sues Alleging Trade Dress Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana intellectual property attorney for Archetype Ltd. (“Archetype”) of Short Hills, New Jersey sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that LTD Commodities LLC (“LTD”) of Bannockburn, Illinois infringed the trademark PathLights™.

Plaintiff Archetype contends that it has been marketing a distinctive and famous battery-operated motion-detection lighting system under the PathLights trademark since at least as early as 2009. It states that the overall look and feel of the PathLights product is non-functional and serves as a source identifier. In this Indiana lawsuit, Archetype accuses LTD of trade dress infringement, false designation of origin or sponsorship, passing off, and unfair competition.

Archetype indicates in the complaint that LTD is marketing, selling, and promoting a battery-operated motion-detection lighting product that is almost identical to Archetype’s PathLights product. It further claims that the accused LTD lights illustrated on LTD’s website are actually images of Archetype’s PathLights product and that the lighting products that consumers actually receive from LTD upon purchase of the LTD product are not an Archetype’s PathLights product but are, instead, a different, lower-quality light.

Defendant LTD is accused of “intentionally, willfully and deliberately pull[ing] a ‘bait and switch’ on consumers” and, in doing so, damaging Archetype’s sales volume and business reputation.

In this lawsuit, filed by an Indiana intellectual property lawyer for Archetype, the following counts are asserted:

• Count I: Trade Dress Infringement

• Count II: False Designation of Origin or Sponsorship and Passing Off

• Count III: False Advertising

• Count IV: Trade Dress Dilution

Archetype asks the court for judgment that LTD’s acts constitute trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin and/or sponsorship, false advertising and trade dress dilution; for an award of LTD’s profits and actual damages, including corrective advertising, as well as trebling those damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117; for an order that all accused LTD products and other accused materials be surrendered for destruction; for an injunction; and for an award of Archetype’s attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.

The case was assigned to Chief Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue in the Southern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00106-RLY-DKL.

January 29, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Knauf Alleges Infringement of Three Patents

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for Knauf Insulation, LLC of Shelbyville, Indiana; Knauf Insulation GmbH of Iphofen, Germany; and Knauf Insulation SPRL of Visé, Belgium filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Johns Manville Corporation and Johns Manville, Inc., both of Denver, Colorado, infringed Patent Nos. 8,114,210 and 8,940,089, both for “Binders,” and D631,670 for “Insulation Material.”

Plaintiffs Knauf Insulation GmbH, Knauf Insulation SPRL, and Knauf Insulation, LLC are affiliated companies (collectively, “Knauf Insulation”). They produce and sell building materials including fiberglass insulation and related products. Defendants Johns Manville Corporation and Johns Manville, Inc., which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., are stated to be direct competitors of Knauf Insulation GmbH and Knauf Insulation, LLC in the U.S. for fiberglass insulation products.

Plaintiffs Knauf Insulation SPRL and Knauf Insulation, LLC are each owners of one-half undivided interests of United States Patent Nos. 8,114,210 (“the ‘210 Patent”), 8,940,089 (“the ‘089 Patent”) and D631,670 (“the ‘670 Patent”; collectively, the patents-in-suit), which have been registered by the U.S. Patent Office.

Defendants offer for sale various bio-based binder insulation products, including “Formaldehyde Free” “Bio-based binder” insulation products. These products are marketed as “EasyFit,” “RANGE-GLAS EQ,” “SPIN-GLAS WH EQ,” “Flex-Glass EQ,” “Microlite EQ,” “Microlite L,” “ComfortTherm,” and “PEBS Blanket” insulation. Plaintiffs claim that the manufacture of these products infringes upon the patents-in-suit.

Specifically, Knauf Insulation contends that Defendants have infringed – directly, contributory and/or by inducement – various method claims of the patents-in-suit. That infringement, they claim, was willful and done with knowledge by Defendants with respect to the ‘210 and ‘670 patents. No claim of knowing or willful infringement was made with respect to the ‘089 patent, which issued on January 27, 2015, the date on which the complaint was filed. Knauf Insulation states that the patent infringement includes, in part, the manufacture of Johns Manville’s bio-based binder insulation.

In this lawsuit, Indiana patent lawyers for Knauf Insulation list three counts against the Johns Manville Defendants:

• Count I – Infringement of U.S. Patent 8,114,210

• Count II – Infringement of U.S. Patent 8,940,089

• Count III – Infringement of U.S. Patent D631,670

Knauf Insulation asks the court for a judgment of infringement of the patents-in-suit; an injunction; damages, including treble damages; an award of Defendants’ total profits, as well as other remedies under 35 U.S.C. §289 for the infringement of the ‘670 Patent; and an award of interest, fees and costs.

The case was assigned to Judge William T. Lawrence and Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore in the Southern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00111-WTL-MJD.

January 28, 2015

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Microsoft Asserts Copyright, Trademark Infringement by Ace Recycling

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana copyright and trademark attorney for Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) of Redmond, Washington sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Ace Recycling, Inc. and Kevin Cawood, both of Fort Wayne, Indiana (collectively, “Defendants”), infringed copyrighted material belonging to Microsoft. Defendants have also been accused of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false description and representation, counterfeiting and unfair competition. Microsoft seeks damages, an accounting, the imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendants’ illegal profits, and injunctive relief.

Microsoft develops, markets, distributes and licenses computer software. Ace Recycling is engaged in the business of advertising, marketing, installing, offering, and distributing computer hardware and software, including the software at issue, which Microsoft contends is unauthorized.

Microsoft’s software products, which have been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office, include Microsoft Windows XP and Microsoft Vista, both of which are operating systems for desktop and computers.

Also at issue are the following trademarks and service marks belonging to Microsoft:

• “MICROSOFT,” Trademark and Service Mark Registration No. 1,200,236, for computer programs and computer programming services;

• “MICROSOFT,” Trademark Registration No. 1,256,083, for computer hardware and software manuals, newsletters, and computer documentation;

• WINDOWS, Trademark Registration No. 1,872,264 for computer programs and manuals sold as a unit; and

• COLORED FLAG DESIGN, Trademark Registration No. 2,744,843, for computer software.

Microsoft contends that Defendants advertised, marketed, installed, offered and distributed unauthorized copies of Microsoft software, despite Microsoft’s claims that their actions infringed Microsoft’s intellectual property rights. Specifically, Microsoft asserts that, in April 2013, Defendants distributed to an investigator refurbished computer systems with unauthorized copies of Windows XP installed on them. In response, in June 2013, Microsoft asked Defendants to cease and desist from making and distributing infringing copies of Microsoft software. Microsoft alleges that, in May 2014, Defendants again distributed to an investigator a refurbished computer system with an unauthorized copy of a Windows operating system – in that case, Windows Vista – on it.

Microsoft contends that these are not isolated incidents but, instead, indicate Defendants’ pattern of acting in reckless disregard of Microsoft’s registered copyrights, trademarks and service marks.

In this Indiana lawsuit, Microsoft’s copyright and trademark attorney makes the following claims:

• Copyright Infringement – 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq.

• Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114

• False Designation Of Origin, False Description And Representation – 15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq.

• Indiana Common Law Unfair Competition

• For Imposition Of A Constructive Trust Upon Illegal Profits

• Accounting

Microsoft asks for a judgment of copyright infringement; of trademark and service mark infringement; that Defendants have committed and are committing acts of false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, and false or misleading representation against Microsoft, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); that Defendants have engaged in unfair competition in violation of Indiana common law; and that Defendants have otherwise injured the business reputation and business of Microsoft.

Microsoft also asks for the impoundment of all counterfeit and infringing copies of purported Microsoft products; the imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendants’ illegal profits; injunctive relief; damages, including enhanced damages; and costs and attorneys’ fees.

The case was assigned to Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins in the Northern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00032-JVB-SLC.

January 26, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Agri-Labs Asserts Infringement of Patented GPS-Enabled Soil-Analysis System

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Agri-Labs Holdings LLC of Auburn, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that TapLogic, LLC of Murray, Kentucky infringed its patented “Soil Sample Tracking System and Method.”

At issue in this Indiana patent litigation is U.S. Patent No. 8,286,857 (the “`857 Patent” or the “Patent-in-Suit”), to which Agri-Labs claims ownership. The patent-in-suit, which was issued based upon an application filed by inventor Tony Wayne Covely, has been registered by the U.S. Patent Office. The `857 Patent generally relates to a system and method for performing soil analysis that uses smart phones, applications for smart phones, soil containers having unique identifiers, and global positioning (“GPS”).

TapLogic is accused of selling and offering for sale in the United States its “Ag PhD Soil Test,” which Agri-Labs contends infringes the patent-in-suit. To implement its soil-testing system, TapLogic provides its customers with soil containers. Customers are instructed to manually pull soil samples from a field and place them in separate containers, each of which includes a unique identifier. TapLogic’s Ag PhD test obtains a GPS coordinate reading associated with a location in the field from where the soil sample is taken and associates the GPS coordinate reading with the soil container having the customer scan the barcode contained on the soil container.

In December 2014, Agri-Labs sent a letter to TapLogic “attempting to amicably resolve this matter.” Agri-Labs indicates that it received no meaningful reply from TapLogic in response to the letter.

In this Indiana patent infringement complaint, the patent lawyer for Agri-Labs asserts a single count: Infringement of the ‘857 Patent by TapLogic. Agri-Labs asks the court to adjudge that the ‘857 Patent has been infringed and to enjoin TapLogic and its agents from directly and/or indirectly infringing the patent. Agri-Labs also asks for an award of compensatory damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, as well as enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and for an award of its costs.

January 23, 2015

Indiana Copyright Law: Court Orders SVT to Provide Video to EEOC Despite Copyright Concerns

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Magistrate Judge Paul R. Cherry of the Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, ordered SVT, LLC d/b/a Ultra Foods (“SVT”) to produce a copyrighted training video to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in ongoing gender-discrimination litigation.

In 2010, Tiffany Swagerty was rejected from a position as a night crew stocker at SVT’s Ultra Foods operation in Merrillville, Indiana. She complained to the EEOC contending that SVT’s hiring manager had told her that women that were not usually hired for night positions. The subsequent investigation by the EEOC corroborated Swagerty’s assertions. The EEOC later sued SVT for violations of Title VII seeking injunctive relief and, on behalf of Swagerty and other similarly rejected female applicants, monetary damages.

In this current opinion in the matter of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. SVT, LLC d/b/a Ultra Foods, the court ruled on several discovery disputes between the parties. Among those issues was whether SVT must produce to the EEOC copies of a copyrighted “stocking video” or whether, in order to obtain a copy, the EEOC must bear a portion of the cost of the materials.

Specifically, as part of its discovery requests, the EEOC asked SVT to provide “all documents containing job descriptions for all stocker positions … including hiring criteria, requirements, and responsibilities created.” SVT objected to providing one piece of responsive material – a stocking DVD that was shown to overnight stockers during orientation – on copyright grounds. SVT stated that, while it had made “in-house copies” of the video, it would not be able to produce a copy of the materials to the EEOC and that it would cost $700 for the EEOC to order and purchase a set of the DVDs. Instead of providing the DVD, SVT offered to have counsel for the EEOC either share in the cost of the DVDs or, in the alternative, to view the DVDs at counsel for SVT’s office during the breaks of depositions. EEOC refused this offer and filed a motion to compel the production of the video.

The court was not persuaded that either of SVT’s proposals was sufficient. The court stated instead that SVT had offered an “unclear … explanation of when and how it obtained the original and/or copies of the DVDs, the nature and extent of any copyright that might exist, and what the costs … were expended for.” Consequently, the court granted the EEOC’s motion to compel, holding that SVT had “not met its burden of demonstrating that the cost of this discovery should be shifted” and ordered SVT to produce the copyrighted material to the EEOC without cost to the EEOC.

January 22, 2015

Trademark Law: Update of Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

On January 17, 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the January 2015 Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (“TMEP”), which incorporates changes made in accordance with the following rules:

• Renaming of Express Mail® to Priority Mail Express®, published October 22, 2014 at 79 FR 63036;

• Reduction of Fees for Trademark Applications and Renewals, published December 16, 2014 at 79 FR 74633; and

January 21, 2015

Open Wi-Fi and Copyright: DMCA Safe Harbors

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

As explained in Monday’s blog post, in general a network operator should not be liable for its users’ activity as long as the operator merely acts as a passive conduit for Internet traffic. However, network operators who remain worried about the risk of liability for copyright infringement can consider another option: the safe harbors provided by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”).

In order to foster online expression and commerce, Congress crafted a set of safe harbors from copyright liability to provide “greater certainty to service providers concerning their legal exposure for infringements that may occur in the course of their activities.”

Under the DMCA, “service provider” includes “an entity . . . providing [] connections for digital online communications.” The definition of a service provider is broad, and includes those who do not operate communications equipment themselves. In one case, for example, a federal appeals court held that a payment processor for online content was a DMCA “service provider” even though it didn’t operate the alleged infringer’s Internet connection or transmit any infringing material. Congress also intended that the term cover “subcontractors” of Internet service providers. Arguably, this definition covers the providers of open Wi-Fi, such as municipalities, cafes, and libraries.

January 19, 2015

Open Wi-Fi and Copyright: A Primer for Network Operators

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Open networks provide Internet access to the public. Users do not need to subscribe – they simply connect their devices, often over a wireless connection. For instance, the City of San Francisco recently deployed a free, public Wi-Fi network along a three-mile stretch of Market Street. Similarly, the Open Wireless Movement encourages owners of home Wi-Fi hotspots to open their networks to the public.

Operators of open networks may worry that they could be liable if people use their networks to engage in copyright infringement. This blog post generally explains the scope and limits of secondary liability for the acts of users, and additional steps network operators may choose to take to further limit any legal risk.

This post should not be taken as legal advice specific to any individual network operator.