July 25, 2016

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

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.

Continue reading "Indiana Copyright Litigation: Creator of Architectural Designs Files Two New Copyright Lawsuits" »

July 22, 2016

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

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.

Continue reading "Indiana Patent Law: Court Rules on Invalidity of Patent for Obviousness" »

July 21, 2016

Copyright Office Tribunal Proposed as Alternative for Small Copyright Claims

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. 

This bill follows a September 2013 report by Maria Pallante, Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office. The report concluded that "certain claims for copyright infringement - in particular, those involving lesser amounts of damages - could not practically be pursued within the existing federal court structure." 

The report by the Copyright Office may be viewed here

The bill may be viewed here.
July 20, 2016

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

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.

Continue reading "Indiana Copyright Litigation: Design Basics Files Three New Indiana Copyright Lawsuits" »

July 18, 2016

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

2016-07-18BlogPhoto.png

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.

Continue reading "Indiana Trademark Litigation: Eye 4 Group Sues Over Use of Eyefourgroup.com " »

July 14, 2016

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

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.

Continue reading "Indiana Patent Litigation: Ligchine Asks Federal Court to Declare That It Has Not Infringed" »

July 11, 2016

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

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.

Continue reading "Indiana Patent Litigation: Infringement of Patented Video Equipment Asserted in VOXX Lawsuit" »

July 8, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Alleges Infringement, Sues Generic Drugmakers

2016-07-08-blogphoto.png

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.

Continue reading "Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Alleges Infringement, Sues Generic Drugmakers " »

July 7, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Former School Employee Sues Alleging Copyright Infringement

Fort Wayne, Indiana - Plaintiff Angela Brooks-Nwenga of Fort Wayne, Indiana, acting pro se, filed two intellectual property lawsuits. The two complaints, comprising hundreds of pages, include allegations of copyright infringement.

Defendants in these lawsuits, both filed in the Northern District of Indiana, are National Heritage Academies, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan and "Bart Peterson's The Mind Trust" of Indianapolis, Indiana. Bart Peterson, the former mayor of Indianapolis, co-founded The Mind Trust in 2006.

Plaintiff Brooks-Nwenga alleges that Defendant National Heritage Academies infringed her rights in "Transitioning Into Responsible Students" ("TIRS"), which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. TX-6-628-223. Plaintiff asserts that she developed and piloted this program at Gambold Middle School in 2002 and that she owns the copyright.

The second lawsuit makes similar allegations of copyright infringement of TIRS against Defendant Bart Peterson's The Mind Trust. Plaintiff contends that "Andrew Brown Education Model" and "Bridges to Success Model" are replicas of her copyrighted work.

Brooks-Nwenga previously sued The Mind Trust, United Way of Central Indiana, Central Indiana Education Alliance, Phalen Leadership Academies, and Indianapolis Public Schools asserting similar misconduct. That lawsuit, also filed in the Northern District of Indiana, was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages and costs.

Continue reading "Indiana Copyright Litigation: Former School Employee Sues Alleging Copyright Infringement" »

July 6, 2016

Patent Office Issues 160 Patents To Indiana Citizens in June 2016

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 160 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in June 2016, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

Patent No. Title
1 D760,062 Addison lock escutcheon
2 D760,060 Decorative heavy duty door closer body
3 D760,059 Decorative heavy duty door closer cover
4 9,380,387 Phase independent surround speaker
5 9,379,313 Non-volatile spin switch
6 9,377,452 Method for monitoring the use of a consumable in a disposable design in one or more analyzers
7 9,377,373 System and method for analyzing verbal records of dictation using extracted verbal features
8 9,377,257 Systems for firearms
9 9,376,947 Hybrid valve for attenuation of low frequency noise
10 9,376,491 IL-17 antibody formulation and method of treatment using same

Continue reading "Patent Office Issues 160 Patents To Indiana Citizens in June 2016" »

July 1, 2016

212 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in June 2016

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 212 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in June 2016 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.  Word Mark Click To View
4988832 LINCOLN COVERED CHOICE TSDR
4988761 FIRE DAWGS TSDR
4988757 FIRE DAWGS CLEANING SERVICES TSDR
4988719 PERCEPTION STRATEGIES TSDR
4988553 DAWG SERVICES TSDR
4988483 BE MOVED BY OUR SERVICE TSDR
4988449 PETFIRST TSDR
4988319 QUICKSILVER TSDR

Continue reading "212 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in June 2016" »

June 30, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Author Sues Publisher Contending Unapproved Cover Artwork Used

Indianapolis, Indiana - A copyright lawyer for Plaintiff Antara Murdock of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant Author Solutions, LLC of Bloomington, Indiana committed copyright infringement.

Murdock, who is also known as Antara Shaddod, contracted with Author Solutions in 2009 to publish his written work, "Journey to Consciousness; Who Am I?," which included cover artwork created also created by Murdock. According to the complaint, these works have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. TXu-001821785.

This Indiana litigation arises from a dispute regarding the artwork on the cover of Murdock's book, which Author Solutions published and marketed for Murdock. Murdock contends that he was dissatisfied with the artwork as the cover for his book and that he relayed this concern to Author Solutions. The complaint states that Author Solutions had asked Murdock to sign to approve the final version of the book, including the art on the cover. In e-mails with the company, Murdock asserted that a signature, which related to the cover artwork and was purportedly his, was fraudulent.

In this federal lawsuit, Murdock contends that, by unlawfully publishing an unapproved draft of his book, Author Solutions "willfully used Plaintiff's copyrighted Works without his permission and that it published, communicated, benefited through, posted, publicized and otherwise held out to the public for commercial benefit, the original and unique work of Plaintiff without Plaintiff's consent or authority, and acquired monetary gain and market benefit as a result."

The complaint lists a single count, copyright infringement. Murdock asks the court for statutory damages of up to $150,000, along with injunctive relief, costs and attorney's fees.

Continue reading "Indiana Copyright Litigation: Author Sues Publisher Contending Unapproved Cover Artwork Used" »

June 24, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Fitness Studio Operator Accused of Trademark Infringement, Fraud

Indianapolis, Indiana - A Massachusetts trademark lawsuit filed in July 2015 was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. Plaintiff Get In Shape Franchise, Inc. ("GIS"), a Massachusetts-based franchisor, alleges that Defendants TFL Fishers, LLC and its sole member, Rosalyn Harris; Thinner For Life, Inc.; and Fit Chicks, LLC, all of Fishers, Indiana infringed its intellectual property rights. GIS asks the Indiana federal court: (1) to order the discontinuation of Defendant's infringement of its registered trademarks; (2) for injunctive relief due to breach of contract, unfair competition and breach of the covenant of good faith; (3) to order compliance by Harris of her post-contractual obligations.

GIS sells fitness franchises under the service mark "Get In Shape For Women." Registration Certificates for Plaintiff are as follows:

MARK

Reg. No.

Reg. Date

"Get in Shape for Women"

Service Mark Reg. 3,374,173

Jan. 22, 2008

"Your treatment is complete"

Service Mark Reg. 4,241,902

Nov. 13, 2012

"Get in Shape for Women Small Group Personal Training"

Service Mark Reg. 4,249,694

Nov. 27, 2012


Plaintiff contends that it entered into such a franchise agreement with TFL Fishers and Harris in April 2013 for use in the Fishers, Indiana market. This agreement provided for payment to the franchisor of a transfer fee as well as a royalty on the franchise's gross sales. Plaintiff contends that, pursuant to the agreement, Harris also agreed to various restrictions on her activities, including prohibitions on certain activities that would compete with GIS.

According to the complaint, Harris notified GIS on June 24, 2015 that TFL Fishers was discontinuing its franchised business and had closed its Fishers fitness studio. Instead, contends Plaintiff, it discovered on June 30th that the Fishers studio continued to operate but that it had changed its name to "Fit Chicks." GIS alleges that this was improper. It also accuses Defendants of other wrongful acts, such as willfully underreporting total sales and, consequently, underreporting the royalty fees due to GIS.

Trademark attorneys for Plaintiff list the following claims for the Indiana federal court's review and adjudication:

• First Cause of Action: Violation of the Lanham Act
• Second Cause of Action: Breach of Contract - Injunctive Relief
• Third Cause of Action: Breach of Contract - Damages
• Fourth Cause of Action: Breach of the Covenants of Good Faith and Fair Dealings
• Fifth Cause of Action: Unjust Enrichment
• Sixth Cause of Action: Unfair Competition

• Seventh Cause of Action: Fraud

Plaintiff seeks damages, including treble damages, along with enforcement of the franchise agreement, equitable relief, attorney's fees and costs.

Continue reading "Indiana Trademark Litigation: Fitness Studio Operator Accused of Trademark Infringement, Fraud" »

June 23, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator

2016-06-23-BlogPhoto.png

Indianapolis, Indiana - Plaintiff Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana sued Defendant Alliance Hospitality Management, LLC of Raleigh, North Carolina in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement.

Bell, an Indiana copyright attorney and professional photographer, asserts that Defendant infringed his intellectual property rights in a photo of the Indianapolis skyline entitled "Indianapolis Photo," which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office as Registration No. VA0001785115.

In this Indiana litigation, which Bell filed on his own behalf, a single count of "Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition" is listed. Bell asks the court to award the maximum statutory damages allowable, asserting that Alliance Hospitality Management has infringed willfully and "with oppression, fraud, and malice." Bell seeks injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

Practice Tip: Bell is a frequent litigant in Indiana federal courts and has been discussed here on numerous occasions. See:

Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline
Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
Lawsuit by Frequent Copyright Litigant Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell's Latest Copyright Lawsuit
Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Continue reading "Indiana Copyright Litigation: Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator" »

June 22, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Folding Tricycle Alleged to Infringe Patent

Indianapolis, Indiana - Plaintiff Newton Enterprises Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong Kong filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant Singleton Trading Inc. of Brooklyn, New York committed patent infringement.

In this Indiana litigation, Singleton Trading, which does business as Elama and Blue Spotlight, is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,568,720 (the "'720 Patent") for a "wheeled vehicle." The patent covers a wheeled vehicle, such as a tricycle, that can be folded from an in-use position to a storage position for ease of carrying.

Newton Enterprises claims that Singleton Trading has infringed and/or induced others to infringe the '720 Patent by "making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, a foldable tricycle that practices at least one invention claimed in the '720 Patent." It lists as an example of such infringement Defendant's "Zoom Bike."

2016-06-22-BlogPhoto.png

In a complaint filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, a single claim is made: "Infringement of '720 Patent." Plaintiff further claims that Defendant's infringement has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages in addition to compensatory damages. Plaintiff also asks that the court award attorney fees and costs.

Continue reading "Indiana Patent Litigation: Folding Tricycle Alleged to Infringe Patent" »