March 7, 2016

Indiana Intellectual Property: Startups Based on Purdue Patents Raise Over $96 Million in Venture Funding

2016-03-08-BlogPhoto.png

West Lafayette, Indiana - Startups based on Purdue University patented intellectual property have raised more than $96 million in the past two years in local, state, federal and private funding and created 156 positions.

The funding was raised by the 24 members of the Purdue Startup Class of 2014 and the 25 members of the Purdue Startup Class of 2015. Both groups of startups licensed technologies from the Purdue Research Foundation Office of Technology Commercialization. In the same period, another 39 startups have originated from non-patented Purdue "know-how."

"In the past two years we have seen an incredible increase in startup creation that is demonstrated in Purdue's back-to-back record-breaking years," said Dan Hasler, president and chief entrepreneurial officer of the Purdue Research Foundation. "As we have always known, even more important than the quantity of the startups is their subsequent impact on economic value and commercial execution. We are pleased with how this cohort of companies is progressing."

The startup class is composed of companies that operate in sectors such as engineering, industrial technology, information technology, life sciences, nanotechnology, pharmaceuticals and software. Positions created represent individuals working more than halftime at a company or working for equity in a startup.

Funding sources for startups include federal and state grants such as the Small Business Administration's SBIR/STTR, venture funds and private funding. Purdue-affiliated startups also received funds from a number of Purdue funding programs including Purdue Ventures, a $37 million venture fund, and the Elevate Purdue Foundry Fund, which is jointly operated by the Purdue Foundry and Elevate Ventures, a not-for-profit organization that supports startup creation and company growth in Indiana. Elevate Ventures has partnered with the State of Indiana's Economic Development Corporation.

"These results would simply not be possible without the great support of Elevate Ventures," said Greg Deason, director of innovation and entrepreneurship for the Burton D. Morgan Center for Entrepreneurship and Purdue Research Foundation. "With Elevate Ventures we have added $2 million of seed funding and have been able to expand our entrepreneurs-in-residence in the Purdue Foundry startup hub. These experienced business leaders have helped guide entrepreneurs and more than 100 new companies through the startup process."

The Purdue Startup Class of 2014 created their intellectual-property related startups during fiscal year 2014, and the Purdue Startup Class of 2015 was founded in fiscal year 2015. Fiscal years run from July 1 to June 30. Only one of the 49 startups that licensed a Purdue innovation in the past two years has moved into an inactive status.

"That is incredible when you think about the average success rate for startups," Deason said. "I have to believe that the tremendous success rate of Purdue-affiliated startups has much to do with the environment at Purdue and Greater Lafayette where we have entrepreneurs helping entrepreneurs become successful."

"The fact that the vast majority of these startups have stayed in the Greater Lafayette area is a true testament to the entrepreneurial ecosystem that thrives in our community," said John Dennis, mayor of West Lafayette.

March 7, 2016

Patent Office Issues 154 Patents To Indiana Citizens in February 2016

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 154 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2016, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

Patent No. Title
1 D749,991 Sheet for a patient repositioning system
2 9,269,246 Copper theft alarm for grain bin systems
3 9,267,957 Junction and system for transporting sample racks
4 9,267,953 Method for detection of specific immunoglobulin class G antibodies
5 9,267,911 Encoded biosensors and methods of manufacture and use thereof
6 9,267,773 Broadhead
7 9,267,597 System for adjusting fluid volume in a transmission and method thereof
8 9,267,582 System and method for multiplexing gear engagement control and providing fault protection in a toroidal traction drive automatic transmission

Continue reading "Patent Office Issues 154 Patents To Indiana Citizens in February 2016" »

March 4, 2016

122 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in February 2016

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 122 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2016 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.  Word Mark Click To View
4905154 VISUAL ENERGETICS VIEW
4905048 SPECK'S VIEW
4905047 SPECK'S VIEW
4904966 FLABONGO VIEW
4904951 AUTO-GUARD VIEW
4904930 NALC VIEW
4904925 URGENTDENT VIEW
4904903 YILO VIEW
4904629 PAYMENT PROTECT TAX RETURNS VIEW
4904596 DRINK & DISH LOCAL VIEW
4904582 KGSR VIEW

Continue reading " 122 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in February 2016" »

March 1, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Sues India Manufacturer of Generic Drugs for Infringement

2016-03-01-BlogPhoto.png

Indianapolis, Indiana - An Indiana patent attorney for Plaintiff Eli Lilly & Company ("Lilly") of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Biocon Limited of Bangalore, India will infringe its patented chemotherapy drug, which Lilly offers under the brand name ALIMTA.

At issue in this patent litigation is U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the "'209 patent"). In February, Biocon notified Lilly that it had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") to the FDA. Lilly believes that the product that is the subject of the ANDA will be marketed as a generic version of ALIMTA and that such conduct will infringe the '209 patent.

This federal patent infringement lawsuit, filed by an Indiana lawyer on behalf of Lilly, lists a single count: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209.

Lilly states that it will suffer irreparable injury unless Defendant is "enjoined from infringing the '209 patent, actively inducing infringement of the '209 patent, and contributing to the infringement by others of the '209 patent." It seeks a declaratory judgment, equitable relief, damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

Continue reading "Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Sues India Manufacturer of Generic Drugs for Infringement" »

February 29, 2016

United States Intellectual Property Law: Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Trade Secrets Bill

Washington D. C. - The United States Senate Judiciary Committee approved S. 1890, the Defend Trade Secrets Act ("DTSA"). If enacted, the bill would create a private cause of action in the federal courts for trade secret misappropriation.

Under Indiana's Access to Public Records Act, a trade secret is defined as:

information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(1) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

The proposed legislation uses a similar definition:

[T]he term "trade secret" means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if --

(A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and

(B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, the public.

The DTSA would be the civil counterpart to the Economic Espionage Act of 1996, a criminal statute that uses the same definition of "trade secret" as the DTSA.

This would be the first time that individuals would have a private, federal right of action for theft of trade secrets. Presently, those seeking redress in civil court for theft of trade secrets must resort to claims based on state law or seek to have a claim for injunctive relief filed by the Attorney General.

The DTSA, if enacted, would address the current patchwork of state laws protecting trade secrets. While those state statutes are similar, with many states having enacted some form of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act ("UTSA"), they are not identical.

The DTSA does not preempt any other law. Thus, where a state's law governing trade secrets is more generous, a plaintiff retains the ability to sue under that state law also, either in state court or as a pendant claim in a federal lawsuit.

The relief offered under the DTSA contains such remedies as monetary damages, including royalty payments, reimbursement of actual losses caused by the defendant and trebling of a monetary award where punitive damages are found to be appropriate. Injunctive relief and attorneys' fees may also be recoverable.

Continue reading "United States Intellectual Property Law: Senate Judiciary Committee Approves Trade Secrets Bill" »

February 26, 2016

Indiana Cable/Satellite TV Litigation: DIRECTV Sues Pollo Feliz for Unlawful Interception

2016-02-26-BlogPhoto2.png

Hammond, Indiana - An intellectual property attorney for Plaintiff DirecTV, LLC of California filed a signal-interception lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana. It is alleged that Defendants Jorge Aguilera and Patricia Huerta of Delphi, Indiana and Rose Aguilera of Lafayette, Indiana acted unlawfully individually and on behalf of Defendant Pollo Feliz, Inc., which is located in Lafayette, Indiana.

Plaintiff DIRECTV offers encrypted satellite programming on a subscription basis. Customers who pay the appropriate fee are provided with special equipment to unscramble the broadcasts so that they may be viewed.

Fees charged to residential customers are lower than those charged to commercial establishments. DIRECTV states that customers "can surreptitiously gain access to DIRECTV programming without proper authorization by subscribing to DIRECTV services under a residential account and then installing/moving the equipment to their businesses and utilizing those services in a commercial environment."

Defendant Pollo Feliz, Inc. operates a Mexican restaurant. The individual Defendants allegedly serve as officers, directors, shareholders and/or principals of Pollo Feliz. Defendants are accused of broadcasting DIRECTV content at a commercial establishment, Pollo Feliz, without the proper commercial license. Plaintiff contends that this conduct violates 18 U.S.C. §§2511 and 2512, 47 U.S.C. §605 and Indiana law.

In its complaint, filed with an Indiana federal court by an intellectual property lawyer for Plaintiff, the following counts are alleged:

• Count 1 - Damages for Violations of Cable Communications Policy Act [47 U.S.C. §605(e)(3(C)]
• Count 2 - Damages for Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2511
• Count 3 - Civil Conversion

DirecTV seeks equitable relief along with damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees.

Continue reading "Indiana Cable/Satellite TV Litigation: DIRECTV Sues Pollo Feliz for Unlawful Interception" »

February 25, 2016

Customs Bill Strengthens Enforcement for Groundbreaking Intellectual Property Standards in TPP

2016-02-25-BlogPhoto.png

Washington, D.C. - The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act provides new tools and resources to protect American innovation.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative ("USTR") commended Congress for passing the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015, which will bolster trade enforcement efforts.

"This bill adds new tools that we'll use in the work we do every day to hold America's trading partners accountable," said U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman. "Coming on the heels of negotiating [the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP")], the highest-standard trade agreement in history, this bill will further boost enforcement of the groundbreaking intellectual property, labor, environment, and many other fully enforceable commitments we've secured."

The Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 includes new tools and resources to help ensure that our trading partners live up to their commitments. Among other provisions, this bipartisan bill:

• Establishes the Interagency Center on Trade Implementation, Monitoring, and Enforcement at USTR which brings together expertise from across government to aid in monitoring and enforcing U.S. trade agreements. This codifies into law a 2012 Executive Order that first created the interagency approach to boosting enforcement efforts.
• Creates a Trade Enforcement Trust Fund to provide new resources - authorized at $15 million per year - for trade enforcement efforts.
• Improves the United States' ability to target trading partners who attempt to evade U.S. antidumping or countervailing duty orders.
• Bolsters enforcement tools to protect intellectual property rights, including by authorizing the seizure of circumvention devices, and by facilitating the seizure of suspect merchandise through improved coordination with intellectual property right holders.
• Mandates a strategic multi-year plan for trade enforcement produced by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
• Establishes Centers of Excellence and Expertise for trade enforcement throughout U.S. Customs and Border Protection to bolster trade enforcement at ports of entry.
• Strengthens the United States' ability to enforce intellectual property rights by creating a National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center and setting staffing and training requirements that enhance the federal government's enforcement of IP rights at our borders.
• Requires a report on the effectiveness of trade enforcement activities including looking at fraud prevention and transshipments.

• Improves international cooperation among law enforcement and customs officials to strengthen intellectual property rights enforcement.


Passage of the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015 comes shortly after the United States completed negotiations on the TPP, which goes further than any trade agreement in history to hold trading partners accountable to tough, enforceable trade standards. Among the enforceable commitments in TPP are new protections for intellectual property rights that support U.S. jobs and innovation.

February 23, 2016

Tougher Criminal Penalties Added to Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)

2016-02-23-BlogPhoto.png

As reported by Jeremy Malcolm, Senior Global Policy Analyst for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, when the test of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was released in November 2015, it included provisions dictating the kinds of penalties that should be available in cases of copyright infringement. Amongst those provisions, the following footnote allowed countries some flexibility in applying criminal procedures and penalties to cases of willful copyright infringement on a commercial scale:

With regard to copyright and related rights piracy provided for under paragraph 1,a Party may limit application of this paragraph to the cases in which there is an impact on the right holder's ability to exploit the work, performance or phonogram in the market.

Following the footnote back to its source, it is apparent that the reference to limiting "the application of this paragraph" is to a more specific list of criminal procedures and penalties that the parties are required to make available in such cases. Paraphrased, these are:

• sentences of imprisonment as well as deterrent-level monetary fines;
• higher penalties in more serious circumstances, such as threats to public health or safety;
• seizure of suspected infringing items, the materials and implements used to produce them, and documentary evidence relating to them;
• the release of those items, materials, implements and evidence for use in civil proceedings;
• forfeiture or destruction of those items, materials and implements;
• forfeiture of any assets (such as money) derived from the infringement; and

• the ability for officials to take legal action against the alleged infringer on their own initiative, without requiring a complaint from the rights holder (this is called "ex officio action").

As of the date of writing, the text excerpted at the top of this page is still the version of the text found on the United States Trade Representative (USTR) website. However on January 26, a slightly different version was uploaded to the website of the official host of the agreement, New Zealand. This version provides:

With regard to copyright and related rights piracy provided for under paragraph 1, a Party may limit application of this subparagraph to the cases in which there is an impact on the right holder's ability to exploit the work, performance or phonogram in the market.

Spot the difference? No? Let's try again:

With regard to copyright and related rights piracy provided for under paragraph 1, a Party may limit application of this subparagraph to the cases in which there is an impact on the right holder's ability to exploit the work, performance or phonogram in the market.

What does this surreptitious change from "paragraph" to "subparagraph" mean? Well, in its original form the provision exempted a country from making available any of the criminal procedures and penalties listed above, except in circumstances where there was an impact on the copyright holder's ability to exploit their work in the market.

In its revised form, the only criminal provision that a country is exempted from applying in those circumstances is the one to which the footnote is attached--namely, the ex officio action provision. Which means, under this amendment, all of the other criminal procedures and penalties must be available even if the infringement has absolutely no impact on the right holder's ability to exploit their work in the market. The only enforcement provision that countries have the flexibility to withhold in such cases is the authority of state officials to take legal action into their own hands.

Sneaky, huh?

This is a very significant change. Let's look at an example of how it might work. Take a website that shares multilingual subtitle files for movies. Although a technical copyright infringement, there are many legitimate uses for these files; for example, they allow you to lawfully purchase a foreign movie that isn't available in your own country, and then to add subtitles to view the film in your own language. The sale of such subtitle files is as good an example as any of a niche service that copyright owners have never bothered to commercially fill, and probably never will, particularly for less commonly spoken languages.

Under the TPP's original terms, a country could limit the exposure of the owner of such a website to prison time, or to the seizure and possible destruction of their server, on the grounds that by definition their infringement didn't cause any lost sales to the copyright owner. (Note that they would be liable for civil damages to the copyright owner in any case.)

Although a country still has the option to limit criminal penalties to "commercial scale" infringements (which is so broadly defined that it could catch even a non-profit subtitles website), the new language compels TPP signatories to make these penalties available even where those infringements cause absolutely no impact on the copyright holder's ability to profit from the work. This is a massive extension of the provision's already expansive scope.

A Devious Move


How could this happen, when the TPP had supposedly already been finalized when the original text was released in November? The answer is that the original text had not been "legally scrubbed." The legal scrubbing process, which was ongoing from November until the re-release of the text last month, was meant to be a process in which lawyers, trade ministry staff, and translators, go over the deal word-by-word, to ensure that it is legally consistent and free of unintended errors or loopholes.

It is most certainly not an opportunity for the negotiators to make any substantive changes to the text. Since the change highlighted above is unarguably a substantive change, the only basis for the change to be made during legal scrubbing would be if it were an error. But is it an error?

We don't know for sure--though EFF has contacted the USTR for clarification, and we will update this post if we receive an answer. But logically, the original text doesn't seem to have been an error, because there seems to be no rational basis why countries should be allowed to limit the availability of ex officio action, but not to similarly limit the availability of the other criminal remedies.

Think about it. What sense is there in sending someone to jail for an infringement that causes no harm to the copyright holder, whether they complain about it or not? And why should it matter that the copyright holder complains about something that didn't affect them anyway? Surely, if the copyright holder suffers no harm, then a country ought to be able to suspend the whole gamut of criminal procedures and penalties, not only the availability of ex officio action.

This is no error--or if it is, then the parties were only in error in agreeing to a proposal that was complete nonsense to begin with. But most likely, this is an underhanded attempt to renegotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership before its ink is even dry. In an agreement that was an undemocratic power grab from the outset, this devious move marks the lowest point to which the negotiators have yet sunk. It gives us all even more reason, as if any were needed, to demand that our representatives refuse to ratify this dreadful agreement.

Link to Original Article:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/sneaky-change-tpp-drastically-extends-criminal-penalties

February 22, 2016

Indiana Federal Courts: Brookman Sworn in as Magistrate Judge

2016-02-22-BlogPhoto.png

Indianapolis, Indiana - Matthew P. Brookman was sworn in as a Magistrate Judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana earlier this month.

Judge Bookman was previously employed by the Office of the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. In 2010, he received the Director's Award from United States Attorney General Eric Holder for superior performance for his work in the prosecution of United States v. Jarvis Brown, et al., a quadruple homicide. Judge Brookman's early career included the private practice of law as well as government positions in Missouri.

Judge Brookman received his law degree from Washington University School of Law in 1993 and spent the beginning part of his career in private practice and working for the government in Missouri.

In addition to his judicial duties, Judge Brookman currently serves as an adjunct professor at the University of Evansville and has previously taught at the University of Southern Indiana, the U.S. Department of Justice National Advocacy Center, and the Southwest Indiana Law Enforcement Academy.

He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of William G. Hussmann.

February 18, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Indiana Hoverboard Manufacturer Sued on Allegations of Unauthorized Use of UL Trademark

2016-02-18BlogPhoto.png

South Bend, Indiana - Indiana trademark attorneys for Plaintiff UL LLC of Northbrook, Illinois filed a lawsuit with the federal court in the Northern District of Indiana. Plaintiff alleges that Swagway, LLC and Jianqing "Johnny" Zhu infringed the "UL" trademark, Trademark Registration Nos. 2391140 and 782589, which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Plaintiff further claims that Defendants use the Service Mark "UL" in a manner that falsely suggests a relationship between Plaintiff and Defendants. Other causes of action, including claims under the state law of Illinois, are also asserted.

Plaintiff UL, founded in 1894, is a developer of safety standards. It also offers safety testing, inspection and certification of products. Plaintiff states in this federal lawsuit that it owns a family of trademarks featuring the UL mark, including a "UL-in-a-circle" certification mark and the UL service mark.

This lawsuit pertains to hoverboards (also known as self-balancing scooters or skateboards). Plaintiff states that hoverboards have been the subject to inquiries regarding safety. It also contends that Defendants have been sued on allegations that their hoverboard caught on fire and caused property damage.

In this trademark action, Plaintiff complains of Defendants' alleged improper use of the UL trademark and service mark on the hoverboards that Defendants make and sell. Additionally, Plaintiff contends that Defendants falsely stated that "Swagway also adheres to all required environmental standards and certifications," including UL certification. According to Plaintiff, Defendants' conduct was "intentional, unjustified and/or malicious, and done to purposefully harm Plaintiff."

This Indiana litigation, filed with the court by trademark lawyers for Plaintiff, lists the following:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Counterfeiting and Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
• Count II: Federal Unfair Competition - False Designation of Origin (15 U.S.C. § 1125)
• Count III: Federal Unfair Competition - False Advertising (15 U.S.C. § 1125)
• Count IV: Violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510/1 et seq.)

• Count V: Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.)

Plaintiff seeks equitable and other relief along with damages, including punitive damages, costs and attorney's fees.

Continue reading "Indiana Trademark Litigation: Indiana Hoverboard Manufacturer Sued on Allegations of Unauthorized Use of UL Trademark" »

February 17, 2016

Countering the Growing Intellectual Property Theft Threat by Enhancing Ties Between Law Enforcement and Business

In 2008, a new federal law creating stricter penalties for criminals who engaged in intellectual property theft was enacted to keep pace with globalization, e-commerce, and technology advances.

Fast forward to 2016: Technological advances continue at an even faster pace, dramatically 

 

 

Intellectual Property Theft 101

 

Intellectual property can be an idea, an invention, a design, a business process, or even a creative expression.  All are protectable under the law.

 

Once stolen, intellectual property can generate a great deal of money for the thieves.  But there are other consequences. Intellectual property theft, which includes theft of trade secrets, the trafficking of counterfeit goods, and digital piracy, results in billions of dollars in lost profits annually. Failure to protect the nation's intellectual property undermines confidence in the economy, removes opportunities for growth, erodes America's technological advantage, and disrupts fairness and competitiveness in the marketplace.

 

Some intellectual property thefts pose a more far-reaching and serious threat to the U.S. than economic loss to the rights holders. These thefts can also put public safety at risk through the sale of counterfeit pharmaceuticals, electrical components, and aircraft and automobile parts, as well as through the funding of other kinds of crime.

 

Within its intellectual property rights violations program, the FBI prioritizes its investigations and focuses the majority of its resources on cases involving theft of trade secrets, counterfeit goods that pose a threat to human health and safety, and copyright and infringement matters with a nexus to national security or organized crime or that pose a significant economic impact.

 

Along with its partners at the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, the FBI also participates in several intelligence-driven national initiatives, including:

 

- Operation Chain Reaction, which focuses on counterfeit products entering the U.S. government supply chain that pose a threat to human health and safety or national security;

- Operation Engine Newity, which addresses counterfeit automotive parts that threaten safety, including airbags, brake pads, and steering systems; and

- Operation Apothecary, which focuses on counterfeit pharmaceuticals that pose a safety threat.

 

increasing the threat posed by criminals who steal trade secrets, produce and/or traffic in counterfeit products, and infringe on copyrights. One important factor in this increase is the global expansion of online marketplaces, which aids international and domestic criminal organizations in trafficking in counterfeit goods.

The Department of Justice recently announced a new strategy that involves partnering more closely with businesses in an effort to combat these types of crimes more effectively. According to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, "Through this new approach, we intend to provide information and resources to individuals and companies that will help them identify and disrupt attempts on their intellectual property, extend greater protection to American commerce as a whole, and safeguard the health and safety of individual Americans." The Federal Bureau of Investigations ("FBI"), working with its investigative partners at the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center ("NIPRCC"), will play an integral part in this strategy.

The FBI has already been collaborating for years with brand owners, copyright holders, and trademark holders because in an effort to prevent the harm that intellectual property theft causes: legitimate businesses lose billions of dollars in revenue and suffer damaged reputations, consumer prices go up, the U.S. and global economies are robbed of jobs and tax revenue, product safety is reduced, and sometimes lives are even put at risk. The FBI's efforts with these businesses to date have involved shared information, aggressive criminal initiatives based on current or emerging trends, and investigations.

The FBI has now begun expanding its efforts to work with third-party entities, such as online marketplaces, payment service providers, and advertisers, that may inadvertently enable the activities of criminals.

Third-party online marketplaces draw consumers to their sites with competitive pricing and a sense of security, but criminal counterfeiters exploit these marketplaces to gain an appearance of legitimacy, access to far-reaching advertising, and efficient sales transactions.

Payment service providers, such as credit card payment processors and related payment alternatives, also give counterfeiters the appearance of legitimacy when they provide payment options that consumers mistakenly interpret to mean that the businesses they service are legitimate.

Online advertising systems and platforms enable website owners to outsource the process of monetizing their website traffic. Criminals have begun exploiting advertising as an alternative revenue stream, drawing traffic to their sites by offering counterfeit products for sale or pirated digital content for download.

The FBI finds that there are significant benefits to working with these third-party entities. According to David Farquhar, who heads up the FBI's Intellectual Property and Cyber-Enabled Crimes Unit at the NIPRCC, "We're not only broadening awareness of the crime problem, we can also obtain information about crime trends, get investigative leads that will help us identify criminals, and collect evidence of criminal activity." Farquhar added that the FBI will assist these companies with refining their own analytical tools and techniques for uncovering fraud.

Also new in its approach to intellectual property theft is an enhanced relationship between the FBI's criminal and counterintelligence personnel when working theft of trade secrets cases. A trade secrets case worked under the counterintelligence program, which occurs when the involvement of state-sponsored actors is suspected, will be referred to a criminal squad if no state sponsorship is found. And when criminal investigators begin to suspect the involvement of a state sponsor, the case will be referred to the counterintelligence squad.

February 16, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Design Basics Files Additional Indiana Lawsuit

2016-02-16-BlogPhoto.png

Indianapolis, Indiana - Indiana intellectual property attorneys for Design Basics LLC, Plan Pros, Inc. and Carmichael & Dame Designs, Inc., all of Omaha, Nebraska, sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement. This lawsuit follows the recent filing by Design Basics of six similar copyright lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana.

Plaintiffs Design Basics, Plan Pros and Carmichael & Dame are engaged in the business of creating, marketing, publishing and licensing the use of architectural works and technical drawings of those works.

The Defendant in this lawsuit is Michael Shrader. Plaintiffs contend that Shrader does business as Palladian Home Design, Palladian Home Designs, Palladian Blueprints, Palladian Drafting & Design Services, Palladian Architectural Drafting & Design Services and Palladian Design/Build. Shrader is alleged to have infringed the copyrights of multiple home designs that have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office and to which Plaintiffs claim ownership.

Defendant's accused activities include, but may not be limited to, reproductions of one or more of the following:

• Design Basics' Plan No. 1380 - Paterson (U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. 314-024 & 694-094)
• Design Basics' Plan No. 1752 - Lancaster (U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. 371-204, 694-094 & 756-041)
• Design Basics' Plan No. 2332 - Corinth (U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. 485-066, 694-088 & 710-606)
• Carmichael & Dame's Plan No. 9169 - Kempton Court (U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. 867-084 & 867-087) and

• Plan Pros' Plan No. 29303 - Bloom (U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. 1-397-448 & 1-412-560) (the "Copyrighted Works").

Plaintiffs seek equitable relief along with damages, costs and attorney fees.

Continue reading "Indiana Copyright Litigation: Design Basics Files Additional Indiana Lawsuit " »

February 12, 2016

132 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in January 2016

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 132 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2016 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.  Word Mark Click To View
4882521 VIEW
4893058 TENDERNEEDS FERTILITY VIEW
4893035 FUN TIME FOR KIDS...FREE TIME FOR PARENTS! VIEW
4893016 GRANDPA'S VIEW
4892928 ODDBIRD VIEW
4892743 BLACK DIAMOND VIEW
4892254 MYCRIMP VIEW
4892123 LOCAL UNIVERSE VIEW

Continue reading " 132 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in January 2016" »

February 11, 2016

Indiana Copyright and Trademark Litigation: Magazine Publisher Sues Commemorative Plaque Maker Alleging Infringement

2016-02-11-BlogPhoto.png

Indianapolis, Indiana - Indiana copyright and trademark attorneys for Plaintiff The Rough Notes Company, Inc. ("Rough Notes") of Carmel, Indiana commenced a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

The Defendant, That's Great News, LLC ("Great News") of Cheshire, Connecticut, is accused of infringing U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,585,340, which has been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, as well as unfair competition, false designation of origin, and dilution under the Lanham Act. Allegations of copyright infringement of material protected by Copyright Registrations Registration Nos. TX 7-988-447 and TX 7-988-464, as well as other related claims, have also been made.

Plaintiff Rough Notes is a publisher of print and online magazines. It indicates that it has used its "Rough Notes" trademark since 1878 and that the trademark was registered in 2002. Rough Notes contends that Defendant Great News has violated it copyright, trademark and other intellectual property rights by producing samples of commemorative plaques that feature protected content owned by Rough Notes and distributing samples via e-mail to solicit the purchase of a plaque.

In this federal complaint, filed with the court by Indiana copyright and trademark lawyers for Rough Notes, the following causes of action are alleged:

• Copyright Infringement
• Federal Unfair Competition & False Designation of Origin
• Federal Trademark Infringement
• Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Federal Trademark Dilution
• Common Law Unfair Competition

• Unjust Enrichment

Rough Notes seeks equitable relief; statutory damages, including up to $150,000 for willful infringement; and reimbursement of costs and attorneys' fees.

Practice Tip: Plaintiff may have difficulty overcoming the defense of nominative fair use of a trademark in this lawsuit. That doctrine provides that, as a matter of law, nominative use of a mark -- where the only word reasonably available to describe a particular thing is pressed into service -- lies outside the strictures of trademark law. Defendant may argue that its use of "Rough Notes" on its commemorative plaques was permissible as those are the only words reasonably available to adequately describe a plaque displaying an article featured in a "Rough Notes" publication.

Continue reading "Indiana Copyright and Trademark Litigation: Magazine Publisher Sues Commemorative Plaque Maker Alleging Infringement" »

February 9, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Eli Lilly Asks Indiana Federal Court to Adjudicate Dispute Regarding Patented Pharmaceutical

2016-02-09-BlogPhoto.png

Indianapolis, Indiana - Indiana patent attorneys for Plaintiff Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana ("Lilly") filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 ("the '209 patent"), which was filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

This patent infringement lawsuit asserts unlawful behavior by two Defendants. Specifically, the complaint states that Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. of Princeton, New Jersey is acting on behalf of Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. of Hyderabad, India in seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Lilly's ALIMTA®, a chemotherapy agent used for the treatment of various types of cancer. Lilly further contends that the two Defendants are agents and/or alter-egos of one another.

Lilly states that unless Defendants are "enjoined from infringing the '209 patent, actively inducing infringement of the '209 patent, and contributing to the infringement by others of the '209 patent, Lilly will suffer irreparable injury."

This lawsuit, filed by Indiana patent lawyers for Lilly, lists a single count: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209. Lilly seeks a declaratory judgment, equitable relief, damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

Continue reading "Indiana Patent Litigation: Eli Lilly Asks Indiana Federal Court to Adjudicate Dispute Regarding Patented Pharmaceutical " »