Indianapolis, Indiana – The matter of Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al. has been stayed pending a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

This Indiana lawsuit was initiated by Lilly, an Indianapolis pharmaceutical company, in conjunction with other Plaintiffs.  Patent attorneys for Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asserting patent infringement after Defendants filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug Axiron® before various patents related to the drug expired.  Among Plaintiffs’ contentions were claims of patent infringement of seven patents pertaining to Axiron.861-Patent_Fig-2-300x219

In this motion, patent lawyers for Plaintiffs have asked the court to stay its proceedings pending a ruling in a similar case, Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Perrigo Company, et al.  The Perrigo case was filed in the Southern District of Indiana in 2013.  After a trial, the court issued findings including that one claim in one of the Axiron patents was invalid, while two claims pertaining to another Axiron patent were valid.  That ruling was appealed to the Federal Circuit; that appeal remains pending.

LillyHeadquarters-300x127Indianapolis, Indiana – A patent lawyer for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, Eli Lilly Export S.A. of Geneva, Switzerland and Acrux DDS, Pty Ltd. of West Melbourne, Australia filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

Two Defendants are listed, TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Paramus, New Jersey and TWi Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan.  In a 28-count complaint, Defendants are accused of infringing seven patents by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval of a generic version of the pharmaceutical product Axiron® before the expiration of the patents under which the drug is protected.  The patents at issue in this litigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,435,944; 8,993,520; 9,180,194; 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,807,861 and 9,289,586.

The counts against Defendants include “direct patent infringement,” “inducement to infringe” and “contributory infringement” as well as counts requesting declaratory judgment.  Lilly et al. are seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, costs and attorney fees.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, IndianaAustralian Gold, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana sued in the Southern District alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition.

Plaintiff Austbeachlive-248x300ralian Gold, which manufactures, distributes and sells tanning preparations, claims ownership to U.S. Federal Trademark Registration No. 5,130,366 for BEACHIN’ LIFE.  It states that it has used this trademark since “at least 2016”; the trademark was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on January 24, 2017.

Defendant in this Indiana lawsuit is Devoted Creations, Inc. d/b/a Ed Hardy Tanning of Oldsmar, Florida.  Devoted Creations has introduced and is selling a #BEACHLIFE tanning preparation for the indoor tanning market.

Evansville, IndianaHenager Family Museum, Inc d/b/a National Veterans Memorial of Buckskin, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement.

Plaintiff operates a military memorial in Indiana under the trademark “NATIONAL VETERANS MEMORIAL,” U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,420,974.  That trademark was filed “in connection Veterans-300x126with promoting public awareness of the need for reconciliation and recognition by all veterans” and was issued on April 29, 2008 by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In this Indiana litigation, Henager states that Columbus Downtown Development Corp. (“CDDC”) of Columbus, Ohio is currently developing a museum, scheduled to open in 2018, to be operated under the name “NATIONAL VETERANS MEMORIAL & MUSEUM.”  Henager states that CDDC’s use of this name in a state adjoining Indiana, and in conjunction with the offering of the same type of services, is likely to cause confusion or deceive consumers.   It also contends that CDDC’s use of the purportedly similar name has resulted in CDDC being unjustly enriched at Henager’s expense.

Chicago, Illinois – Arlington Specialties, Inc. of Elk Grove Village, Illinois appealed the summary judgment granted by the U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois, Eastern Division in favor of Urban Aid, Inc. of Los Angeles, California.

The plaintiff’s and defendant’s bags are shown on the last page:

Plaintiff-Defendant-Bags-2
The Seventh Circuit does not issue trade dress opinions very often, but it issued one January 27, 2017.  It is especially helpful because it sums up the state of trade dress law in the Circuit.

2017-02-08-BlogPhoto-300x80

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, was intended to limit “forum shopping” of class actions lawsuits, or in a court where the law was most favorable to the plaintiff, even if the location was not connected with the underlying facts.  However, the Act did not generally apply to patent infringement cases.  As a result most patent infringement suits (44% in 2015) are filed in the Eastern District of Texas, which has a reputation for juries that award large verdicts.  When a suit is filed there, there is much pressure on a defendant to settle even if the patent owner’s case is weak.

Carmel Indiana’s T.C. Heartland hopes to limit forum shopping.  It was sued for patent infringement by Kraft Foods, and the case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari last month on appeal from the Federal Circuit. The dispute revolves around whether the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opened the floodgates to forum-shopping in 1990 when it adopted an ultra-liberal interpretation of where a defendant business “resides” – and in the proposed solution, which is to interpret Congress’s 2011 amendments to a general venue statute as having implicitly overruled the 1990 ruling.

The American Intellectual Property Law Association has filed an “amicus” brief arguing that the Federal Circuit correctly interpreted the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1391 as providing a definition of “resides” in the patent venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) Although the Supreme Court in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), found the two statutes worked independently, Congress changed the law in 1988 by adding to the general venue statute “for purposes of venue under this chapter.” According to the brief, the deletion of that phrase in 2011 did not return the law to the Fourco rule because it was replaced with the phrase “for all venue purposes.” Nor does the added phrase “except as otherwise provided by law” adopt the Supreme Court’s Fourco rule, the brief concluded.  The AIPLA’s amicus brief is below.

Overhauser Law Offices the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign trademark searches, trademark applications and assists with enforcing trademarks via infringement litigation and licensing.

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following  217 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2017 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.   Word Mark Click To View
5114184 AKESOCARE TSDR
5113123 AKESOCARE TSDR
5133813 BIOSTOP TSDR
5133682 A STUDENT UNION FOR ADULTS TSDR
5133485 CLOSET CANDY BOUTIQUE TSDR
5133340 TRUCONTOUR TSDR

Continue reading

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 216 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2017, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys.
Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign patent searches, patent applications and assists with enforcing patents via infringement litigation and licensing.

Patent No. Title
1 9,560,215 System, method, and computer-readable medium for rebilling a carrier bill
2 9,558,682 Tamper evident security seal
3 9,557,356 Utility meter with wireless pulse output
4 9,557,325 Method of altering the binding specificity of proteins by oxidation-reduction reactions
5 9,557,274 Analytical devices for detection of low-quality pharmaceuticals

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld the district court’s decision and ruled in favor of Eli Lilly regarding validity and infringement of the vitamin regimen patent U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 for Alimta® (pemetrexed for injection).

In the case of Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., et al., the court affirmed the earlier district court’s rulings that the vitamin regimen patent is valid and would be infringed by the generic challengers’ proposed products. If the patent is ultimately upheld through all remaining challenges, Alimta would maintain U.S. exclusivity until May 2022, preventing marketing of generic products for as long as the patent remains in force. The Alimta compound patent remLillyHeadquarters-300x127ains in force through January 24, 2017.

In March 2014, the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana upheld the validity of the vitamin regimen patent. In August 2015, the same court ruled in Lilly’s favor regarding infringement of the vitamin regimen patent.

Contact Information