The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 166 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2021, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:
| Patent No. | Title | |
| 1 | D0908,592 | Skidsteer rack |
| 2 | D0908,469 | Trim |
| 3 | 10,904,837 | Systems and methods for controlling electronically operable access devices using WI-FI and radio frequency technology |
| 4 | 10,904,317 | System and method for identifying publicly available cameras |
| 5 | 10,904,224 | Aircraft engine monitoring system. |
Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently, Armored Heating and Cooling Inc. (“AHC”), the Plaintiff, “is a leading provider of residential and commercial HVAC repair, service, sales and installations in central Indiana.” AHC claims the Defendant, Rylie Investments LLC (“Rylie”) also provides HVAC services in Indiana under the name “Armor Air.”
AHC claims to own U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90/058,569, U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 90/084,330 and Indiana Trademark Registration ID 2020000026067 (the “AHC Trademarks”). According to the Complaint, Rylie filed a federal trademark application for the mark “ARMOR AIR” on July 20, 2020 under Application Serial No. 90/061,501. AHC further claims Rylie advertises its HVAC services despite not being a licensed HVAC contractor in Indianapolis, Indiana. Finally, AHC claims customers have been confused between the two companies and customers have complained that Rylie’s services are inferior and of poor quality.
AHC claims Rylie is liable for trademark infringement of the AHC Trademarks, false designation of origin, and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and the common law. AHC is further seeking an injunction for trademark infringement pursuant to Ind. Code §§ 24-2-1-13 and 24-2-1-14.
Warsaw, Indiana – Apparently Orthopediatrics Corp. and Orthex, LLC (collectively “Ortho”), the Plaintiffs, own a patented method of fixing broken or deformed bones, United States Patent No. 10,258,377 (the “‘377 Patent”). Ortho claims Defendants, WishBone Medical, Inc. (“WishBone”) and Nick A. Deeter (“Deeter”), have infringed the ‘377 Patent. According to the Complaint, Deeter was an employee of Ortho from 2006 to 2013. Thereafter, Deeter apparently started WishBone in 2016.
Ortho claims WishBone’s “Smart Correction® External Fixation System” not only infringes the ’377 Patent, but that “WishBone admittedly knew of the ‘377 Patent by no later than June 2019, but proceeded to move forwarded [sic] with its infringing, copycat system.” Additionally, Ortho claims Deeter has breached his severance agreement in which he agreed not to disparage Ortho.
Ortho is seeking enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285. Further, Ortho is seeking damages for unfair competition and false advertising under the Lanham Act. Finally, pursuant to Indiana common law, Ortho is suing Deeter for breach of contract, and both Defendants for defamation, tortious interference with contractual relationships, and tortious interference with prospective contractual relationships.
Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently Heartland Consumer Products LLC (“Heartland”), the Plaintiff, is the owner of the SPLENDA® brand sugar substitute sweetener, which comes in yellow packaging (the “Yellow Trade Dress”). According to the Complaint, Heartland has also used a variety of legally protected trademarks in connection with its SPLENDA® brand products.
In addition to its U.S. trademarks, and common law rights to the Yellow Trade Dress, Heartland also claims to have obtained trademark registrations for the SPLENDA® intellectual property in over 90 countries.
Heartland claims Speedway, LLC (“Speedway”), the Defendant, has “engaged in the active deception of customers through misappropriation of the Yellow Trade Dress in a manner that makes Speedway’s yellow sucralose packets easily mistakable for SPLENDA®’s yellow packets. Per the Complaint, Speedway failed “to provide sufficient cues to the consumer that the yellow sweetener packets in Speedway stores are not the leading brand sucralose-based sweetener sold by Heartland.” Therefore, Heartland claims Speedway’s actions are likely to deceive consumers into believing its sweetener provided in yellow packets is SPLENDA®.
Due to Speedway’s use of yellow packaging for sucralose, Heartland claims it has committed trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and false advertising pursuant to the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125. Heartland is seeking enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117 because it claims “Speedway’s actions are intentional, willful, and calculated to cause confusion, mistake or deception.” Further, Heartland is claiming common law trade dress infringement under Ind. Code § 24-2-1-15. Next, Heartland is claiming common law unfair competition. Finally, Heartland is claiming trademark dilution under Ind. Code § 24-2-1-13.5.
The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 152 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2021 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| Reg. Number | Word Mark | |
| 1 | 6257028 | SUNRISE DRUM |
| 2 | 6256982 | THE TUBE |
| 3 | 6256782 | E |
| 4 | 6256766 | SOFABSOAPS |
| 5 | 6256731 | ENPOM |
Indianapolis, Indiana – According to the Complaint, Delta Faucet Company (“Delta”), the Plaintiff, is a corporation involved in the business of manufacturing innovative faucets. Delta claims it owns two patents relating to “Magnetic Coupling[s] for Sprayheads,” United States Patent No. 10,669,702 and United States Patent No. 10,724,217 (collectively the “Delta Patents”). Further, Delta claims it launched products featuring the MagnaTite® Docking, protected by the Delta Patents, in 2007.
Delta claims Globe Union Industrial Corp., Gerber Plumbing Fixtures LLC and Danze, Inc. (the “Defendants”) manufacture, distribute, and/or offer magnetic docking faucets for sale. The allegedly infringing products feature “DockForce® magnetic docking technology” (the “Accused Products”). Delta claims the Accused Products infringe the Delta Patents and are seeking judgment that at least one claim of each of the Delta Patents has been infringed under 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(a) and (b). Further, Delta is seeking an injunction under 35 U.S.C. § 283 and damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.
Indianapolis, Indiana – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit originally filed by Tenstreet, LLC (“Tenstreet”) in the Southern District of Indiana. In the original suit, Tenstreet alleged that Defendant DriverReach, LLC (“DriverReach”), infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 8,145,575 (the “‘575 Patent”) for “Peer to Peer Sharing of Job Applicant Information.”
According to the District Court Order, Tenstreet developed a product called the Xchange™, which encompasses the ‘575 Patent that facilitated job applicant verification between past and prospective commercial truck driver employers. The product also apparently allows the applicant to review and correct information before it is sent to their prospective employer. Tenstreet claimed that DriverReach infringed the ‘575 Patent by selling an employment verification product, VOE Plus Solutions. DriverReach moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the ’575 Patent claims ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an abstract idea.
To analyze whether a patent claims an abstract idea, the court uses a two-step framework. First, it asks whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. If yes, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’” that ensures “that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l., 573 U.S. 208, 217 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73).
In this case, the Court found the invention claimed “nothing more than an abstract idea implemented on a computer.” After finding the claims directed to an abstract idea the Court proceeded to step two of the framework and found “no sufficient inventive technology to transform the abstract idea of collecting, organizing, and storing data on a generic computer into a patent-eligible application.” Therefore, the Court granted DriverReach’s Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and the Federal Circuit affirmed.
DriverReach has filed a motion seeking to recover $700,000 in attorney’s fees, claiming that this case is exceptional.
Practice Tip: According to 35 U.S.C. § 101, patentable subject matter is “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” However, the Supreme Court has held that “this provision contains an important implicit exception [:] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012). Continue reading
Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently, Alfred C. Nelson invented a magnetic coupling for sprayheads for his employer, Delta Faucet Company (“Delta”), the Plaintiff. Delta claims it now owns three patents covering Mr. Nelson’s invention, US. Patent Nos. 7,753,079, 10,669,702 and 10,724,217 (collectively the “Delta Patents”). Further, Delta claims it has produced kitchen faucets using MagnaTite® Docking and MagneDock® Technology that are protected by the Delta Patents.
According to the Corrected Complaint, Kohler Co., the Defendant, manufactures and offers for sale products having a “DockNetik® magnetic docking system that allegedly infringe the Delta Patents. The allegedly infringing products include the Motif™ kitchen faucet. Delta is seeking an injunction, damages, and attorneys’ fees for patent infringement. Continue reading
The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 191 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in December 2020, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:
| 1 | D0906,093 | Trim |
| 2 | D0905,975 | Hexagon picture display panel |
| 3 | 10,880,330 | Systems and methods for detection of infected websites |
| 4 | 10,879,388 | Methods of reducing the electrical and thermal resistance of SiC substrates and device made thereby |
| 5 | 10,879,283 | Energy harvesting configurable image sensor |
Fort Wayne, Indiana – Apparently, Amanda Cerny, Arianny Celeste Lopez, Abigail Ratchford, Alana Marie Souza, Tiffany Toth Gray, and Katarina Van Derham (collectively the “Plaintiffs”), are all professional models. Plaintiffs claim Defendants, B&B Operations, LLC, B&K Property Holdings LLC, and B&B Property Holdings, LLC, collectively doing business as Club 44 have used the Plaintiffs’ images to promote their strip club business. According to the Complaint, Club 44 has used the Plaintiffs’ images on its social media sites to advertise its business.
Plaintiffs claim that Club 44 used their images without consent, authorization, or payment. Further, even if Club 44 had offered to pay the Plaintiffs for the use of their images, Plaintiffs claim they would have refused to avoid harming their reputations and brands. According to the Complaint, by using Plaintiffs’ images on their social media accounts, “Defendants convey and reasonably suggest, falsely and fraudulently, that Plaintiffs endorse the Club, are affiliated with the Club, participated in the Club, sponsor the Club, or agreed to advertise for the Club.”
Plaintiffs are seeking damages for violations of the Lanham Act including false endorsement, unfair competition, and false advertising. Further, Plaintiffs claim their right of publicity pursuant to Ind. Code § 32-36-1-0.2 et seq., was violated. Finally, Plaintiffs assert Club 44 was unjustly enriched by the use of Plaintiffs’ images.
At last three of the Plaintiffs, Ratchford, Souza, and Toth Gray are involved in other similar suits that were recently filed in Indiana. Continue reading
