Close

Articles Posted in New Decisions

Updated:

Patent Infringement Suit Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

New Albany, Indiana – Chief Judge Tanya Walton Pratt for the Southern District of Indiana dismissed a patent infringement suit filed by Plaintiff, Eddie M. Green, Jr. (“Green”) in March 2020 for lack of personal jurisdiction. Green, who claimed Defendants, Ara Yavruyan and Chain Vault Inc., infringed on his U.S.…

Updated:

Seventh Circuit Affirms Denial of Fees for Trademark Infringement Case

Chicago, Illinois – Chicago is apparently home to two hotels named “Hotel Chicago.” The first, owned by plaintiff/appellee, LHO Chicago River, LLC (“LHO”) was allegedly named in 2014. The second hotel, owned by defendants/appellants Rosemoor Suites, LLC, Portfolio Hotel & Resorts, LLC and Chicago Hotel, LLC (collectively “Rosemoor”), was apparently…

Updated:

Southern District of Indiana’s Dismissal of Patent Infringement Case Affirmed

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…

Updated:

Patent Infringement Case Dismissed for Forum Non Conveniens

Hammond, Indiana – Tyler Research Corporation (“TRC”), the Plaintiff, filed suit against the Defendants, Envacon, Inc., Kieran Bozman, and JKKB Holding Corporation, alleging infringement of its rights in United States Patent No. 6,273,053 (the “‘053 Patent”). After amending the Complaint, the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint…

Updated:

U.S. Supreme Court Rules “Generic.com” Trademarks May be Trademarkable

Washington, D.C.– A travel-reservation website, Booking.com, filed federal trademark applications for a number of marks including the term “Booking.com.” After being examined, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused registration for the mark on the grounds it was a generic name for online reservation services. However, the District Court,…

Updated:

Eli Lilly Declaratory Judgment Suit Transferred to North Carolina

Indianapolis, Indiana – Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) filed suit on November 13, 2019 in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant SensorRx seeking a declaratory judgment that it had not misappropriated trade secrets among other things. SensorRx in turn, on November 22, 2019 filed a lawsuit in the Western…

Updated:

Seventh Circuit Rules Against Molson Coors in Beer Rival Litigation

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the case of Molson Coors Beverage Co. (“Molson Coors”) v. Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC (“Anheuser-Busch”) which was originally filed in United District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. The basic issue is whether “the true statement ‘their [Molson Coors] beer…

Updated:

Trade Dress for Conveyor Belt Fastener Rejected as Functional

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling that Flexible Steel Lacing Co.’s (“Flexco”) trade dress is invalid because it is functional. Flexco originally filed suit in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division for trade dress infringement and unfair competition against Conveyor Accessories,…

Updated:

U.S. Supreme Court Upheld States’ Sovereign Immunity for Copyright Infringement

U.S. Supreme Court–Frederick Allen (“Allen”) was hired as a videographer to document the recovery of the Queen Anne’s Revenge shipwreck off the North Carolina coast. Allen worked to document the recovery for over a decade and registered copyrights for his works. When North Carolina published some of Allen’s work online,…

Updated:

Federal Circuit Affirms Patents-in-Suit Unenforceable Due to Inequitable Conduct

Indianapolis, Indiana – Appellants, GS CleanTech Corporation and Greenshift Corporation (collectively “CleanTech”), appealed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana’s finding that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,601,858 (the “‘858 patent”), 8,008,516 (the “‘516 patent”), 8,008,517 (the “‘517 patent”), and 8,283,484 (the “‘484 patent”) (together, the “Patents-in-Suit”) are unenforceable…

Contact Us