Articles Posted in Inducement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiffs King Sheng Co., Ltd., which does business as Seiki, and David Tsai, both of Taiwan, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendant in this Indiana litigation is Hollywood Engineering, Inc. d/b/a Hollywood Racks of Los Angeles, California.  It is accused of having infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,240,816 (“the ‘816 patent”), which relates to a bike rack for use on vehicles.  Plaintiffs contend that Defendant“has made, imports, sells, offers to sell, and/or uses” numerous infringing products.  The products at issue include items offered under model numbers HR200, HRT220, HR1000, HR1000R, HR1400, HR1450, HR1450E, HR1450R, HR1475, and Sunlite models 45815 and 45816.

2016-12-16-BlogPhoto-300x214

Defendant is accused of having infringed the ‘816 patent directly and/or jointly with other entities, with the alleged infringement occuring literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.  Plaintiff further contends that Defendant is liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) for inducing infringement of the patent-in-suit and under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) for contributory infringement.  Stating that Defendant has had actual notice of the ‘816 patent since no later than 2009, Plaintiff also asserts that infringement of the ‘816 patent has been willful and deliberate.

2016-10-31-BlogPhoto.png

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent lawyers for Plaintiffs Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, its subsidiary Eli Lilly Export S.A. of Geneva, Switzerland and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd of West Melbourne, Australia filed a lawsuit alleging patent infringement. This federal lawsuit, commenced in the Southern District of Indiana, lists two Defendants, Cipla Limited of Mumbai, India and its wholly owned subsidiary Cipla USA, Inc. of Miami, Florida.

The parties in this litigation are engaged in the development and sale of pharmaceuticals. At issue is Plaintiffs’ transdermal testosterone solution, which is marketed under the trade name “Axiron®.” Lilly holds New Drug Application No. 022504 for this drug, which was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

Defendants submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Lilly’s Axiron product. In this ANDA, Defendants certified to the FDA that they believed that the patents-in-suit were invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the generic version of Axiron described in the ANDA.

According to Plaintiffs, the filing of this ANDA by Defendants constitutes patent infringement. Plaintiffs also contend that other threatened activities, such as commercial manufacture, importation and sale of a generic version of Axiron, would also infringe Plaintiffs’ patents.

Plaintiffs list three disputed patents in this lawsuit: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,435,944; 8,993,520 and 9,180,194. These patents have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Indiana attorneys for Plaintiffs ask the court for relief with respect to the following claims of patent infringement:

• Count I: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944
• Count II: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944
• Count III: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944
• Count IV: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,993,520
• Count V: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,993,520
• Count VI: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,993,520
• Count IV [sic]: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,180,194
• Count V [sic]: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,180,194

• Count VI [sic]: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,180,194

The complaint also lists three counts seeking declaratory judgment.

Plaintiffs aver that this case is “exceptional” and ask the court for an award of their costs, including attorneys’ fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 285 and 271(e)(4).

Continue reading

2016-10-10BlogPhoto1.png

South Bend, Indiana – Patent lawyers for Plaintiff The Beachwaver Co. of Libertyville, Illinois sued in Indiana federal court on allegations of patent infringement.

Defendant Farouk Systems, Inc. of Houston, Texas has been accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,398,796 (“the ‘796 patent”), which covers claims pertaining to a rotating curling iron. This patent, titled “Hair Styling Device,” was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on July 26, 2016.

Plaintiff contends that “Defendant has committed acts of patent infringement, including making, offering for sale, and selling infringing products” and lists the following causes of action in this lawsuit, filed Friday in the Northern District of Indiana:

• Count I: Direct Infringement of the ‘796 Patent

• Count II: Induced Infringement of the ‘796 Patent

Plaintiff seeks damages, including treble damages, as well as injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana – Copyright lawyers for Plaintiff The Art of Design, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana. Defendants in this Indiana lawsuit are Pontoon Boat, LLC d/b/a Bennington and Bennington Marine of Elkhart, Indiana and Hawkeye Boat Sales, Inc. of Dubuque, Iowa.

Plaintiff is in the business of custom airbrushing, including the airbrushing of copyrighted art works onto different surfaces. Defendants offer marine goods, including pontoon boats. In 2011, Plaintiff and Bennington entered into an agreement wherein Bennington paid Plaintiff to apply copyrighted graphics, titled “Shatter Graphics,” to a limited number of Bennington’s pontoon boats in exchange for payment.

Plaintiff contends that, following this authorized application of Shatter Graphics to Defendants’ pontoon boats, Defendant made further use of the copyrighted design without Plaintiff’s authorization.

In this Indiana litigation, Plaintiff makes several allegations, including accusing Defendant of copyright infringement for the sale of pontoon boats bearing graphics “that are copied from and substantially similar to” Plaintiff’s Shatter Graphics, which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration numbers VA 1-979-388 and 1-982-002. The lawsuit lists the following claims for relief:

• Count I – Breach of Contract against Bennington
• Count II – Unjust Enrichment against all Defendants
• Count III – Copyright Infringement against all Defendants
• Count IV – Unfair Competition against all Defendants
• Count V – Inducing Copyright Infringement against Bennington

• Count VI – Violations of DMCA, 17 U.S.C. § 1202

Plaintiff is seeking damages, including treble damages, as well as equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Plaintiff’s copyright attorneys also represent frequent litigant Design Basics. We have blogged about Design Basics’ Indiana copyright litigation before. See:

Design Basics Sues Fort Wayne Homebuilders
Creator of Architectural Designs Files Two New Copyright Lawsuits
Design Basics Files Three New Indiana Copyright Lawsuits
Architecture Firms File Four New Infringement Lawsuits
Design Basics Files Two New Copyright Lawsuits
Architecture Firm Files New Lawsuit Asserting Infringement
Design Basics Files Two Additional Infringement Lawsuits in the Northern District
Design Basics Files Additional Indiana Lawsuit

Design Basics Sues Builders and Others Alleging Infringement of Copyrighted Architectural Designs

Continue reading

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

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Novembal USA, Inc. of Edison, New Jersey filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. Defendant is Closure Systems International, Inc., of Indianapolis, Indiana.

Novembal is in the business of development, production and sale of products associated with the production, processing, packaging and distribution of food. In this recent federal lawsuit, it has accused Closure Systems of infringing a patent covering bottle-cap products, which is entitled “Cap For A Container Neck.” This patent is protected by Patent No. 9,199,769 (the “‘769 patent”), which has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

2015-05-17-BlogPhoto.png

Novembal contends that Closure Systems has infringed and continues to infringe, has contributed to the infringement of, or induced infringement of at least claims 1, 3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16 of the ‘769 patent. Novembal further claims that Closure Systems’ infringement has been willful.

In this lawsuit, the Indiana patent attorney for Novembal lists a single count: “Patent Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,199,769 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.”

Novembal seeks damages, including punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana trademark attorneys for Countrymark Refining and Logistics, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a trademark lawsuit against Coop Fuels Inc. of Morrisville, North Carolina. The complaint asserts direct and contributory trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act as well as claims under Indiana law.

At issue are two trademarks owned by Countrymark, U.S. Registration Nos. 2,657,529 and 2,679,308 for the CO-OP trademark, which have been registered with the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.

2016-04-02-BlogPhoto1.png

Defendant Coop Fuels is alleged to have infringed these trademarks by using “coop” to market its competing products.

2016-04-02-BlogPhoto2.png

Additionally, Countrymark contends that Coop Fuels has also knowingly induced and materially contributed to its retail partners’ unauthorized adoption and use of Countrymark’s trademarks.

In this lawsuit, Indiana trademark lawyers for Countrymark list the following allegations of wrongdoing:

• Count I: Infringement of Federally Registered Marks – 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count II: False Designation of Origin and Unfair Competition – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count III: Contributory Trademark Infringement
• Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition
• Count V: Deception – Indiana Code § 35-43-5-3(a)(6)
• Count VI: Conversion – Indiana Code § 35-43-4-3

• Count VII: Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act- Indiana Code § 35-24-3-1

Countrymark asks the federal court for injunctive relief, actual and treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs.

Continue reading

Evansville, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Plaintiff Kimball International, Inc. (“Kimball”) of Jasper, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendant COA, Inc. d/b/a Coaster Company of America (“Coaster”) of Santa Fe Springs, California is accused of infringing Kimball’s Trademark KIMBALL, Reg. No. 1,180,193, which has been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, by using the trademark without authorization.

2016-04-27-BlogPhoto1.png

In addition to direct trademark infringement, Kimball asserts counts of contributory trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition arising under the Lanham Act as well as violations of the statutes and common law of the State of Indiana.

In particular, Kimball asserts that some of Coaster’s retail partners have infringed the KIMBALL trademark at Coaster’s behest, including retail giant Sears. As an example of this alleged contributory infringement, Kimball cites Bradley Home Furnishings’ website, which Kimball states features an unauthorized “Kimball Bedroom Collection” that originated from Defendant Coaster:

2016-04-27-BlogPhoto2.png

Kimball indicates in the complaint that it first informed Defendant less than a month before this lawsuit was filed that it believed it held superior rights to the KIMBALL trademark but states that Coaster “continues its unlawful use of the KIMBALL Mark and continues to encourage, induce, and materially contribute to its retail partners’ unlawful use of the KIMBALL Mark.”

In this litigation, filed by an Indiana trademark lawyer for Kimball, the following counts are alleged:

• Count I: Infringement of Federally Registered Marks – 15 U.S.C. § 1114
• Count II: False Designation of Origin – 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)
• Count III: Contributory Trademark Infringement
• Count IV: Common Law Unfair Competition
• Count V: Deception – Indiana Code § 35-43-5-3(a)(6)
• Count VI: Conversion – Indiana Code § 35-43-4-3

• Count VII: Indiana Crime Victim’s Relief Act – Indiana Code § 35-24-3-1

Among other remedies, Kimball seeks equitable relief, actual and treble damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

2016-04-14-BlogPhoto.png

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent lawyers for Plaintiff Gary D. Pignato of Illinois filed an infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendants Mobileye, Inc. of Jericho, New York and its parent company Mobileye N.V. of Jerusalem, Israel.

Defendants have been sued on allegations of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,240,346 (“the ‘346 patent”), titled “System with Light Display and Data Recorder for Monitoring Vehicle in Relation to Adjacent Vehicle.” The ‘346 patent is directed to a system for mounting in a vehicle for monitoring leading and trailing vehicles as well as generating and storing data relating to these vehicles, such as speed and proximity to the vehicle containing the technology. This patent has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants’ Mobileye 5-Series line of driver-assistance systems, and in particular the Mobileye 560 System, include Forward Collision Warning technology that infringes the ‘346 patent. Plaintiff asserts that, although it offered to license to Defendants the technology protected by the ‘346 patent, Defendants instead chose to manufacture the accused products without such a license and, in doing so, infringe multiple claims of Plaintiff’s patent.

In this lawsuit, filed by Indiana patent attorneys for Plaintiff, the following claims are alleged:

• Count I: Direct Infringement of the ‘346 Patent
• Count II: Inducement to Infringe the ‘346 Patent

• Count III: Contributory Infringement of the ‘346 Patent

Plaintiff Pignato seeks injunctive relief; damages, including treble damages if infringement is found and determined to be willful; costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Pic1.jpg

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Plaintiffs Cummins Ltd., headquartered in the United Kingdom, and Cummins Inc. of Columbus, Indiana commenced patent infringement litigation in the Southern District of Indiana. The Defendants are ADP Distributors USA, Inc. of Tempe, Arizona and ADP Distributors, Inc., headquartered in British Columbia, Canada. They are accused of infringing two of Plaintiffs’ U.S. patents, both of which have been filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Defendants are accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,401,563 (“the ‘563 patent”), entitled “Actuating Mechanism For A Slidable Nozzle Ring” and U.S. Patent No. 5,941,684 (“the ‘684 patent”), entitled “Variable Geometry Turbine.” The ‘563 patent is directed to certain components of a turbocharger or turbomachine and to a linkage assembly for linking together certain components within a turbocharger or turbomachine, while the claims of the ‘684 patent “are generally directed to a turbine, such as one used in connection with a turbocharger, having one or more springs which provide non-linear length to spring force characteristics on a displaceable sidewall.”

Plaintiff Cummins Ltd. claims to own all right, title and interest in both patents. Plaintiff Cummins Inc. states that it is an exclusive licensee of the ‘563 and ‘684 patents for sales of turbochargers and turbocharger components.

Defendants’ accused products include the Rotomaster Turbocharger, offered under model number H1550112N, and a Rotomaster replacement part. Defendants are accused of acting individually or in concert with others or each other to advertise for sale, offer for sale, import, sell and/or use these products in the U.S.

This federal lawsuit, filed with the trial court by patent lawyers for the Plaintiffs, alleges the following claims:

• Count I: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,401,563
• Count II: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,941,684
• Count III: Inducement to Infringe the ‘563 Patent
• Count IV: Contributory Infringement of the ‘563 Patent

Plaintiffs seek equitable relief; damages, including treble damages; interest; costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Contact Information