Articles Posted in Inducement

TAOD-BlogPhoto-300x124South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, The Art of Design, Inc. (“TAOD”) of Elkhart, Indiana, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Sharpline Converting, Inc. (“Sharpline”) of Wichita, Kansas, infringed its rights in United States Copyright Registration Nos. VA 1-979-388 and 2-149-309 (the “‘388 Design”) and VA 1-982-002 and 2-149-316 (the “‘002 Design”). TAOD is seeking judgment, actual damages, profits, and any further relief as the Court deems proper.

TAOD claims it is a highly respected and successful business engaged in custom airbrushing and the designing of fine art. According to the complaint, TAOD employs very talented individuals who create original two-dimensional designs (the “TAOD Designs”) that are applied to boats, RVs, airplanes, cars, and helicopters. TAOD claims the TAOD Designs are copyrightable and that it owns all right, title, and interest in the TAOD Designs. The ‘388 Design and ‘002 Design are both designs known as the “Shatter Graphics”.

Per the complaint, Sharpline designs and manufactures vinyl graphics for a diverse market, including the marine industry. Sharpline allegedly sells vinyl graphic image products to Pontoon Boat, LLC, doing business as, Bennington and Bennington Marine (“Bennington”). According to the complaint, Bennington provided Sharpline with unauthorized copies of the Shatter Graphics in 2012, which Sharpline then copied, created a vinyl graphic product, and distributed to Bennington for application on Bennington’s boats and boat motors. TAOD claims one of the images provided to Sharpline from Bennington was a photograph of one of Bennington’s boats painted by TAOD with the Shatter Graphics. TAOD alleges Sharpline has reproduced, copied, and distributed unauthorized copies of the TAOD Designs and as such is seeking damages for copyright infringement and inducing copyright infringement.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, SNI Solutions, Inc. of Geneseo, Illinois and Natural Alternatives, LLC of Lexington, Kentucky originally filed suit in the Central District of Illinois, that has since been transferred to the Southern District of Indiana, alleging that Defendants, Univar USA, Inc. (“Univar”) ofIceBite-Blogphoto Downers Grove, Illinois and Road Solutions, Inc. of South Bend, Indiana infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,080,330 (the “‘330 Patent”) for “Anti-Freezing and Deicing Composition and Method”. Plaintiffs are seeking damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the court deems proper.

SNI Solutions allegedly develops, manufactures, and sells de-icing agents containing de-sugared sugar beet molasses (“DSBM”) including products covered by the ‘330 Patent (“Covered Products”). State and local governments allegedly utilize DSBM for road de-icing and commercial de-icing applications. Natural Alternatives claims it develops, manufactures, and sells DSBM and the Covered Products as it is the owner by assignment of the ‘330 Patent. SNI Solutions and Natural Alternatives claim they have maintained a licensing agreement for SNI to commercialize the ‘330 Patent since October 21, 2008.

According to the complaint, Univar is or was a direct competitor of the Plaintiffs for the sale of DSBM and that Univar intended at least some of the DSBM it sold was to be combined with materials covered by the ‘330 Patent. Plaintiffs claim that Univar entered into a Letter of Intent with Todd Bloomer, the inventor of the ‘330 Patent, for Univar’s manufacture, marketing, and sale of DSBM in April 2006. Univar allegedly distributed products throughout the United States and Canada advertising the products as being protected by the ‘330 Patent between April 2006 and October 2008.

Continue reading

The Plaintiff, Lifetime Industries, Inc. (doing business as Boyd Corp.) had filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Trim-Lok, Inc infringed patent no. 6,966,590, Two-Part Seal For A Slide-Out Room, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded back to the district for further proceedings.

Plaintiff owns the patent to a two-part seal for slide-out rooms in RVs. The seal prevents moisture, debris, and air drafts from entering the 2017-10-27-BlogPhoto-300x159vehicle. Soon after two employees left Lifetime to work at Trim-Lok, a representative of Lifetime found an allegedly infringing Trim-Lok seal installed on a third party RV. Plaintiff alleged direct, indirect, and contributory infringement on the part of Trim-Lok, based on claims that Trim-Lok directly installed the seal, or supervised installation of the seal, or influenced the RV company to install the seal on their vehicles. The district court dismissed each claim, stating that Lifetime had not adequately argued the allegations.

Continue reading

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.


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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

Contact Information