Injunction

December 8, 2023

Orthopedic Plate System at Center of Patent Infringement Suit

Plaintiff OrthoPediatrics Corp. (“OP”) filed a Complaint against fellow Warsaw, Indiana corporation, WishBone Medical, Inc. (“WishBone”). They are alleging patent infringement concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,777,998, titled “Pediatric Long Bone Support or Fixation Plate.”

The complaint states that the Plaintiff (OP) has designed and patented an innovative orthopedic plate system explicitly made for pediatric patients. They claim that the patent in question addresses a longstanding issue in pediatric orthopedics—specifically adapting adult implants for use in children, which poses risks such as damaging the epiphyseal plate or stunting bone growth.

The Plaintiff asserts that WishBone’s introduction of their “PRIMA™ Femoral Locking Plate System” infringes upon Patent 8,777,998 through alleged replication of at least three of its claimed features. OP further asserts that in addition to manufacturing their own allegedly infringing product, WishBone also markets and sells the product.

November 3, 2023

Preliminary Injunction Denied in Vandor Group, Inc. v. Batesville Casket Company Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Richmond, Indiana – In a recent legal case between Plaintiff, Vandor Group, Inc., and Defendant, Batesville Casket Company, Vandor sought a preliminary injunction against Batesville for alleged patent infringement concerning casket rental inserts. Vandor claimed that Batesville’s actions caused irreparable harm, impacting their expansion plans and profitability.

In its decision-making process, the Court applied Federal Circuit Law, which outlines four factors for determining whether a preliminary injunction is warranted: “(1) the movant’s reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the irreparable harm the movant will suffer if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) the balance of hardships tipping in its favor; and (4) the adverse impact on the public interest.”

The court primarily focused on irreparable harm and the likelihood of success, noting that irreparable harm is assumed when patent validity and infringement are established. However, the defendant can rebut this presumption by presenting evidence to the contrary. The judge ruled that Vandor’s claims of irreparable harm, based on lost expansion opportunities, potential economic losses, and the pending expiration of patents, were speculative and lacked substantial supporting evidence. Emphasizing that general assertions of economic harm without specific evidence are insufficient to prove irreparable harm, the court dismissed Vandor’s argument about the limited duration of their patents as a basis for irreparable harm, based on established legal precedent.

October 6, 2023

Nickels and Dimes Goes Full Tilt on Noah’s Arcade in Trademark Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Celina, Texas – Plaintiff, Nickels and Dimes Incorporated is suing LaPorte, Indiana company, Noah’s Arcade, LLC d/b/a Full Tilt, for infringement of its federally registered trademark TILT, in association with arcade, amusement, and entertainment services, under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Nickels and Dimes opened their first TILT arcade in 1977, inside the Six Flags Mall, in Arlington, TX, and has since owned and operated 200 TILT arcades in the U.S. Nickels and Dimes states that it then began using the Trademark TILT STUDIO in 2010, and the TILTED 10 Trademark in 2021, in association with arcade games and indoor entertainment.

The Defendant, Noah’s Arcade, allegedly opened their arcade in 2022 under the mark FULL TILT and has been accused of using the mark in their marketing and advertising, to which the Plaintiff claims infringement of their trademarks TILT, TILT STUDIO, and TILTED 10. The Plaintiff argues that the products sold under Noah’s FULL TILT mark are identical or highly similar to those that Nickels and Dimes sell under their trademarks. In addition, the Plaintiff contends that Noah’s Domain Name is similar to Plaintiff’s TILT STUDIO and TILTED 10 marks, which could potentially cause confusion among the customer base who may assume an affiliation between the two entities.

March 14, 2023

Vandor Group Inc. Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Batesville Casket Company

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Richmond, Indiana –The Plaintiff, Vandor Group, Inc. (“Vandor”) doing business as Starmark Cremation Products, filed suit against Defendant, Batesville Casket Company, Inc. (“Batesville”), for patent infringement.

Vandor was established in 1972 by Bruce Elder in Richmond, Indiana. Vandor began by specializing in custom die-cutting of chipboard and corrugated fiberboard components. Starmark Cremation Products began in 2004 designing and marketing a small line of engineered cremation solutions. According to their website and social media pages, today Starmark manufacturers hundreds of alternative containers and rental inserts daily. They have designed, marketing and manufactured Sensible Solutions for its customers. Starmark prides itself on providing innovative, affordable and high quality products so that their customer can focus on the things that matter most; giving all families the opportunity to lay their loved ones to rest in an affordable yet dignified and respectful manner.

March 7, 2023

Local Medical Supply Store Sued for Selling Counterfeit Products

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana –The Plaintiff, BTL Industries, Inc. filed suit against Defendant, JV Medical Supplies, Inc. for trademark infringement, false advertising and patent infringement.

BTL Industries, founded in 1993, is a leading manufacturer of non-invasive medical devices that are used for cosmetic and therapeutic purposes. The company holds several patents and trademarks related to its products, including its flagship product, the EMSCULPT device. The EMSCULPT is a non-invasive medical device designed to stimulate muscle contraction using electromagnetic energy. The device is used for body contouring, muscle strengthening, and rehabilitation. The FDA has cleared EMSCULPT for non-invasive treatment for the abdomen, buttocks, arms, calves and thighs.

JV Medical Supplies, a competitor of BTL Industries, also manufactures a similar medical device called the Muscle Stimulator. The Muscle Stimulator is marketed and sold as a non-invasive device that uses electromagnetic energy to stimulate muscle contraction, and it is intended for use in body contouring and muscle strengthening applications. The Indiana Secretary of State indicates that the corporation was created in 2021.

March 26, 2020

Motion to Disqualify: Patent Law Firm Tries to Cap Bottle Cap Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

This suit is over the design of two bottle caps.

Plaintiff, Closure, claims it designed the bottle cap on the left, and Defendant, Novembal, got a patent on the bottle cap on the right. But Closure claims that it, not Novembal is the actual “inventor” of the bottle cap design. Perhaps fearing that Novembal was about to file suit, Closure in its home turf of New Jersey and trying to gain a home court advantage, took the initiative and sued Novembal in Indiana. Its Complaint sought to “correct the inventorship” of Novembal’s patent and to prevent Novembal from enforcing the patent against Closure. That suit is reported here: Closure Systems International Sues Novembal USA Seeking Correction of Inventorship. Not surpisingly, Novembal asserted a counterclaim for patent infringement.

The twist is that in the infringement counterclaim, Novembal seeks a broad injunction. So broad, that it would prevent not just Closure, but some of Closure’s customers from infringing the patent. In its counterclaim, Novembal seeks:

A permanent injunction enjoining CSI and its employees, agents, successors, partners, officers, directors, owners, shareholders, principals, subsidiaries, related companies, affiliates, distributors, dealers, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them . . . from making, importing, promoting, offering, or exposing for sale, or selling the CSI Production Closures, or any other closures with designs confusingly similar to the claimed design of Novembal’s ‘442 patent.

One company that apparently gets its bottle caps from Closure is Nestle, one of the biggest sellers of bottled water. So far, no big deal. Except, Nestle is represented by the blue chip Washington DC patent law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner. Finnegan happens to be the same law firm that represents Novembal in the suit with Closure. So Finnegan is attempting to get an injunction for one client (Novembal) that would apply to another client, Nestle. Continue reading

June 21, 2018

Seventh Circuit Upholds Preliminary Injunction Issued in Favor of Elanco US, Inc. Against Arla Foods

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Eli Lilly & Company and its subsidiary, Elanco US Inc., both of Greenfield, Indiana, filed suit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that Arla Foods, Inc. USA of Denmark, and Arla Foods Production LLC a Delaware Corporation used false advertising and unfair business practices in regards to Arla brand cheeses.

In 2017, Arla Foods launched a $30 million advertising campaign focused on expanding its cheese sales in the U.S. These advertisements included ads featuring a seven-year-old girl describing recombinant bovine somatotropin (“rbST”), an artificial growth hormone used to treat cows, as a type of monster. The ads implied that milk from cows that were treated with rbST was unwholesome and unnatural, therefore not good for your family.

Elanco makes the only FDA-approved rbST supplement, marketed under the name Posilac®. After the Arla campaign launched, Elanco filed suit alleging that Arla was in violation of the Lanham Act and simultaneously moved for a preliminary injunction with supporting copies of ads, evidence that a major cheese distributor decreased its purchasing of rbST in response to the ad campaign, and scientific literature pertaining to rbST’s safety. The district judge issued the requested injunction and later modified the injunction to cure technical deficiencies.

January 20, 2017

Indiana Court of Appeals Rules on Irreparable Harm in Breach of Non-Compete/Non-Solicitation Agreements

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Marion Superior Court in litigation between two civil engineering firms, Plaintiff American Structurepoint Inc. and Defendant HWC Engineering Inc. Three former employees of ASI, also listed as Defendants in the trial court, were listed in this appeal.

This dispute arose in 2014 when ASI employee Martin Knowles left ASI to join HWC as its vice president of operations. Jonathan Day and David Lancet also left ASI to begin employment at HWC.

These former ASI employees had entered into noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements with ASI. Despite these agreements, ASI contended in a lawsuit filed in Indiana state court that its former employees engaged in various acts prohibited by the agreements. ASI claimed that Day had created a list of ASI employees whom he believed might be interested in leaving to join HWC. ASI also asserted that Day subsequently shared that list with Knowles and called various ASI employees regarding employment with HWC. ASI alleged that a total of six job offers were made by HWC to ASI employees. ASI further introduced evidence that Knowles engaged in prohibited business-development activities with ASI clients to ASI’s detriment.

January 20, 2016

Seventh Circuit Law: Appellate Court Vacates Order Enjoining Defamation in Copyright/Trademark Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, Illinois – The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that an injunction against Defendants effecting a prior restraint on defamatory speech regarding the Plaintiffs was improper.

This lawsuit springs from an Indiana event occurring in 1956 wherein Mary Ephrem, a Catholic Sister, claimed to have encountered a series of apparitions of the Virgin Mary. Those apparitions told her: “I am Our Lady of America.” A program of devotions to Our Lady began, which Patricia Fuller joined in 1965. When Sister Ephrem passed away, she willed her property to Fuller. Between Sister Ephrem’s efforts to register intellectual property pertaining to Our Lady and Fuller’s efforts, the program’s assets included both copyrights and trademarks.

In 2005, Kevin McCarthy and Albert Langsenkamp volunteered to assist Fuller in promoting devotions to Our Lady. By 2007, however, the relationship had soured. Langsenkamp established the Langsenkamp Family Apostolate and McCarthy and Langsenkamp (and the latter’s apostolate) claimed to be the authentic promoters of devotions to Our Lady. They also claimed ownership to all documents and artifacts accumulated by Fuller and Sister Ephrem.

Paul Hartman intervened on Fuller’s behalf, “launching a campaign to smear McCarthy’s and Langsenkamp’s reputations.” McCarthy and Langsenkamp, as well as the Langsenkamp Family Apostolate, sued Fuller and Hartman asserting tortious conduct, including conversion, fraud and defamation. Plaintiffs also sought a declaratory judgment that they had not infringed any of Fuller’s intellectual property. Fuller and Hartman counterclaimed, accusing Plaintiffs of theft, infringement and defamation.

The district court conducted a jury trial that resulted in a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, who were awarded compensatory and punitive damages, as well as attorney’s fees, sanctions and costs. The district court also issued an injunction prohibiting Defendants from making certain statements “as well as any similar statements that contain the same sorts of allegations or inferences, in any manner or forum” and ordered that Fuller take down his website.

Judge Posner, writing for the Seventh Circuit, upheld the damages, fees and costs but vacated the injunction. He noted that, while the jury had held that Plaintiffs had been defamed, there was no specific indication regarding which of the many of Defendants’ statements had been deemed by the jury to be defamatory. Thus, by prohibiting all of the statements, the injunction was overbroad.

Moreover, the injunction’s preamble greatly expanded the scope of the prohibited conduct by enjoining “any similar statements [that is, similar to the injunction’s specific prohibitions] that contain the same sorts of allegations or inferences, in any manner or forum,” as those listed in the body of the injunction. This was also held to be improper as overly expansive, as an injunction must be specific about the acts that it prohibits.

The mandate within injunction that Hartman take down his website, made without a finding that everything published on the website defamed any of the Plaintiffs, was also held to be overly broad.

Finally, the Seventh Circuit opined on the injunction as it related to the First Amendment, which forbids, with some exceptions, “prior restraints” on speech by the government. One permissible exception outlined by the other jurisdictions, including the Sixth Circuit, is for defamatory statements, which may be enjoined but only where the injunction is “no broader than necessary to provide relief to plaintiff while minimizing the restriction of expression.”

The appellate court thus concluded that the trial court’s injunction could not be sustained. Without ruling that the law of the Seventh Circuit allowed the enjoining of defamatory speech, it held that, even were such an injunction permissible in the Seventh Circuit, the injunction issued by the trial court was vague, open-ended and overbroad; that it was thus a patent violation of the First Amendment; and that as a consequence the injunction must be vacated.

February 13, 2015

Indiana Trademark Law: Consent Judgment Entered Enjoining Chanel’s Salon from Using “Chanel” in Business Name

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Chanel’s Salon, LLC, d/b/a Chanel’s Salon and Chanel’s Cosmetology Salon, and Chanel Jones, all of Merrillville, Indiana, entered into a consent judgment with Chanel, Inc. of New York, New York to resolve ongoing trademark disputes regarding the trademarked term CHANEL®.

Indiana trademark attorneys for fashion-and-beauty giant Chanel, Inc. had sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Chanel’s Salon, LLC and Chanel Jones had infringed and were infringing the trademark CHANEL, Registration Nos. 302,690; 510,992; 1,263,845; 1,348,842; 1,464,711; 1,559,404; 1,660,866; 3,134,695; and 4,105,557, which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In this Indiana lawsuit, Chanel, Inc. alleged trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition under federal law as well as trademark infringement and unfair competition under Indiana state law. Chanel, Inc. claimed that its intellectual property rights to its trademark CHANEL had been infringed and diluted by actions of Defendants Chanel’s Salon, an Indiana beauty salon, and its owner Chanel Jones.

Specifically, Defendants were accused of using the trade names CHANEL’S SALON and/or CHANEL’S COSMETOLOGY SALON in connection with their beauty salon without Chanel’s authorization. Chanel, Inc. also claimed that the Defendants were infringing and diluting the CHANEL trademark by, inter alia, offering goods and services that are related to those offered under the CHANEL mark, including cosmetics, beauty consultation services and hair accessories.

This litigation ended pursuant to a consent judgment crafted by the parties and entered by the Indiana district court. As part of the consent judgment, the court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting Jones from using CHANEL to identify her beauty salon or any other enterprises, services or products. Jones was also enjoined from any use of the term CHANEL as part of any keyword, meta tag, page tag, or source code in any business marketing.

The order in this intellectual property litigation was issued by Judge Theresa L. Springmann in the Northern District of Indiana. This case is: Chanel, Inc. v. Chanel’s Salon LLC et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00304-TLS-PRC.