Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

Picture1-2-300x188Indianapolis,  Indiana – Apparently the Plaintiff, Social Positioning Input Systems, LLC (“Social”), is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 9,261,365 (the “‘365 Patent”). The ‘365 Patent is titled “Device, System and Method for Remotely Entering, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Information Device.” Social claims Netsoft Holdings, LLC (“Netsoft”), the Defendant, has infringed on at least Claim 1 of the ‘365 Patent by making, using, selling, and/or offering for sale associated hardware and software for asset locating (the “Product”). For example, the Product may include Netsoft’s Hubstaff asset tracking platform and any associated hardware, apps, or other software.

According to the Complaint, the Product provides an asset tracking system for real-time GPS tracking of assets that the user can see on a positional information device (i.e., a mobile device or computer). The Product apparently allows an organization’s owner and managers to track their staff’s location, review their previous routes, and display time stamps showing where users were at a specified time along their route. Because Social claims the Product infringes on at least Claim 1 of the ‘365 Patent, it is seeking damages for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.

The case was assigned to Judge James R. Sweeney II and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana assigned Case No. 1:21-cv-01071-JRS-TAB.

Fishers,  Indiana – Digital Verification Systems, LLC (“Digital”) is apparently the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 9,054,860 (the “‘860 Patent”) for a Digital Verified Identification System and Method. According to the Complaint, Formstack, LLC (“Formstack”), the Defendant, offers at least one Product, Formstack Sign, that infringes one or more claims of the ‘860 Patent.

Picture5-1-300x211Digital claims Formstack’s Product provides a system for e-signing documents and for digitally verifying the identification of the signer as shown below.

Apparently, the Product further includes a digital identification module to be associated with at least one user and at least one verification data element, for example, a unique login ID and password. It also appears a user can store their e-signature within a document using the Product. As Digital claims each of these components of the Product are covered by the ‘860 Patent, it is seeking damages for patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Apparently, Epitopix, LLC d/b/a Vaxxinova US (“Vaxxinova”) is an animal health research and development company specializing in veterinary vaccines. Vaxxinova is the owner of three patents at issue, all entitled “Immunizing Compositions and Methods of Use,” U.S. Patent Nos. 8,282,941, 7,943,150, and 7,943,151 (collectively the “Patents in Suit”). According to the Complaint, Vaxxinova produced vaccine products using the specialized technology of the Vaxxinova Patents for cattle, poultry, and swine.

BlogPhoto-2

Vaxxinova claims it has discussed its technology including that of the Patents in Suit with Defendant, Elanco Animal Health, Inc. (“Elanco”), during potential business negotiations. When these negotiations ceased, it appears Elanco proceeded to develop and acquire technology that allegedly infringes upon the Patents in Suit. Vaxxinova claims Elanco launched a new product family called Nuplura PH+ that allegedly infringes the Patents in Suit after Vaxxinova informed Elanco of the allegations.

Therefore, Vaxxinova is seeking damages and fees for willful patent infringement of the Vaxxinova Patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.

Continue reading

BlogPhoto-3-300x196Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff, Somero Enterprises, Inc. (“Somero”), originally filed suit in the Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement against Defendant, Ligchine International Corporation (“Ligchine”). Ligchine responded to the Complaint by filing a Motion for Intra-District Transfer to the New Albany Division.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a Court may “transfer an action filed in a proper, though not necessarily convenient, venue to a more convenient district.” According to the Court’s Order, the Court typically considers four factors: “(1) the convenience of the parties; (2) the convenience of the witnesses; (3) the situs of material events and access to proof; and (4) the interest of justice.” Order at p. 2. (citation omitted).

Ligchine argued that because Somero does not reside in the Southern District of Indiana and all of Ligchine’s offices, operations, witnesses, and evidence are located in the New Albany Division, the transfer should be granted. Somero opposed the Motion arguing that its preference for the Indianapolis Division should be given substantial deference. Further, Somero claimed its counsel would have to drive two hours more each way for in-person Court appearances which would require counsel to fly and/or stay overnight in a hotel, thereby increasing his exposure to COVID-19. However, in its Reply, Ligchine pointed out that a plaintiff’s choice of forum has diminishing importance when the selected forum is not the plaintiff’s home forum.

The Court found that while “several of the factors are neutral . . . [it is] significant the fact that none of the events giving rise to this lawsuit occurred within the Indianapolis District, that Somero’s witnesses will have to travel 9.5 hours to the Indianapolis Division in any event and only an additional 1.5 hours to the New Albany Division, and that Ligchine’s witnesses are located within the New Albany Division.” Therefore, the transfer to the New Albany Division was granted. Order at p. 11.

Continue reading

WestwoodBlogPhoto-3-1024x473

Ft. Wayne, Indiana – Apparently, Westwood One, LLC (“Westwood”), the Plaintiff owns a large portfolio of audio products for use by its affiliated broadcast radio stations and media partners. According to the Complaint, Westwood owns U.S. Patent Nos. 7,860,448 and 7,412,203 (the “Patents in Suit”). The Patents in Suit relate to methods and computer programs for localizing broadcast content and an apparatus for operating a broadcast network, respectively.

Westwood claims it began notifying the Defendant, Local Radio Networks LLC (“LRN”), regarding its ownership of the Patents in Suit in May 2020. It appears the alleged infringement had not ceased after these communications and therefore Westwood filed suit for willful patent infringement. In addition to direct patent infringement, Westwood is claiming LRN has induced and continues to induce infringement of the Patents in Suit by knowingly inducing others to make, use, or sell products covered by the Patents in Suit. Further, Westwood claims LRN targeted former Westwood employees for employment that have knowledge of Westwood’s patented programs. Westwood is seeking damages, including treble damages, for willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Continue reading

BlogPhoto-2

Middlebury, Indiana – According to the Complaint, Grand Design RV, LLC (“Grand Design”), the Plaintiff, designs innovative recreational vehicle products including its line of “toy hauler” recreational vehicles. Grand Design claims the “toy hauler” invention, which depicts a raisable bed positioned above the garage in a recreational vehicle, is protected by U.S. Patent Nos. 10,046,690, and 10,654,398 (the “Grand Patents”).

Grand Design claims Defendants, Thor Industries, Inc, Keystone RV Company and Jayco, Inc., offer, make, and/or sell products that infringe the Grand Patents (the “Accused Products”). The Accused Products allegedly include the Keystone Montana High Country Toy Hauler, the Keystone Raptor Toy Hauler, the Keystone Fuzion Toy Hauler, and the Jayco Northpoint Toy Hauler. Apparently Grand Design provided notice of infringement to the Defendants, but the alleged infringement has not ceased. Therefore, Grand Design is seeking damages for patent infringement, including treble damages and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.

Continue reading

BlogPhoto-1

South Bend, Indiana – Apparently Fortress Iron L.P. (“Fortress”), the Plaintiff, is in the business of providing innovative building products including its FortressCable V-Series steel cable railing protected by U.S. Patent No. 10,883,290 (the “‘290 Patent”). Fortress claims Digger Specialties, Inc. (“Digger”), the Defendant, has been manufacturing and selling its Westbury VertiCable aluminum railing (the “Infringing Product”) that infringes the ‘290 Patent since at least 2018. While the ‘290 Patent issued on January 5, 2021, it allegedly claimed priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/979,055 filed on April 14, 2014. Fortress is claiming Digger is liable for damages, interest, and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284.

Continue reading

LillyLOGO-300x134Indianapolis, IndianaEli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”), the Plaintiff, apparently owns by assignment U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the “‘209 Patent). According to the Complaint, Shilpa Medicare Limited (“Shilpa”), the Defendant, notified Lilly on November 12, 2020 that it had submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) a New Drug Application (“NDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell its Pemetrexed Injection products (“Shilpa’s NDA Products”) prior to the expiration of the ‘209 Patent. Apparently, that notification triggered “a forty-five-day period for Lilly to bring an action for patent infringement under the FDCA.”

Lilly is seeking a judgment that Shilpa has infringed the ‘209 Patent. Further, Lilly is seeking a “judgment ordering that the effective date of any FDA approval for Shilpa to make, use, offer for sale, sell, market, distribute, or import Shilpa’s NDA Products . . . be not earlier than the expiration date of the ‘209 patent.” In addition, Lilly is seeking a preliminary and permanent injunction and a declaration that this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, IndianaWonderland Switzerland AG (“Wonderland”), the Plaintiff and resident of Switzerland, originally filed suit in the Central District of California for patent infringement against Defendant, Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. (“Dorel”), an Indiana-based company,. The Complaint asserted three claims concerning three different patents relating to car seats and strollers filed a motion to dismiss or transfer the case for improper venue.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties consented.” According to the Court’s Order, while ordinarily a “defendant must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum,” “where the plaintiff is a non-resident of the forum, and/or the case has relatively little connection to the chosen forum, the Plaintiff’s choice of forum does not enjoy that type of benefit on a Section 1404(a) motion.”

The Court held that the factors for transfer weighed heavily in Dorel’s favor. Further, the Court noted that “[t]o the extent a transfer of this action to Indiana is a ‘shifting of inconveniences,’ the only ‘convenience’ factor it negates for Plaintiff is a potential relative ease of traveling from Switzerland . . . to Los Angeles over traveling from Switzerland . . . to Indiana.” Therefore, the action was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana for further proceedings and the improper venue portion of the motion was denied as moot.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

Contact Information