Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Dexas International, LTD., of Coppel, Texas filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Menard, Inc., of Eau Claire, Wisconsin infringed its rights in United States Patent No. D563,739 (“the ‘739 Patent”)2018-05-03-BlogPhoto-300x148 for “Cutting Board With Snap-In Pop Strainer”. Plaintiff is seeking an injunction, lost profits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and destruction of infringing items.

Plaintiff is a Texas-based corporation specializing in manufacturing kitchen gadgets and pet care items. Defendant is a Wisconsin-based corporation that owns and operates large-scale hardware and home improvement stores across the country.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Blue Sky Networks, LLC of Plano, Texas filed suit in theBlogPhoto-1-184x300 Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Roche Diabetes Care, Inc., of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed its rights in United States Patent Nos. 6,484,027, (“the ‘027 Patent”), 6,865,372, (“the ‘372 Patent”), 8,265,691, (“the ‘691 Patent”), 8,346,169, (“the ‘169 Patent”), and 8,792,828 (“the ‘828 Patent”).  Plaintiff is seeking judgment, damages, and attorneys’ fees.

According to the complaint, “The Asserted Patents are directed to wireless mobile devices, such as handsets, peripherals, and computing devices, that operate via wireless short-range direct communication with other wireless devices. Such devices may also be enabled for simultaneous operation on a wireless network…and wireless short-range direct communication with other wireless devices.”

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Thrush Co., Inc. of Peru, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Wessels Company of Greenwood, Indiana infringed its rights in BlogPhoto-4-300x273United States Patent No. 8,177,975 (“the ‘975 Patent”) for “Apparatus for Removing Air and/or Debris from a Flow of Liquid”. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, ascertainable damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff is an Indiana corporation that owns the rights to the ‘975 Patent. The patent describes a device that filters air and debris out of liquid flowing through a pipe. Plaintiff sells the device throughout the country and Indiana.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Vandor Corporation, of Richmond, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Matthews International Corp., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania infringed its rights on United States Patent No. 9,649,240 (“the ‘240 Patent”) titled “Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Sides,” and United States Patent No. 8,375,535 (the ‘535 patent), BlogPhoto-4-300x216titled “Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Features.” Plaintiff is seeking judgment, preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorney’s fees.

Plaintiff is the owner by assignment of both patents. Both patents describe caskets and cremation containers to be used in cremation and other funeral services. The caskets include sides and edges that fold down. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant sells a product named “Matthews Cremation Fold-Down Rental Insert” that infringes upon claims of both patents.

Continue reading

Lafayette, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, The Trustees of Purdue University of Lafayette, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Omron Corporation and Omron Healthcare Company, Limited of Japan infringed its rights inBlogPhoto-4-300x170 United States Patent No. 7,014,611 B1 (“the 611 Patent”) for “Oscillometric Noninvasive Blood Pressure Monitor”. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, compensatory damages, supplemental damages and interest, and such other and further relief and all remedies available at law.

The ‘611 patent describes a small blood pressure monitor to be worn around one’s wrist or other limb. The patented item includes the monitor and a pump to inflate the cuff, among other details. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been infringing the patent by offering for sale numerous infringing blood pressure monitors that Plaintiff alleges “embody the apparatuses and practice the methods covered by one or more claims of the ’611 patent.”

Continue reading

2016-03-17-blogphotoIndianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Actavis LLC of Parsippany, New Jersey; Teva Pharmaceuticals USA of North Wales, Pennsylvania; and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. of Petach Tikva, Israel infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ’209 patent”) for “Antifolate Combination Therapies”. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and damages including costs and attorneys’ fees.

Eli Lilly and Teva have been involved in numerous patent infringement lawsuits against each other in the past. In April, Eli Lilly sued Teva on a claim of patent infringement of the same drug involved in this case, Alimta. This new complaint is based on a filing by Defendant with the FDA “seeking approval to manufacture and sell its Pemetrexed Injection Concentrate.”

Continue reading

2017-11-10-BlogPhoto1-300x241Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney for Plaintiff, Thor Industries, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, The RV Factory, LLC, also of Elkhart, Indiana infringed on the U.S. Patent Nos. 7,575,251, titled Travel Trailer Having Improved Turning Radius (the ‘251 patent), and 7,938,427, titled Recreational Vehicle Chassis (the ‘427 patent). Plaintiff is seeking judgment in favor of Thor Industries, Inc., damages, and all infringing products be recalled.

Plaintiff is the owner of the patents, which deal with the design and functionality of travel trailers. Specifically, the ‘251 patent deals with an RV chassis having certain types of angled front corners, as opposed to squared corners. The ‘427 patent covers a type of chassis with a curved or bowed front end,2017-11-10-BlogPhoto2-300x240 instead of a flat or straight front.

According to the complaint, Defendant has been manufacturing and selling RVs with chasses containing the patented design elements. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s RV model “Luxe Luxury Fifth Wheel” infringes on the ‘251 patent. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant’s “Luxe Elite,” “Luxe Gold,” and “Weekend Warrior” models infringe the ‘427 patent by using a curved forward surface.

Plaintiff also claims that Defendant has induced and contributed to infringement by third parties who have bought and used the allegedly infringing RVs.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Klipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Shenzhen Paiaudio Electronics Co., Ltd of Guangdong, 2017-11-08-BlogPhoto-224x300China infringed on the U.S. Patent No. D603,844 (the ‘844 patent), titled “Headphone,” and violated Klipsch headphones’ trade dress. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, a permanent injunction, lost profits, damages, pre-judgement and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, and all relief just and proper.

Plaintiff Klipsch is an Indianapolis-based audio company that produces headphones, earphones, and speakers for home and commercial use. China-based Defendant Paiaudio specializes in producing high-end earphones. The subject of this litigation is a type of small earphone patented by Klipsch, specifically their “X12i” model. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s “π 3.14 Audio” model is virtually identical to the X12i, infringes on the patent, and violates the Lanham Act via trade dress confusion.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Uniloc, has targeted Binatone of Carmel, Indiana in its latest patent infringement suit.

Uniloc has been called a “Patent Troll in Chief” by engadget.com, and justia.com reports that it is a party to at least 343 patent cases.  In just October of 2017, Uniloc has filed 17 patent infringement lawsuits. While most of Uniloc’s lawsuits have been filed in the patent-infringement-plaintiff-friendly State of Texas, the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in the TC Heartland case limits the venues for patent infringement cases.  This likely forced Uniloc to file this suit in Indiana where Binatone is located.

2017-10-30-blogPhoto-300x263

Uniloc USA, Inc. of Plano Texas, and Uniloc Luxembourg S.A filed their suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Exclusive Group LLC d/b/a/ Binatone North America, of Carmel, Indiana infringed on the U.S. Patent No. 6,216,158, System and Method Using a Palm Sized Computer to Control Network Devices (the ‘158 patent). Plaintiff is seeking declaratory judgment of infringement, damages suffered as a result of the infringement, and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiffs Uniloc USA, as exclusive licensee of the ‘158 patent, and Uniloc Luxembourg, as owner and assignee of the ‘158 patent, filed suit alleging that a wide range of Binatone’s wireless products, such as wireless baby monitors, infringe the patent. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that Motorola’s products infringe the patent by performing the same functions that are covered under the patent; specifically, remotely controlling a wireless device over a wireless connection, using wireless commands to control the other device, and wireless control of the second device by the first device.

Plaintiffs also allege in their complaint that the Defendant indirectly infringes the patent by providing instructional videos, brochures, etc. for each product, explaining to customers how to operate the products.

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

Contact Information