Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the Federal Circuits’ Decision for the Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA case regarding “secret sales” as prior art under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). In their Opinion, the Court held that given the pre-AIA precedent that even “secret sales” could invalidate a patent, the same “on sale” language in the AIA provisions should be given the same presumption. Further, the addition of the phrase “or otherwise available to the public” does not allow the Court to conclude that Congress intended to alter the meaning of “on sale,” but instead, means that 35 U.S.C. § 102 could be applied to other non-delineated situations.

us-supreme-court-building-2-300x200Helsinn Healthcare (“Helsinn”) produces a treatment utilizing the chemical palonestron to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. During the development of this product, Helsinn entered into two separate and confidential agreements with MGI Pharma, Inc. (“MGI”) giving MGI the right to distribute, promote, sell, and market a 0.25 g dose of palonosetron in the United States. While the dosage was kept confidential, the agreements were reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission. About two years later, in January 2003, Helsinn filed their provisional patent application covering a 0.25 mg dose of palonestron. Helsinn went on to file four patent applications claiming priority to the January 2003 provisional application, with its fourth patent application being filed in 2013 and being subject to the AIA. This fourth patent application led to the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 (the “‘219 patent”).

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively “Teva”) sought approval to market a generic 0.25 mg palonosetron product. Helsinn, in turn, filed suit against Teva for infringement of the ‘219 patent. Teva claimed that the ‘219 patent was invalid under the AIA because the invention was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Esther A.L. Verbovszky of Rocky River, Ohio and Hug Me Joey, LLC of Rocky River, Ohio, originally filed suit in the Northern District of Ohio. The case has since been transferred to the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. d/b/a Maxi-Cosi of Columbus, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,467,840 (“the ‘840 Patent”) for aVerbivsosky-BlogPhoto-300x298 “Child’s Car Seat Insert”. Plaintiff is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, damages, an award of attorney’s fees and costs, judgment, and prejudgment interest.

Plaintiffs have been designing and producing products to help infants breathe better, digest food easier, and improve comfort during travel since 1998. The ‘840 Patent was issued to Plaintiffs on October 22, 2002 for an insert to be used in a car seat for a tighter fit around the infant. Defendants are alleged to sell a group of products known as the Maxi-Cosi Mico Max 30 car seats, that are for use with small infants to achieve a snug fit, that infringe the ‘840 Patent. The sole claim of the Complaint is for direct and indirect patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Smart Solar Inc. d/b/a Smart Living Home & Garden of Libertyville, Illinois, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Sky Billiards, Inc. d/b/a Best Choice Products of Irvine, California, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,484,671 (“the ‘671BlogPhoto-1-300x139 Patent”) for “Water Feature”. Venue was selected by the Plaintiffs as the Defendant is registered to do business in the State of Indiana, maintains a distribution facility in Indiana, and has allegedly committed acts of infringement in the Southern District of Indiana. Further, Defendants admitted in a separate action with the Plaintiff in Illinois that venue would be proper in the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief and judgment including statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Smart Living designs, develops, and sells decorative birdbaths and fountains with solar water pumps. The ‘671 Patent was issued on February 3, 2009 to inventors Simon Howard Wigglesworth and Franz Roecker. It was then assigned to Smart Solar Limited, and Smart Living became the exclusive licensee.

Plaintiff alleges that the fountains and birdbaths sold by the Defendant are imitations of Smart Living’s products and that they infringe the ‘671 Patent. Defendant has a long history of being sued for violations of intellectual property rights, which Smart Living believes to show a willful infringement of these rights. Best Choice makes, offers for sale, and/or imports four birdbaths and fountains that Smart Living believes infringe on its intellectual property rights. Plaintiff sent a letter informing Defendant of the ‘671 Patent on February 22, 2017, without any response. During litigation in Illinois, the Parties engaged in mediation on September 21, 2018, but settlement was not reached.

The single claim of the Complaint is for Federal Patent Infringement pursuant to the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s products directly infringe at least Claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 10-11 of the ‘671 Patent. Further, Defendant has indirectly infringed these same claims by actively inducing infringement after it had actual knowledge of the ‘671 Patent. Because of this knowledge of the ‘671 Patent and the continuing infringing acts, Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s infringement is willful and deliberate.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tenstreet, LLC of Tulsa, Oklahoma, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, DriverReach, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 8,145,575 (“the ‘575 patent”) for “Peer to Peer Sharing of Job Applicant Information”. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, preliminary and permanent injunction, damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Tenstreet-blogphoto-300x215Tenstreet develops and sells software solutions for the transportation industry, including products for employment verification. The ‘575 patent was issued on March 27, 2012, and by assignment of all right, title, and interest, Tenstreet is the lawful owner. DriverReach makes, uses, sells, and offers for sale employment verification systems that allegedly infringe Tenstreet’s intellectual property rights. Further, Plaintiff claims that Defendant had a prior relationship with it that gave them knowledge of Tenstreet’s intellectual property rights.

Plaintiffs sent DriverReach a cease and desist letter identifying and providing a copy of the ‘575 patent on August 22, 2018. This letter identified the Defendant’s VOE Plus product as a potentially infringing product of the ‘575 patent. Tenstreet also delivered a preliminary claim chart showing each limitation of claim 1 of the ‘575 patent is met by Defendant’s VOE Plus product on October 22, 2018. As such, Tenstreet is suing DriverReach for infringement of the ‘575 patent.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Engineered by Schildmeier, LLC of Anderson, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Amazing Parts Warehouse (d/b/a several different names) of Lexington, Kentucky, and Wuhn Xuelang Auto Parts Co., Ltd. of China, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. D 816,584 (“the ‘584 Patent”) for a “Pair of Bed Rail StakeBlogPhoto-300x225 Pocket Covers”. Plaintiff is seeking judgment including damages, pre and post-judgment interests and costs.

Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have been offering to sell products on Amazon, eBay, and other various sites since February 2018. Amazon has taken down the advertisements when shown the ‘584 Patent. After a bit of time, Amazing Parts Warehouse then re-advertises the same product under a different dba. Amazon removes the new advertisements as they are reported and the cycle repeats almost monthly. The advertisements on eBay have not been removed as eBay refuses to act on validity of patents without Court direction. Plaintiff continues to send Cease and Desist letters to Defendants through Amazon and eBay as well as contact with their websites and the U.S. Postal Service.

Count I of the Complaint asserts federal patent infringement as the Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ bed rail stake pocket covers are as they claim, not only identical, but substantially the same leading to customer confusion. Count II claims trade dress infringement in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). The third count seeks declaratory judgment of both the design patent and trade dress validity. Next, Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment of infringement and validity of trade dress. The final count asserts unfair competition under Indiana state law. Plaintiff claims that they have lost nearly $100,000 in lost profits since the Defendants began selling their counterfeit products in February and they continue to lose a minimum of $3,000 in profits per week.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, InVue Security Products Inc. of Charlotte, North Carolina, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Mobile Tech, Inc. d/b/a Mobile Technologies Inc. and MTI, formerly known as Merchandising Technologies, Inc. of Hillsboro, Oregon, but incorporated in Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 10,062,266, (the “‘266Invue-BlogPhotot-300x191 patent”) for a “Programmable Security System and Method for Protecting Merchandise”.   Plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, judgment awarding InVue a reasonable royalty, prejudgment interest, and other relief the Court may deem just and proper.

Chief executive officers for both parties met in person on April 11, 2018 to discuss the defendant’s Intellikey 3.0, its Gateway products, and other potentially infringing items “Accused Items”. The plaintiff provided defendant with a copy of at least Claim 1 of the pending ‘266 patent, informing them that the Intellikey 3.0 would infringe the claims of the ‘266 patent when issued. The application for the ‘266 patent published on August 16, 2018 and the ‘266 patent issued on August 28, 2018, just before the Complaint was filed.

The first cause of action in the Complaint is for direct infringement of the ‘266 patent as MTI manufactures, offers for sale, sells, imports, and/or uses the Accused Items. Second, contributory infringement of the ‘266 patent is alleged as the Accused Items are not staple articles of commerce, are not suitable for a substantial non-infringing use, and are especially made or adapted for use in an infringement of the ‘266 patent. Third, infringement by inducement because the defendant sells the Accused Items to customers with the intent that they will use and operate them in a manner that infringes the ‘266 patent. Finally, plaintiffs claim that defendants should be held liable for pre-issuance damages as they were aware and had actual notice of the patent application after it published.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Taylor Precision Products, Inc. of Oak Brook, Illinois, and The Chef’n Corporation of Seattle, Washington, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Double A Concepts, LLC of Mooresville, Indiana, Aaron Farnsworth of Mooresville, Indiana, and Gemini Farnsworth of Mooresville, Indiana, infringed their rights in United States Patent No. 9,718,198 (“the ‘198198Patent-300x244 Patent”) for “Stripping Tool for Leafy Vegetables and Herbs” and United States Patent No. D776,991 (“the ‘991 Patent”) for “Stripping Tool for Leafy Vegetable and Herbs”. Plaintiffs are seeking permanent and preliminary injunctions, compensatory damages, treble damages, pre-judgment interest, costs, and attorney fees.

Plaintiff Chef’n owns the ‘198 Patent, which issued on August 1, 2017 from an application claiming the benefit to the provisional application that was filed on September 8, 2014. Plaintiff Taylor owns the ‘991 Patent, which issued on January 24, 2017 from an application filed on September 8, 2014. The Defendants own and operate a store, “Friendly Cooking,” which sells kitchen products through their website,

Together, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants offer for sale and have sold a 3 Piece Clip on Strainer Set, which includes an infringing herb stripping tool. The herb stripping tool is alleged to include each and every limitation recited in at least independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5 of the ‘198 Patent. Even if the herb stripping tool does not contain each and every feature literally, the Plaintiffs claim that it is still infringing under the Doctrine of Equivalents. Further, Plaintiffs assert that the herb stripping tool is substantially the same design as the ‘991 Patent, therefore infringing the ‘991 Patent.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Secure Cam, LLC of Sheridan, Wyoming originally filed suit in the Northern District of California alleging that Defendant, Project Nursery, LLC of San Francisco, California infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,257,158, (“the ‘158 Patent”) for “System for Transmitting Video Images over a Computer Network to a Remote Receiver”. As of June 21,SecureCam-BlogPhoto-236x300 2018 this case has been transferred to the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff is seeking damages, costs, expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant’s face recognition readers and license plate recognition cameras that they manufacture, import into the United States, or offer for sale, and/or sell infringe at least Claim 12 of the ‘158 Patent. Other products alleged to infringe the ‘158 Patent include: Project Nursery 5” HD Dual Connect Wi-Fi Baby Monitor System, Project Nursery 4.3 Baby Monitor System with 2 Digital Zoom Cameras, Project Nursery Video Baby Monitor System with Digital Zoom Camera, Project Nursery 5” High Definition Baby Monitor System with 1.5” Mini Monitor, Project Nursery 4.3” Baby Monitor System with 1.5” Mini Monitor, and Project Nursery 4.3” Baby Monitor System. In the Complaint, plaintiffs point out seven separate elements included in the allegedly infringing products that are all elements in Claim 12 of the ‘158 Patent.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, LTD. of Hyderabad, Telagana, India, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc,. a NewLilly-v-Reddy-BlogPhoto3-181x300 Jersey corporation, infringed its rights in U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 Patent”).

The ‘209 Patent at issue here is a method patent for administering pemetrexed disodium, a chemotherapy drug, with vitamins, the combination of which is marketed as ALITMA® by Lilly. This invention helps to solve the toxicity issue in chemotherapy patients being treated with pemetrexed. The particular regimen of vitamin  and folic acid are important for the pretreatment of these patients. As of December 2015, Dr. Reddy’s informed Lilly that it had submitted a FDA New Drug Application for a product that would be marketed as a competing product to ALITMA®.

The first issue the Court had to decide was whether Lilly was barred from asserting the doctrine of equivalents under prosecution history estoppel. The Court held that Lilly had not surrendered the equivalent in question because their decision to use the choice pemetrexed salt was tangential to the reasons for the amendment. The choice to narrow was simply to overcome a rejection in view of a prior art article about a different antifolate, methotrexate.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana  – Stone Basket Innovations, LLC of Austin, Texas, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas which was transferred to the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Cook Medical, LLC of Bloomington, Indiana, infringed Patent No. 6,551,327 (“‘327 Patent”), Endoscopic Stone Extraction Device with Improved Basket, issued by the US Patent Office.Stonebasket-BlogPhoto-300x204

The initial Complaint for this case was filed on April 8, 2015. Defendant served their invalidity contentions in October 2015 and deposed the ‘327 patent’s inventor in January of 2016. During the deposition, the inventor stated in regards to an addition to overcome an examiner’s rejection, “I realize there is nothing novel about it.” Defendant then petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for inter partes review (IPR) of all the claims. The District Court case was stayed pending the outcome of the petition for an IPR based off a joint motion.

After the IPR was instituted in September 2016, Plaintiff offered to license the ‘327 patent to Defendant for $150,000.00. Negotiations fell through and the settlement did not occur. Plaintiff then filed a motion requesting an adverse judgment in the IPR proceeding in December 2016 and moved to dismiss the District Court case with prejudice, both of which were granted.

Continue reading

Contact Information