Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

2017-01-23-BlogPhoto-300x56

Indianapolis, Indiana – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld the district court’s decision and ruled in favor of Eli Lilly regarding validity and infringement of the vitamin regimen patent for Alimta® (pemetrexed for injection).

In the case of Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., et al., the court affirmed the earlier district court’s rulings that the vitamin regimen patent is valid and would be infringed by the generic challengers’ proposed products. If the patent is ultimately upheld through all remaining challenges, Alimta would maintain U.S. exclusivity until May 2022, preventing marketing of generic products for as long as the patent remains in force. The Alimta compound patent remains in force through January 24, 2017.

In March 2014, the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana upheld the validity of the vitamin regimen patent. In August 2015, the same court ruled in Lilly’s favor regarding infringement of the vitamin regimen patent.

Indianapolis, Indiana – Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement.

Defendant is Hospira, Inc. of Lake Forest, Illinois.  It has been accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the “‘209 patent”) by the filing of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell a pharmaceutical product, “Pemetrexed for Injection,” in various concentrations.  In its filing with the FDA, Hospira contended that the claims of Lilly’s patent are “invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of Hospira’s NDA Products.”

Lilly contends that this product will compete with Alimta®, which also consists of the pharmaceutical chemical pemetrexed disodium.  Alimta is used as a chemotherapy agent to treat certain types of cancer.

Northern District of Indiana – The Beachwaver Co. of Libertyville, Illinois commenced intellectual property litigation in the Northern District of Indiana asserting infringement of patents pertaining to a rotating curling iron.

Defendant is T3 Micro, Inc. of Venice, California, which is accused of infringing Beachwaver’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,398,796 (“the ‘796 patent”) and 9,504,301 (“the ‘301 patent”).  These patents have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Both patents are titled “Hair Styling Device.”  One of the two patents was the subject of at least one additional lawsuit in Indiana recently.  That lawsuit, filed in October, covered only the ‘796 patent but included counts for both direct and induced infringement.  In contrast, in this litigation, Indiana attorneys for Plaintiff list only one count of infringement for each of the two patents-in-suit:

South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiff Hawk Technology Systems, LLC of Miami, Florida filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement.

Hawk accuses Defendant Instant Auto Finance Inc. of South Bend, Indiana of infringing U.S. Patent No. RE43,462 (the “‘462 patent”), which is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,265,410.  Claim 12 of the ‘462 patent, and possibly others, is at issue in this litigation.  That claim covers a method of simultaneously displaying and storing multiple video images.

In this complaint, filed by an Indiana patent attorney in conjunction with a lawyer from Minnesota, Hawk contends that Instant Auto Finance infringed the ‘462 patent by using a video storage and display system and/or methods that infringe one or more of the claims in the ‘462 patent.  Plaintiff seeks damages as well as reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees.

New Albany, Indiana – FireKing Security Products, LLC of New Albany, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement of a patent related to smart safes.

Defendant in this litigation is American Security Products Company of Fontana, California.  Both Plaintiff and Defendant are in the business of manufacturing smart safes, which feature technology designed to count and log each deposit as it is made into the safe as well as generating and transmitting daily reports of the amount of cash stored in the safe.

American Security makes a line of smart safes offered under the name “CashWizard.”  FireKing asserts that these products infringe its patent for “Electronic Transmission and Tracking of Deposit Information,” which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as Patent No. 7,216,098 (the “’098 patent”).  FireKing asserts that it has multiple patents associated with its smart-safe products, including the ‘098 patent, which is the only patent at issue in this Indiana lawsuit.

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.

2016-12-16-BlogPhoto-300x214

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, IndianaAlcon Research, Ltd. of Fort Worth, Texas and Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. of Fribourg, Switzerland filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.  They assert infringement of two patents covering Pataday®, an ophthalmic pharmaceutical.  Pataday is covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 6,995,186 (the “‘186 patent”) and 7,402,609 (the “‘609 patent”).

Untitled
Defendant Akorn, Inc., a generic drugmaker based in Lake Forest, Illinois, filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Plaintiffs’ drug prior to the expiration of the two patents-in-suit.  Plaintiffs contend that the submission of this ANDA is an act of patent infringement.

In this Indiana complaint, patent lawyers for Alcon ask the court to adjudicate the following:

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Plaintiff Eli Lilly and Company filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement.  Defendant is Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC of Lake Zurich, Illinois.

Lilly, an Indianapolis-based company, is a developer and seller of pharmaceutical drugs.  One of its drugs, ALIMTA®, is marketed as a chemotherapy agent used for the treatment of various types of cancer.

Fresenius, formerly known as APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC, manufactures and sells generic drugs.  Earlier this year, Fresenius amended its Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”), which was previously filed to seek U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval to manufacture three different concentrations of ALIMTA.  Through its recent amendment, Fresenius now asks for approval to manufacture and sell a fourth generic version of ALIMTA.  Lilly filed this litigation in response.

2016-10-31-BlogPhoto.png

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

2016-10-21-BlogPhoto.png

South Bend, Indiana – Patent lawyers for Plaintiff Swagway, LLC of South Bend, Indiana sued Defendants Hangzhou Chic Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd. (“Chic”) of Hangzhou, People’s Republic of China, Jansco Marketing, Inc. of Pembroke, Massachusetts and COKeM International, Ltd. of Shakopee, Minnesota.

Swagway and Chic both sell self-balancing two-wheeled boards, also known as “hoverboards,” in the U.S. market. The two companies had an intellectual property dispute, with Chic alleging that Swagway infringed two of its patents. This dispute allegedly included letters sent by Chic that appeared to threaten Swagway’s business partners with litigation if they sold Swagway products that Chic alleged were infringing. Swagway also contends that Chic delayed Swagway’s goods by falsely alleging infringement to Chinese customs officials. It also states that Chic later issued a press release falsely stating that Swagway’s goods had been seized as infringing. When the dispute persisted, Chic sued Swagway in the Northern District of California on allegations that Swagway had infringed U.S. Patent No. 9,376,155 and U.S. Design Patent No. D737,723.

Swagway responded in part by filing a second federal lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana. In its Indiana complaint, it accuses Chic and its agents, including Jansco and COKeM, of having made “numerous false and misleading statements” to Swagway’s retailers and customers regarding Swagway, its hoverboards, as well as the patent rights that Chic alleged in the California litigation. Plaintiff contends that “Defendants made these statements for the sole purpose of causing harm to Swagway’s business and preventing fair competition.” Swagway also contends that Chic withheld material information from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and that, consequently, the registration of several patents was improper.

In its Indiana lawsuit, patent attorneys for Plaintiff assert the following claims:

• Count I: Unfair Competition under the Lanham Act
• Count II: Unfair Competition under Indiana State Law
• Count III: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships

• Count IV: Defamation

Plaintiff has requested damages of no less than $30 million and also includes a prayer for punitive damages. Plaintiff further seeks equitable relief as well as reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Contact Information