Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Closure Systems International, Inc. (“CSI”) of Indianapolis, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana seeking a correction in inventorship for two U.S. Design Patents issued to Defendant, Novembal USA Inc. (“Novembal”) of Edison, New Jersey. The patents at issue in this case are United States Patent Nos. D836,442 (the “‘442 Patent”) and Closure-BlogPhoto-300x279D838,171 (the “‘171 Patent”) (collectively the “Patents in Suit”). CSI is seeking preliminary and/or permanent injunctions, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

CSI claims three of its employees, Arnold Benecke, Bill Moll, and John Edie, developed a closure for a bottle (the “Option 2 Closure”) for its customer, Nestle Waters (“Nestle”) on or about January 27, 2011. This invention was allegedly assigned to CSI pursuant to assignments from the three inventors. According to the Complaint, on March 9, 2011, CSI sent a presentation concerning the Option 2 Closure and another option to Nestle that stated that it would have “Prototypes molded by April 1” and “Small quantity of slit samples will be sent by April 13”. CSI claims it emailed Nestle a drawing of the Option 2 Closure on March 10, 2011.

CSI claims Nestle trialed different closures from CSI and at least two other competitors, including Novembal, and CSI delivered 100 samples of the Option 2 Closure to Nestle in or about June 2011. CSI alleges each of the manufacturers at the Nestle trials witnessed each closure and saw all the samples provided to Nestle. After the trials, Nestle awarded the business to Novembal, not CSI.

According to the Complaint, Nestle asked CSI to replace Novembal and inquired as to its ability to supply the Option 2 Closure in early 2018. CSI claims it began supplying a similar closure to the Option 2 Closure to Nestle, but it was slightly different (the “New Closure”). On or about May 24, 2019, CSI claims it was informed by Nestle that the New Closure infringed one or more Novembal patents. Just six days later, Novembal allegedly sent a cease and desist letter to CSI stating that the New Closure infringed the ‘442 Patent.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Transaction Secure, LLC (“Transaction”) a foreign limited liability company, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Formstack, LLC (“Formstack”) of Fishers, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 8,738,921 (the “‘921 Patent”) for “System and Method for Authenticating a Person’s Identity Using a Trusted Entity”.Transaction-BlogPhoto-300x253 Transaction is seeking damages, attorneys’ fees, and any further relief the Court deems proper.

Transaction claims the ‘921 Patent, issued on May 27, 2014, teaches an advancement over two-factor authentication for protecting sensitive information from identity theft. Formstack’s website allegedly operates as the “Accused Product”. Transaction alleges that the Accused Product infringes at least Claim 1 of the ‘921 Patent as it is a trusted entity to authenticate account holders “by using non-personal information for securing personal data.”

According to the complaint, users provide personal information to Formstack to create an account from a trusted computer system. Formstack then allegedly stores the user information confidentially and provides the user with an authorization login that is associated with the user but does not contain the user’s personal information. After the user requests resource access from Formstack using their login, Formstack allegedly “provides an authorization code to obtain the access token and ID token for accessing the services”. Transaction claims “the user identity is verified by the resource server by using the authorization code to allow the user to access the code” in the Accused Product. Transaction claims Formstack’s Accused Product infringes the ‘921 Patent in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271. As such, Transaction is seeking damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Judge Richard L. Young in the Southern District of Indiana granted default judgment in favor of Engineered by Schildmeier, LLC (“Engineered”) and against WUHU Xuelang Auto Parts Co., LTD and Amazing Parts Warehouse (collectively the “Defendants”). Engineered filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment of both patent and trade dress infringement in late 2018. The patentEngineered-BlogPhoto-300x254 allegedly infringed in the complaint is United States Patent No. D 816,584 (the “‘584 Patent”) for a “Pair of Bed Rail Stake Pocket Covers”.

When a defendant fails to plead or defend a case against them within the allotted time frame, they are in default. A plaintiff may motion the court for a default judgment, which is a binding judgment of the court for failure of the defendant to answer the allegations. The court can then grant a default judgment. If a proof of damages hearing is necessary, the judge can order such a hearing, but the defendant may not appear at that point to defend the amount of damages asserted by the plaintiff. A default judgment may be set aside upon request of the defendant, but they must show a good defense and legitimate excuse as to why they were in default to the court.

In this case, neither of the Defendants plead or otherwise defended themselves against the allegations set forth in Engineered’s complaint. As such, the court granted Engineered’s motion for default judgment and awarded damages accordingly. First, the Court found that the Defendants infringed the ‘584 Patent. Second, the Court found the Defendants violated Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act by infringing Engineered’s trade dress. Third, the Defendants were enjoined from importing, selling, or offering for sale any imitations of the ‘584 Patent. Finally, Engineered was awarded a total of $1,424,070.00. The damages award was calculated by adding $470,020.00 in lost profits; $940,040.00 in treble damages for willful infringement; $13,610.00 in attorneys’ fees; and $400.00 in court costs. By failing to appear and defend themselves, not only will defendants have default judgments granted against them, but as shown in this case, extremely large damages may also be imposed.

Continue reading

Elkhart, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Display Technologies, LLC (“Display”) of North Miami, Florida, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Furrion, LLC of Elkhart, Indiana, infringed itsDisplay-BlogPhoto-300x234 rights in United States Patent No. 9,300,723 (the “‘723 Patent”) for “Enabling social interactive wireless communications”. Display is seeking damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any further relief the court deems proper.

Display is claiming Furrion has infringed and continues infringing one or more claims of the ‘723 Patent including at least Claims 12, 14, 16, 17, and 20. According to the complaint, Display is claiming at least Furrion’s DV7100 media system with NFC and Bluetooth wireless technology (the “Product”), among other Products infringe the ‘723 Patent.

Display claims the Product infringes Claim 12 because it receives media files from a wireless mobile device via Bluetooth or NFC and the Product includes a security measure such as a Bluetooth PIN, among other features. Regarding Claim 14, Display claims it is infringed by the transfer of a digital media file from the wireless mobile device to the Product completely bypassing the security measure. Further, Display claims the Product infringes Claims 16, 17, and 20 because the Product is an audio system with a Bluetooth connection, and “the digital media file is provided by the wireless mobile device.” As such, Display is seeking damages for patent infringement.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, SNI Solutions, Inc. of Geneseo, Illinois and Natural Alternatives, LLC of Lexington, Kentucky originally filed suit in the Central District of Illinois, that has since been transferred to the Southern District of Indiana, alleging that Defendants, Univar USA, Inc. (“Univar”) ofIceBite-Blogphoto Downers Grove, Illinois and Road Solutions, Inc. of South Bend, Indiana infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,080,330 (the “‘330 Patent”) for “Anti-Freezing and Deicing Composition and Method”. Plaintiffs are seeking damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the court deems proper.

SNI Solutions allegedly develops, manufactures, and sells de-icing agents containing de-sugared sugar beet molasses (“DSBM”) including products covered by the ‘330 Patent (“Covered Products”). State and local governments allegedly utilize DSBM for road de-icing and commercial de-icing applications. Natural Alternatives claims it develops, manufactures, and sells DSBM and the Covered Products as it is the owner by assignment of the ‘330 Patent. SNI Solutions and Natural Alternatives claim they have maintained a licensing agreement for SNI to commercialize the ‘330 Patent since October 21, 2008.

According to the complaint, Univar is or was a direct competitor of the Plaintiffs for the sale of DSBM and that Univar intended at least some of the DSBM it sold was to be combined with materials covered by the ‘330 Patent. Plaintiffs claim that Univar entered into a Letter of Intent with Todd Bloomer, the inventor of the ‘330 Patent, for Univar’s manufacture, marketing, and sale of DSBM in April 2006. Univar allegedly distributed products throughout the United States and Canada advertising the products as being protected by the ‘330 Patent between April 2006 and October 2008.

Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Furrion Property Holding Limited and Furrion Limited, both of Cyberport Road, Hong Kong (collectively “Furrion”), filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Way Interglobal Network, LLC (“Way Interglobal”) of Elkhart, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent Numbers D839,038 (the “‘038 Patent”), D851,978 (the “‘978Furrion-BlogPhoto-277x300 Patent”), D851,979 (the “‘979 Patent”), and D851,990 (the “‘990 Patent”) (collectively the “Furrion Design Patents”). Furrion is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, actual damages, total profits, treble damages, and pre and post judgment interest.

According to the complaint, Furrion was formed in 2007 to create modern-luxury technology for traveling including electronics, appliances, and energy sources for land and water vehicles. Furrion claims it has designed and manufactured its cooktops and ovens for use in the “RV” industry since at least 2013. The 2 in 1 Range Ovens produced and sold by Furrion have an allegedly distinctive and unique ornamental design compared to those traditionally available in the RV industry. Furrion claims the Furrion 2 in 1 Range Oven has had great success since May 2017 and is one of its best-selling products.

Furrion Property Holding Limited claims to be the owner by assignment of the Furrion Design Patents with Furrion Limited being the exclusive license holder for the Furrion Design Patents. According to the complaint, Furrion updates an online list of its products that are protected by Furrion’s U.S. patents giving notice of their patent property rights. The marketing and product materials for the Furrion products also allegedly contain copyright and trademark notices. Furrion claims the 2 in 1 Range Oven User Manual, in particular, can be viewed and/or downloaded online from anywhere by anyone. Furrion further claims it has at least four registered United States Trademarks that have been used in connection with its 2 in 1 Range Ovens, which include U.S. Registration Nos. 5,595,145, 5,487,459, 5,595,144, and 4,563,947 (the “Furrion Marks”).

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, All Cell Technologies, LLC (“All Cell”) and Illinois Institute of Technology (“IIT”), both of Chicago, Illinois, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Workhorse Motor Works Inc. (“WMW”) of Union City, Indiana, and Workhorse Group Inc. (“WGI”) of Loveland, Ohio (collectively “Workhorse”) infringed their rights in United States Patent No. 6,468,689 (the689-300x223 “‘689 Patent”) for “Thermal Management of Battery Systems”, U.S. Patent No. 6,942,944 (the “‘944 Patent”) for “Battery System Thermal Management”, and U.S. Patent No. 8,273,474 (the “‘474 Patent”) for “Battery System Thermal Management”. The Plaintiffs are seeking damages, prejudgment interest, and any further relief that the Court deems proper.

474-300x239According to the complaint, All Cell utilizes phase change materials (“PCM”) to build blocks adapted to house electrochemical cells. The thermal management blocks used by All Cell allegedly utilize PCM to absorb and conduct heat away from the electrochemical cells to extend the life of the cell and prevent damage or fire to electrochemical batteries. Workhorse is in the business of developing and manufacturing electric vehicles and plug-in hybrid vehicles. All Cell claims it worked with Workhorse previously to provide its thermal management blocks for Workhorse’s electric vehicles. Per the944-265x300 complaint, Workhorse stopped purchasing thermal management blocks and electrochemical cells from All Cell in early 2017 and began purchasing them from alternate sources.

It is alleged that the ‘689 Patent, the ‘944 Patent, and the ‘474 Patent are all owned by IIT with All Cell having an exclusive licensing agreement for the use of the patents, giving both parties standing to sue for infringement. As such, IIT and All Cell have collectively brought a patent infringement action against Workhorse. Plaintiffs allege at least claims 1-6 and 8 of the ‘689 Patent, claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 21-23, and 26 of the ‘944 Patent, and claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-12, and 15-19 of the ‘474 Patent have been or are being infringed by Workhorse. IIT and All Cell are claiming infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), knowingly and actively inducing infringement by others pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), and knowingly and actively contributing to the infringement by others pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c). Plaintiffs are seeking damages to compensate for the infringement but are seeking no less than a reasonable royalty under 35 U.S.C. §284.

Continue reading

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Rieke LLC of Auburn, Indiana, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Technocraft Industries India Ltd. (“Technocraft”) of India but allegedly doing business in this District, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 8,292,133 (“the ‘133BlogPhoto1-300x158 Patent”) for “Vented Closure Assembly for a Container”, Patent No. D608,641 (“the ‘641 Patent”) for “Closure for a Container With Retaining Ring”, and Patent No. D610,007 (“the ‘007 Patent) for “Closure for a Container With Retaining Ring”. Rieke is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, compensatory damages, punitive damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and pre and BlogPhoto2-300x131post judgment interest.

Rieke claims its product being infringed in this case, the Flexspout II, which is an “anti-glugging pouring dispenser with a removable cap that can be crimped on to drums, barrels, or other containers”, is so unique it has three patents covering the invention. According to the complaint, Technocraft’s Managing Director, Sharad Kumar Saraf (“Saraf”), visits the U.S. frequently to attend trade shows and solicit customers and business partners. Rieke alleges Saraf attended a trade show in April 2018 at which he inspected the Flexspout II sample, asked questions about its patent protection, and that he was informed by Rieke’s representative that it would “protect its innovations and defend itself if Technocraft copied Rieke’s innovative designs.”

According to the complaint, Technocraft makes and offers for sale a foreign-made version of the product to Rieke’s U.S. customers at a much lower price than Rieke offers. After discovering Technocraft’s allegedly infringing actions, Rieke reached out to Saraf by phone and through a follow up cease and desist letter. Technocraft, according to Rieke, refuses to fully comply with the requests in Rieke’s letter and did not provide Rieke with all of the information requested. As such, Rieke filed suit seeking damages for the infringement of the ‘133 Patent, the ‘641 Patent, and the ‘007 Patent.

Continue reading

Hammond, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, New Berry, Inc., d/b/a Berry Metal Company (“New Berry”) of Harmony, Pennsylvania filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Todd G. Smith (“Smith”) of Grove City, Pennsylvania, and Allan J. MacRae (“MacRae”), and MacRae Technologies, Inc. blogphoto-194x300(“MacRae Technologies”), both of Hayward, California, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 10,222,124 (the “‘124 Patent”) for “Stave with External Manifold” and United States Patent No. 9,121,076 (the “‘076 Patent”) for “Stave and Brick Constrictions Having Refactory Wear Monitors and in Process Thermocouples.” New Berry is seeking actual, compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, pre and post judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees.

According to the complaint, New Berry is the owner and assignee of both the ‘124 Patent, which was filed February 1, 2013 and issued on March 5, 2019, and the ‘076 Patent, which issued on September 1, 2015. New Berry claims that Smith signed an Employment Agreement with New Berry in 1996, which among other things assigned all of Smith’s inventions during his employment to New Berry and prohibited Smith from using or disclosing any trade secrets that pertain to New Berry’s products and services. Smith is listed as the inventor of the ‘124 Patent and a co-inventor of the ‘076 Patent.

New Berry claims that Smith, who left New Berry in 2015, is collaborating with MacRae and MacRae Technologies and has shared New Berry’s trade secrets with them. MacRae filed a patent application November 16, 2017 that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,963,754 (the “’754 Patent”) on May 8, 2018. The complaint alleges MacRae assigned the ‘754 Patent to MacRae Technologies on March 6, 2019. New Berry claims that the “‘124 Patent reads on the staves comprising center manifold technology described and claimed in the ‘754 Patent.”

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli Lilly”) 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 New Jersey corporation, (collectively “Dr. Lilly-v-Reddy-BlogPhotoReddy’s”) infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 Patent”). Eli Lilly is seeking judgment that Dr. Reddy’s has infringed the ‘209 patent; that the effective date of any FDA approval for Dr. Reddy’s NDA product be not earlier than the expiration of the ‘209 patent; and for costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, along with any other relief the court may deem just and proper.

The Complaint asserts that Eli Lilly sells ALIMTA ®, an FDA approved product used in combination with Cisplatin to treat patients with specific types of cancer. Eli Lilly claims that it is the assignee of the ‘209 patent, a method patent which was upheld as valid by the Federal Circuit in, Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Dr. Reddy’s and Eli Lilly were engaged in a previous lawsuit concerning Dr. Reddy’s NDA No. 208297 and the ‘209 patent. According to the Complaint in this matter, the court found in the previous lawsuit that the filing of NDA No. 208297 indirectly infringed specific claims of the ‘209 patent and entered final judgment in favor of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly claims that because Dr. Reddy’s did not challenge the validity of the ‘209 patent as a counterclaim or affirmative defense in the previous litigation over the ‘209 patent and NDA No. 208297, Dr. Reddy’s is barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata from doing so in this case.

Dr. Reddy’s has filed an amendment to NDA No. 208297, and the Complaint alleges that the purpose of this amendment was to obtain approval of the product before the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Eli Lilly is claiming infringement of the ‘209 patent based on its belief that Dr. Reddy’s NDA product delivers the same active Pemetrexed moiety as the ‘209 patent. Further, Eli Lilly alleges that Dr. Reddy’s NDA product when used as directed will infringe claims 1-22 of the ‘209 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. As such, Eli Lilly is seeking judgment of infringement, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Contact Information