Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

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, www.friendlycooking.com.

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

New Jersey – In February of 2005, Attorneys for Plaintiff, Howmedica Osteonics Corp., of Mahwah, New Jersey filed suit in the District Court of New Jersey alleging that Defendants, Zimmer, Inc. of Warsaw, Indiana, Centerpulse Orthopedics, Inc. of Austin, Texas, and Smith & Nephew, Inc. of Memphis, Tennessee infringed itsZimmer-BlogPhoto-300x179 rights in United States Patent No. 6,174,934 (“the ‘934 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”, United States Patent No. 6,372,814 (“the ‘814 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”, United States Patent No. 6,664,308 (“the 308 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”, and United States Patent No. 6,818,020 (“the ‘020 Patent”) for “Non-oxidizing Polymeric Medical Implant”.  Plaintiff sought judgment for damages including interest and costs, treble damages, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

Plaintiff is a corporation that develops, manufactures, and distributes orthopedic products, generally used in hip and knee procedures and other bone replacement procedures. Defendant is a corporation based in Warsaw, Indiana, that also focuses on products for joint and extremity replacements.

Continue reading

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

Contact Information