Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for GS Cleantech Corporation of New York, NY, filed an infringement suit alleging Cardinal Ethanol, LLC of Union City, IN, has infringed Patent No. 7,601,858, titled METHOD OF PROCESSING ETHANOL BYPRODUCTS AND RELATED SUBSYSTEMS, as issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

The ‘858 patent is directed to the recovery of corn oil from the byproducts produced during ethanol manufacture, and the defendant is generally alleged to be practicing one or more of the claimed methods.
Continue reading

 Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent lawyers for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, IN, have initiated litigation alleging Fresenius Kabi Oncology PLC of London, United Kingdom, has infringed and will infringe the following two patents, as issued by the U.S. Patent Office: Patent No. 4,808,614, titled DIFLUORO ANTIVIRALS AND INTERMEDIATE THEREFOR, and Patent No. 5,464,826, titled METHOD OF TREATING TUMORS IN MAMMALS WITH 2′,2′-DIFLUORONUCLEOSIDES.
Continue reading

 Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent lawyers for Alcon Research, Ltd. and Alcon Laboratories, Inc., both of Fort Worth, TX, Alcon Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. of Fribourg, Switzerland, and Kyowa Hakko Kirin Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan, filed a patent infringement suit alleging Sandoz Inc. of Princeton, NJ, has infringed, and will infringe, the following three patents, as issued by the U.S. Patent Office: Patent No. 5,641,805, titled TOPICAL OPHTHALMIC FORMULATIONS FOR TREATING ALLERGIC EYE DISEASES; Patent No. 6,995,186, titled OLOPATADINE FORMULATIONS FOR TOPICAL ADMINISTRATION; and Patent No. 7,402,609, titled OLOPATADINE FORMULATIONS FOR TOPICAL ADMINISTRATION.
Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent lawyers for Sepro Corporation of Carmel, IN, filed an infringement suit alleging Phoenix Environmental Care, LLC of Valdosta, GA, infringed Patent No. 7,135,435, titled PLANT GROWTH REGULATION COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS USING GIBBERELLIN BIOSYNTHESIS INHIBITOR COMBINATIONS, as issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

The plaintiff makes and sells aquatic and horticultural products, and its ‘435 patent relates to plant growth regulation compositions, while the defendant is a chemical company in the business of marketing fungicides, herbicides, and insecticides. The complaint claims that the defendant has directly infringed the ‘435 patent by marketing an infringing turf growth regulation composition and induced infringement of the patent by directing a university study of the composition.
Continue reading