Patent Infringement

November 12, 2020

Wet Floor Safety Sign at Issue in Patent Infringement Lawsuit

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eddie M. Green, Jr. Jeffersonville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Meijer, Inc. infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 9,940,796 (“the ‘796 Registration”) for “Wet Floor Safety Sign”. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages and attorneys’ fees.

Eddie M. Green, Jr. (“Green”), the Plaintiff, apparently owns United States Patent No. 9,940,796 (the “‘796 Patent”) for the “Yellow Fellow Safety Sign.” Believing the Defendant, Meijer, Inc., infringed the ‘796 Patent, Green filed suit, pro se, alleging patent infringement. Green claims that despite warning Meijer of the alleged infringement on two separate occasions, Meijer continues to use the allegedly infringing wet floor signs.

Green is seeking an injunction and damages for the allegedly unlicensed use of his invention. As in another lawsuit against different defendants, Green claims his ability to sell his product and costs for marketing and advertising his patented product will be greater due to Meijer’s “misuse of fake and unpatented products in the safety field.”

May 7, 2020

Williamsburg Furniture Claims Lippert Patent is Invalid and/or Unenforceable

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Williamsburg Furniture, Inc. (“Williamsburg”) of Nappanee, Indiana originally filed suit in the District Court of Delaware seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement against Defendant, Lippert Components, Inc. (“Lippert”) claiming Lippert’s United States Patent No. 8,739,330 (the “‘330 Patent”) is invalid and/or unenforceable. Williamsburg is also seeking judgment for false advertising and unfair competition as it claims Lippert informed Williamsburg’s customers of the alleged patent infringement and caused Williamsburg to lose sales. Upon motion by Lippert, the case was transferred to the Northern District of Indiana.

According to the Complaint, the invention claimed in the ‘330 Patent for a tri-fold sofa was publicly disclosed, in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public through third parties not associated with the ‘330 invention more than one year prior to the filing of the provisional patent application. For instance, Patrick Hutmacher claims he purchased a tri-fold chair/bed in August 2010 from a furniture store in McHenry. One month later, a person from the McHenry furniture store allegedly brought a second tri-fold chair/bed to Mr. Hutmacher at his place of employment, Flair Interiors, Inc. (“Flair”), in an attempt to supply the products to the company.

April 9, 2020

Car Seat Manufacturer Sued Again for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiffs, Esther A. L. Verbovszky (“Verbovzsky”) and Hug Me Joey, LLC (“Hug Me Joey”), less than a year after voluntarily dismissing a similar lawsuit, have once again filed a complaint against Defendant Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. d/b/a Maxi-Cosi (“Dorel”) claiming patent infringement. According to the Complaint, Verbovzsky strives to design and invent products to abate breathing and digestive issues in small infants during transport. Verbovzsky further claims to be the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,467,840 (the ‘840 Patent”) for “Child’s Car Seat Insert.” As the founder and CEO of Hug Me Joey, Verbovzsky allegedly licensed the ‘840 Patent to Hug Me Joey for the manufacturing of the Hug Me Joey child’s car seat insert (the “HMJ Insert”).

Apparently Dorel manufactures car seats, including 22 models that were nam ed in the Complaint as the “Accused Products”. Plaintiffs claim each of the Accused Products that are manufactured and/or sold by Dorel infringe the ‘840 Patent due to the “infant insert”, “insert cushion(s)”, “insert pillow”, “body pillow”, or “body insert pillow” that is stated to come with each car seat. The Plaintiffs believe the infringement by Dorel to be willful and knowingly. Threfore, they are seeking treble damages and a finding that this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285, respectively.

The case was assigned to District Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman in the Southern District and assigned Case 1:20-cv-00061-RLY-MPB.

March 26, 2020

Motion to Disqualify: Patent Law Firm Tries to Cap Bottle Cap Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

This suit is over the design of two bottle caps.

Plaintiff, Closure, claims it designed the bottle cap on the left, and Defendant, Novembal, got a patent on the bottle cap on the right. But Closure claims that it, not Novembal is the actual “inventor” of the bottle cap design. Perhaps fearing that Novembal was about to file suit, Closure in its home turf of New Jersey and trying to gain a home court advantage, took the initiative and sued Novembal in Indiana. Its Complaint sought to “correct the inventorship” of Novembal’s patent and to prevent Novembal from enforcing the patent against Closure. That suit is reported here: Closure Systems International Sues Novembal USA Seeking Correction of Inventorship. Not surpisingly, Novembal asserted a counterclaim for patent infringement.

The twist is that in the infringement counterclaim, Novembal seeks a broad injunction. So broad, that it would prevent not just Closure, but some of Closure’s customers from infringing the patent. In its counterclaim, Novembal seeks:

A permanent injunction enjoining CSI and its employees, agents, successors, partners, officers, directors, owners, shareholders, principals, subsidiaries, related companies, affiliates, distributors, dealers, and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them . . . from making, importing, promoting, offering, or exposing for sale, or selling the CSI Production Closures, or any other closures with designs confusingly similar to the claimed design of Novembal’s ‘442 patent.

One company that apparently gets its bottle caps from Closure is Nestle, one of the biggest sellers of bottled water. So far, no big deal. Except, Nestle is represented by the blue chip Washington DC patent law firm, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner. Finnegan happens to be the same law firm that represents Novembal in the suit with Closure. So Finnegan is attempting to get an injunction for one client (Novembal) that would apply to another client, Nestle. Continue reading

March 10, 2020

Tatuyou Sues Indiana-Based One Ink Seven for Alleged Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tatuyou, L.L.C. (“Tatuyou”) of Hastings, Minnesota, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, One Ink Seven LLC (“One Ink”) of Goshen, Indiana and Robert F. Smead (“Smead”), infringed its rights in its intellectual property portfolio. Tatuyou is seeking damages,costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Tatuyou claims to be in the business of selling products to be used in the tattoo industry with an intellectual property portfolio all relating to its sales business. According to the complaint, Tatuyou is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 9,546,281 (the “‘281 Patent”) entitled “Tattoo Stencil Composition and Method for Manufacturing.” Tatuyou also claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 8,545,613 (the “‘613 Patent”) entitled “Tattoo Transfer Pattern Printed by an Ink Jet Printer.”

According to the complaint, One Ink does business as “Electrum Supply” and owns and operates a website with the domain name: http://www.electrumsupply.com. Tatuyou claims that One Ink is infringing, actively inducing infringement, and contributorily infringing both the ‘281 Patent and the ‘613 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by offering for sale products named “Electrum Premium Tattoo Stencil Primer,” “Electrum Gold Standard Tattoo Stencil Primer,” “NOX Violet,” and “Eco Stencils.” Tatuyou’s attorney allegedly sent One Ink a letter on December 20, 2018 informing One Ink of the alleged infringement of the ‘281 Patent and a subsequent letter on June 12, 2019 to inform One Ink of the alleged infringement of the ‘613 Patent.

March 4, 2020

Brightlamp, Inc. of Indianapolis Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, NeurOptics, Inc. (“NeurOptics”) of Laguna Hills, California, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Brightlamp, Inc. (“Brightlamp”) of Indianapolis, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent Nos. 6,820,979 (the “‘979 Patent”) and 9,402,542 (the “‘542 Patent” and collectively the “Asserted Patents”). NeurOptics is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

Click Image for larger size

NeurOptics claims to be an industry leader for the design, manufacture, and sale of pupilometer products. According to the Complaint, NeurOptics owns the Asserted Patents that are both entitled “Pupilometer with pupil irregularity detection, pupil tracking, and pupil response detection capability, glaucoma screening capability, intracranial pressure detection capability, and ocular aberration measurement capability.” Brightlamp is allegedly a manufacturer and distributor of pupilometer products.

As claimed in the Complaint, Brightlamp’s “Reflex” Mobile Pupillometer Application (“Accused Product”) is available for download and use by certified medical professionals and the use of that application results in direct infringement of the Asserted Patents. NeurOptics also stated it believes Brightlamp has infringed various claims from other patents owned by NeurOptics and the Complaint is likely to be amended as it completes its investigation. NeurOptics claims it sent a cease and desist notice in writing to Brightlamp prior to filing the Complaint, but Brightlamp continued the alleged infringement. Therefore, NeurOptics is seeking damages for infringement of the ‘542 and ‘979 Patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 with willful damages, fees, and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.

February 19, 2020

Urschel Laboratories, Inc. of Chesterton, Indiana Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, FAM N.V. (“FAM”) of Belgium, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Urschel Laboratories, Inc. (“Urschel”) of Chesterton, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. D730,703 (the “D‘703 Patent”) entitled “Knife Holder”. FAM is seeking judgment, consequential and compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

FAM claims to be a world leader in designing, developing, and manufacturing of cutting solutions for the food industry. According to the Complaint, the D’703 Patent was issued to Brent L. Bucks on June 2, 2015 and was later assigned to FAM. FAM alleges the “25883 Urschel® USA” product is an example of a knife holder that has infringed the D’703 Patent. Further, FAM claims Urschel’s alleged infringement of the D’703 Patent is “willful, deliberate, and objectively reckless.” As such, FAM is seeking damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 or 35 U.S.C. § 289, and is requesting the case be considered “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

February 13, 2020

Federal Circuit finds in favor of Seirus Innovative over Columbia Sportswear

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an opinion as to Summary Judgment in the case of Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. (“Columbia”), an Oregon Corporation, versus Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. (“Seirus”), a Utah Corporation. This appeal by Columbia came after a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California found that claims 2 and 23 of U.S. Patent 8,453,270 (the “’270 Patent”) are invalid as anticipated and obvious. Seirus cross-appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon’s grant of summary judgment that it infringes U.S. Patent D657,093 (the “’093 Patent”) and from the entry of the jury’s damages award. The Court of Appeals found claims 2 and 23 of the ‘270 Patent are invalid and that the Court for the District of Oregon erred in granting summary judgment for infringement of the ‘093 Patent.

Columbia originally filed suit in the District of Oregon on January 12, 2015 claiming that Seirus infringed both the ‘270 and ‘093 Patents. Seirus moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of California, but that motion was denied. The district court then “granted summary judgment that Seirus’s HeatWave products infringe the ‘093 patent” stating that “the difference in wave pattern, orientation, and the presence of Seirus’s logo” were characterized as “minor differences.” Seirus moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of California for a second time, two years after its first motion, in light of the decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brans LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). Due to the intervening case law, the District of Oregon transferred the remainder of the claims to the Southern District of California.

A jury trial was held in the Southern District of California and claims 2 and 3 of the ‘270 Patent were found to be invalid as anticipated and obvious. The jury also awarded Columbia $3,018,174 in damages for non-willful infringement of the ‘093 Patent. Both Parties “filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, but the court summarily denied them in a two-page opinion.” Subsequently, the Parties each filed notices of appeal.

The court’s denial of the motions for judgment as a matter of law is reviewed by the substantial evidence standard. “A jury’s verdict must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.” OTR Wheel Eng’g, Inc. v. W. Worldwide Servs. Inc., 897 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Unicolors, Inc. v. Urban Outfitters, Inc., 853 F.3d 980, 984 (9th Cir. 2017). The court’s denial of a motion for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724, 728 (9th Cir. 2007). The granting of a new trial may only be done “if the verdict is contrary to the clear weight of the evidence, is based upon false or perjurious evidence, or to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” Passantino v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Prods., Inc., 212 F.3d 493, 510 n.15 (9th Cir. 2000). Continue reading

February 7, 2020

Indiana-Based Orthotict Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement and Patent False Marking

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, ERMI LLC (“ERMI”) of Atlanta, Georgia, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Clyde Peach, Jr., (“Mr. Peach”) d/b/a Indiana Brace Co Inc., d/b/a, Clyde Peach LLC, d/b/a Peach Medical, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana, willfully infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,669,660 (the “‘660 Patent”) for “Orthotic Apparatus and Method for Using Same.” ERMI is seeking damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

According to the Complaint, Dr. Thomas P. Branch (“Dr. Branch”) while practicing as a board certified orthopedic surgeon with TREX Orthopedics, P.C., invented the orthotic apparatus claimed in the ‘660 Patent. Dr. Branch allegedly assigned all rights to the continuation patent application that led to the issuance of the ‘660 Patent to ERMI. The ‘660 Patent expired on August 10, 2019. ERMI claims it produces and sells the ERMI Knee Extensionater® device that is covered by the claims of the ‘660 Patent and marked with the ‘660 Patent number.

ERMI claims Mr. Peach filed a provisional followed by a non-provisional patent application (the “Peach ‘028 Application”) for a Knee Extension Therapy Device in July 2010 and July 2011, respectively. The Peach ‘028 Application was allegedly rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August 2, 2013 citing a number of patent references including the ‘660 Patent. ERMI claims the Peach ‘028 Application became abandoned on September 11, 2014 and that “Mr. Peach had actual notice of the ‘660 Patent no later than August 2, 2013.”

November 18, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Indiana Court Denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction in RV Range Oven Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – The Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, issued its Opinion and Order denying a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in the case of Furrion Property Holding Limited, and Furrion Limited (collectively “Furrion”) versus Way Interglobal Network, LLC (“Way Interglobal”). This case was filed by Furrion in July 2019 alleging Way Interglobal’s oven infringed Furrion’s 2 in 1 Range Oven. Furrion then moved for a preliminary injunction, barring any further sales of the allegedly infringing product until the lawsuit was decided. The Court held Furrion “failed to meet its burden of showing irreparable harm”, and therefore denied the Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.

Furrion, as evidence of intentional copying and infringement, claims the user manual produced by Way Interglobal utilizes identical language to Furrion’s manual. While that could be an exceptional coincidence, Judge Simon found the images included in Way Interglobal’s manual included images of Furrion’s 2 in 1 Range Oven including Furrion’s trademarked logo. Way Interglobal’s CEO and president, Wayne Kaylor, testified that he was unaware of the similarities in the user manuals and speculated that the Chinese manufacturer who writes the user manual may have taken a shortcut when preparing the manual. Kaylor further testified that Way Interglobal had heard rumors that Furrion was alleging Way Interglobal’s range oven infringed Furrion’s patents in or around July 2018 and that “Way Interglobal changed the metal grate of its gas range to distinguish it from Furrion’s” without admitting any infringement.

To find in favor of Furrion’s motion for preliminary injunction, Furrion must show “(1) a likelihood of success on the merits . . . ; (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted; (3) the balance of hardships between the parties favors an injunction; and (4) the public interest likewise favors an injunction.” PHG Techs., LLC v. St. John Companies, Inc., 469 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “[I]f the moving party fails to clear the likelihood of success and irreparable harm hurdles, ‘a court’s inquiry is over and the injunction must be denied” in the Seventh Circuit. Abbott Labs v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 11 (7th Cir. 1992). However, if the moving party shows all four elements, the court weighs he factors in deciding whether to grant the injunction.