Patent Infringement

November 13, 2019

United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board Rules in Favor of Lippert Components in RV Leveling Patent Dispute

The Petitioner, Lippert Components, Inc. (“Lippert”), filed a Petition for inter partes review of claims 12 and 13 of Days Corporation’s (“Days”) United States Patent No. 6,619,693 B1 (the “‘693 Patent”) for “Apparatus and Method for Automatically Leveling an Object”. In addition to filing its Reply and Sur-Reply to the inter partes review, Days also filed a Motion to Amend the ‘693 Patent. Days also filed a Motion to Exclude Evidence prior to the oral hearing. The United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) determined claims 12 and 13 of the ‘693 Patent are unpatentable, denied Days’ Motion to Amend, and dismissed Days’ Motion to Exclude as moot.

The ‘693 Patent “discloses an apparatus for automatically leveling a vehicle, such as a recreational vehicle, that is located on uneven terrain or an out-of-level surface.” The vehicle to be leveled contains four adjustable legs that can be manually lowered and raised to achieve a feeling of true level relative to horizontal in the interior of the vehicle. The leveling process can also be performed automatically with the use of a controller. The person having ordinary skill in the art for the Court’s analysis was found to be a person having “either a bachelor’s degree in engineering, preferably mechanical or electrical, or at least five years of work experience in the field of vehicle leveling systems and related equipment.”

The PTAB interpreted the claims 12 and 13 of the ‘693 Patent using the “broadest reasonable construction in light of the patent’s specification.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.100(b) (2018). The term “reference level plane”, when referring to a pre-set vehicle orientation plane, may be construed to be a plane in which the vehicle feels at true level to horizontal. In claims 12 and 13, there are two identical “Sensor Limitations”. Those Sensor Limitations are “a sensor . . . to sense pitch and roll of the vehicle relative to a reference level plane,” and “the sensor produces an orientation signal representing the vehicle pitch and roll.” In this case, the PTAB agreed with Lippert in that when construed “under the broadest reasonable construction in light of the ‘693 patent specification, claims 12 and 13 do not require the sensor to be aligned directly along the vehicle’s longitudinal and lateral axes.” The PTAB further stated that “[c]onstruing claims 12 and 13 to be limited to a sensor that must be aligned directly along the vehicle’s longitudinal and lateral axes would improperly incorporate a limitation into the claims from the specification.”

November 6, 2019

Cummins Reports Wins in Patent and Trademark Infringement Suits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Cummins Inc. of Columbus, Indiana has announced success in legal actions against Turbotechsnab LLC and Weifang Yuhang Turbocharger Co. Ltd. for infringement of Cummins’ trademarks and patents.

In a decision reached by the Moscow City Arbitrazh Court, Turbotechsnab was held to have infringed Cummins’ HOLSET trademarks. The court awarded an injunction against Turbotechsnab prohibiting further illegal use of Cummins’ HOLSET trademarks in connection with selling, offering to sell, storing and advertising turbochargers. Additionally, the court ordered Turbotechsnab to pay damages and fees to Cummins.

As part of the settlement with Weifang Yuhang Turbocharger Co. Ltd., that company agreed to cease and desist purchasing, making and selling any nozzle ring product that infringes Cummins’ patents, and agreed to destroy all existing infringing stock.

November 5, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Tenstreet, LLC’s Software Patent Held Invalid Due to Patent-Ineligible Claims

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tenstreet, LLC (“Tenstreet”) of Tulsa, Oklahoma, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, DriverReach, LLC (“DriverReach”) of Indianapolis, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 8,145,575 (the “‘575 Patent”) for “Peer to Peer Sharing of Job Applicant Information”. Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint and the Court has now granted that motion. This case was described on this site here.

Tenstreet develops products for the transportation industry such as its Xchange^TMnetwork to help share job applicant verification data between employers, past and present, for commercial truck drivers. The ‘575 Patent, obtained by Tenstreet on March 27, 2012, claims to streamline the verification process between past and prospective employers while giving the drivers a chance to review and correct information before it is sent to the prospective employer. DriverReach allegedly sells its own employment verification product, VOE Plus Solutions. Tenstreet claimed VOE Plus Solutions infringed on the ‘575 Patent. DriverReach moved the Court to dismiss Tenstreet’s claims “on the ground that the ‘575 patent is patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.”

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101, patentable subject matter is “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” However, the Supreme Court has held “that this provision contains an important implicit exception[:] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012)). In this case, the Court discusses the abstract idea exception. When determining if a patent claims an abstract idea, the Court first looks to whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Second, the Court looks for an “inventive concept” which transforms the claim into a patent-eligible application.

October 31, 2019

Patent Office Updates Eligibility Guidelines for Patentability Under Section 101

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

October 17, 2019. The US Patent Office has issued an Update on “Subject Matter Eligibility.” These Guidelines are used by the Patent Office to determine whether patent claims are eligible for protection under 35 USC 101.

Patent claims satisfy § 101’s eligibility requirement unless they are directed to an abstract idea (or other ineligible principle) and fail to add any inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 573 U.S. 208 (2014). In particular, claims that recite a specific advance in computer technology—including, for example, an unconventional arrangement of computer components—are eligible.

It is notoriously unclear to understand how should be applied. For example , Judge Plager of the Federal Circuit (and former Dean of the School of Law and Indiana University – Bloomington) has stated that the “body of doctrine” is “incoherent,” “render[ing] it near impossible to know with any certainty whether [an] invention is or is not patent eligible.” Interval Licensing LLC, 896 F.3d at 1348 (Plager, J., concurring and dissenting). Other jurists have noted that the case law is “baffling,” “inconsistent,” and that “needs clarification by higher authority, perhaps by Congress.” Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC, 927 F.3d 1333, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)

October 25, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Irvine Shade & Door, Inc. Sued For Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Stoett Industries, Inc. (“Stoett”) of Hicksville, Ohio and Newline International, LLC (“Newline”) of Culpeper, Virginia, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Irvine Shade & Door, Inc. (“Irvine”) of Elkhart, Indiana, infringed their rights in United States Patent No. 6,470,511 (the “‘511 Patent”) for “SHOWER SCREENS”. Plaintiffs are seeking preliminary and permanent injunction, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, expenses, costs, and other relief the court deems proper.

According to the Complaint, Newline was founded in New Zealand in 1983 and expanded its sales and facilities for shower screens into the United States in 2002. While Newline is the owner of the ‘511 Patent, Stoett claims to be the exclusive distributer for products covered by the ‘511 Patent in the United States via a licensing agreement dated December 2, 2012. Stoett allegedly sells a single shower screen for about $215.00 and has sold over 90,000 shower screens throughout the United states.

Plaintiffs believe Irvine has entered into contracts or has relationships with third-parties to make or sell infringing shower screens which either have or will result in lost sales for Newline and Stoett. As such, Plaintiffs are seeking damages for the alleged infringement of the ‘511 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271. Second, Plaintiffs are alleging Irvine has participated in state deceptive trade practices in violation of Ohio’s deceptive trade practice laws, Ohio Rev. Code § 4165.01, et seq. Finally, Plaintiffs are seeking damages for the alleged unfair competition by Irvine and unjust enrichment.

October 23, 2019

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Limits Design Patent Scope

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) issued its Opinion in the case of Curver Luxembourg, SARL (“Curver”) versus Home Expressions Inc., (“Home Expressions”) to construe claim language of a design patent to limit the scope of the claimed design. Curver, the Plaintiff-Appellant in this case, is the assignee of United States Design Patent No. D677,946 (the “‘946 Patent”) for “Pattern for a Chair” that claims “an ornamental design pattern for a chair.” While the ‘946 Patent claims the pattern for the chair, the figures for the design patent are disembodied from any article of manufacture. Curver instituted litigation against Home Expressions alleging that it made and sold baskets that incorporated Curver’s patented design and were thus infringing the ‘946 Patent. The District Court found in favor of Home Expressions as it found the ‘946 Patent was limited to chairs only. Curver then appealed to the CAFC which affirmed the District Court’s decision that the claim language limited the scope of the claimed design to apply to chairs only.

Curver filed for the ‘946 Patent in 2011 with the original title “patent directed to a pattern for furniture.” During prosecution, the examiner objected to many things including the title because under 37 C.F.R. § 1.153, a design patent’s title must designate a “particular article” for the design. Curver allegedly accepted the examiner’s suggestion to direct its pattern to be used for a chair and amended its application accordingly without amending the attached figures.

Home Expressions allegedly makes and sells baskets that have a similar Y-shape to Curver’s ‘946 Patent. Because of this, Curver filed a complaint against Home Expressions alleging its baskets infringed the ‘946 Patent. Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6), Home Expressions filed a Motion to Dismiss Curver’s Complaint for failing to plead a plausible claim of infringement, which was granted by the district court. As part of a two-step analysis, the District Court first construed the scope of the ‘946 Patent to be limited to a design pattern for a chair. For part two of the analysis, “the district court found that an ordinary observer would not purchase Home Expression’s basket with the ornamental “Y” design believing that the purchase was for an ornamental “Y” design applied to a chair, as protected by the ‘946 patent.” As such, Curver’s Complaint was dismissed.

October 10, 2019

Closure Systems International Sues Novembal USA Seeking Correction of Inventorship

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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 D838,171 (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.

October 9, 2019

Formstack, LLC Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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 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.

October 7, 2019

Engineered by Schildmeier Granted Over $1.4 Million Dollars in Default Judgment

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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 patent 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.

September 26, 2019

Furrion, LLC of Elkhart Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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 its 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.