Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Days-300x130South Bend, IndianaDays Corporation (“Days”) of Elkhart, Indiana filed a complaint asking the Northern District of Indiana to resolve infringement claims relating to three patents.

The lawsuit was brought against Lippert Components, Inc. (“LCI”), also of Elkhart, Indiana.  Both Days and LCI operate in the recreational vehicle (“RV”) industry.  They offer competing systems designed to level a vehicle, for example, one that is situated on uneven terrain causing the vehicle to be oriented on an undesirable plane.

At issue in this Indiana litigation are three patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 6,584,385 (“the ‘385 patent”), 6,885,924 (“the ‘924 patent”) and 6,619,693 (“the ‘693 patent”).  LCI claims intellectual property protection under the ‘385 patent and the ‘924 patent, while Days claims rights under the ‘693 patent.

Each party asserts that the other party is committing patent infringement. Days asks the court for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and patent invalidity of the LCI patents.  It also seeks a judgment that LCI has infringed the ‘693 patent.  The complaint, filed by a patent litigator for Days, lists the following claims:

  • Count I: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement by Days of the ‘385 Patent
  • Count II: Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement by Days of the ‘924 Patent
  • Count III: Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘385 Patent
  • Count IV: Declaratory Judgment of Invalidity of the ‘924 Patent
  • Count V: Infringement by LCI of the ‘693 Patent

In addition to a declaratory judgment and a judgment of infringement, Days seeks damages, including a trebling of those damages pursuant to a finding of willful infringement, and injunctive relief.

Continue reading

MechResurrection-300x153Hammond, Indiana – ME2 Productions Inc. of Carson City, Nevada, filed a lawsuit alleging copyright infringement of the action thriller Mechanic: Resurrection, which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under U.S. Copyright Registration No. PA-1-998-057.  The movie, which is the sequel to the 2011 action film Resurrection, stars Jason Statham, Jessica Alba and Tommy Lee Jones.

Eleven unnamed Defendants, listed as Doe Defendants 1-11, are accused of infringing the copyright of the film by distributing a “screener copy” illegally via BitTorrent, a file-sharing protocol.  Plaintiff states that the 11 Defendants committed copyright infringement “in a collective and interdependent manner with other Defendants via the Internet for the unlawful purpose of reproducing, exchanging, and distributing copyrighted material.”

This litigation was commenced in the Northern District of Indiana by a copyright litigator for ME2 Productions.  Plaintiff contends that the Doe Defendants are Indiana residents, stating that it determined through the use of geolocation technology that each had an Indiana Internet Protocol address.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief along with damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

CentralLibrary-300x161Indianapolis, Indiana – The United States Patent and Trademark Office will be hosting a free program for up and coming independent inventors titled “Gender Gap in Patents”.  Following the free program you can attend an educational training session in order to learn about Patent and Trademark basics.  USPTO staff will be on site to answer your questions.

The program will be held on Thursday, March 23, 2017 at the Indianapolis Public Library – Central Library located at 40 East Saint Clair Street, Indianapolis, IN 46204.

The itinerary for the day will be as follows:

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 134 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2017, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys.

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign patent searches, patent applications and assists with enforcing patents via infringement litigation and licensing.

Patent No. Title
1 D780,015 Ring with internal stones
2 9,584,895 Teardrop variable wall earbud
3 9,583,967 Ruggedized pressure transducer with integrated wireless antenna and rechargeable battery system
4 9,583,028 Flashlight
5 9,581,635 System and method for high voltage cable detection in hybrid vehicles

Continue reading

2017-02-08-BlogPhoto-300x80

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, was intended to limit “forum shopping” of class actions lawsuits, or in a court where the law was most favorable to the plaintiff, even if the location was not connected with the underlying facts.  However, the Act did not generally apply to patent infringement cases.  As a result most patent infringement suits (44% in 2015) are filed in the Eastern District of Texas, which has a reputation for juries that award large verdicts.  When a suit is filed there, there is much pressure on a defendant to settle even if the patent owner’s case is weak.

Carmel Indiana’s T.C. Heartland hopes to limit forum shopping.  It was sued for patent infringement by Kraft Foods, and the case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari last month on appeal from the Federal Circuit. The dispute revolves around whether the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opened the floodgates to forum-shopping in 1990 when it adopted an ultra-liberal interpretation of where a defendant business “resides” – and in the proposed solution, which is to interpret Congress’s 2011 amendments to a general venue statute as having implicitly overruled the 1990 ruling.

The American Intellectual Property Law Association has filed an “amicus” brief arguing that the Federal Circuit correctly interpreted the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1391 as providing a definition of “resides” in the patent venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) Although the Supreme Court in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), found the two statutes worked independently, Congress changed the law in 1988 by adding to the general venue statute “for purposes of venue under this chapter.” According to the brief, the deletion of that phrase in 2011 did not return the law to the Fourco rule because it was replaced with the phrase “for all venue purposes.” Nor does the added phrase “except as otherwise provided by law” adopt the Supreme Court’s Fourco rule, the brief concluded.  The AIPLA’s amicus brief is below.

Overhauser Law Offices the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign trademark searches, trademark applications and assists with enforcing trademarks via infringement litigation and licensing.

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following  217 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2017 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.   Word Mark Click To View
5114184 AKESOCARE TSDR
5113123 AKESOCARE TSDR
5133813 BIOSTOP TSDR
5133682 A STUDENT UNION FOR ADULTS TSDR
5133485 CLOSET CANDY BOUTIQUE TSDR
5133340 TRUCONTOUR TSDR

Continue reading

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 216 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2017, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys.
Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign patent searches, patent applications and assists with enforcing patents via infringement litigation and licensing.

Patent No. Title
1 9,560,215 System, method, and computer-readable medium for rebilling a carrier bill
2 9,558,682 Tamper evident security seal
3 9,557,356 Utility meter with wireless pulse output
4 9,557,325 Method of altering the binding specificity of proteins by oxidation-reduction reactions
5 9,557,274 Analytical devices for detection of low-quality pharmaceuticals

Continue reading

Untitled-4The Supreme Court on December 6, 2016, heard oral argument on whether the export by Roche, which has an office in Indiana, of an enzyme triggers patent infringement.  Roche’s customer Life Technologies imported Roche’s “AmpliGold Plus” enzyme into the United Kingdom, and used it to build genetic testing kits.  Life Technologies did not sell the kits in the US.  However, Promega Corp. sued it for vicarious patent infringement (inducing or contributing to patent infringement) claiming that by purchasing enzyme in the US, Life Technologies violated 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1).  This provision of the patent Act makes it an infringement to supply abroad “all or a substantial portion of the components.” The Federal Circuit had earlier held that the AmpliGold Plus enzyme, met the requirement of a “substantial” portion of the components. The Supreme Court seemed to agree that “substantial” may be ambiguous, but some Justices suggested that supply of a single component was more properly considered under Section 271(f)(2), which addresses the supply of a non-staple, specially made component. Promega distinguished (f)(1) and (f)(2) as exporting counterparts to Section 271(b) induced infringement and §271(c) contributory infringement, respectively.  The transcript of the hearing is below.

Transcript-Life-v-Promega

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign patent searches, patent applications and assists with enforcing patents via infringement litigation and licensing.

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 237 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in November 2016, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

Patent No. Title
1 D772,754 Prelock prevention device for use with a web retractor
2 D772,691 Decorative layered rose
3 D772,626 Seat shell
4 9,509,847 System and method for language specific routing
5 9,509,824 Multi-phone programming application
6 9,509,154 Algorithmic battery charging system and method

Continue reading

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following  193 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in November 2016 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.   Word Mark Click To View
5097638 NEGOTIATOR TSDR
5095522 WE’VE GOT YOUR BACK TSDR
5095457 KENRA TSDR
5095293 PSNOB TSDR
5095265 LET’S TALK ABOUT THE GORILLA IN THE ROOM TSDR
5095098 ZYLO TSDR
5090995 J U TSDR

 

Continue reading

Contact Information