Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Plaintiff, CravinVapes, LLC, claims Defendants, Michael McClellan and Indiana Vapes, LLC infringed its U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,714,661 (the “‘661 Mark”). Apparently, CravinVapes had previously licensed the ‘661 Mark to non-party, Lee Eddy (“Eddy”) in connection with his operation of an E-liquid business shop. It was noted when Eddy sold his store to Defendants, Eddy’s license agreement with CravinVapes was not transferable as CravinBlog2-300x95part of the sale. However, CravinVapes claims Defendants opened an E-liquid store and have continued the use of the ‘661 Mark on the sign for the storefront.  Plaintiff also claims Indiana Vapes LLC held themselves out to the public as  a CravinVapes location on Facebook. While CravinVapes claims it gave McClellan an opportunity to sign a license agreement with it on August 17, 2018, it appears he refused to do so.

Just over a year after being offered the license agreement, Defendants were allegedly sent a cease and desist letter on November 13, 2019. According to the Complaint, after further discussions between the parties, Defendants removed the exterior sign with the ‘661 Mark from their storefront in December 2019, but have continued to use the ‘661 Mark on Facebook. CravinVapes is seeking an injunction and damages related to trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition.

The case was assigned to Judge Holly A. Brady and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins in the Northern District of Indiana and assigned Case 1:19-cv-00546-HAB-SLC.

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 237 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in March 2020, 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 D0879918 Faucet spout
2 D0879917 Faucet handle
3 D0879916 Faucet handle
4 D0879915 Faucet handle
5 D0879914 Faucet
6 D0879892 Basketball backboard support arm
7 D0879724 Contact wafer
8 D0879639 Combined hanging basket and wind chimes
9 D0879599 Wall-engaging device for a gate
10 D8079544 Multipurpose solar drying tray assembly

Continue reading

Overhauser Law Offices the publisher of this site, assists with U.S. and Foreign Trademark searches, Trademark Applications and assists with enforcing Trademarks via Infringement Litigation and Licensing.

Reg. Number Word Mark
2 6018774 EXCAVATOR
3 6018440 THREEFOLD
4 6018439 THREEFOLD
5 6018438 THREEFOLD
6 6018411 THREEFOLD
8 6018261 T-PAL
9 6018178 KITCHIO
10 6018176 KITCHIO

Continue reading

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 174 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in February 2020 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys.

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.

5995226 COMBAT OPS
5994993 WEBWRAP

Continue reading

Patent Office Issues 338 Patents to Indiana Citizens in February 2020 in the U.S.

Patent Office Issued the following 338 Patent Registrations to persons and business in Indiana in February 2020, 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 D0876,667 Rack for assay tips and assay cups
2 D0876,588 Faucet body
3 D0876,582 Faucet sprayer
4 D0876,203 Mounting bracket
5 D0876,101 Make-up brush
6 10,574,655 Networked access control system
7 10573943 System and method for thermally robust energy storage system
8 10573942 Fluid bath cooled energy storage system
9 10573443 Process for producing magnetic monodisperse polymer particles

Continue reading

The Indiana Supreme Court has issued an Opinion finding the non-solicitation clause used by Zimmer invalid and unenforceable in the case of Heraeus Medical, LLC (“Heraeus”), et. al. versus Zimmer, Inc. (“Zimmer”), et al., originally filed by Zimmer in the Kosciusko Superior Court.

Robert Kolbe allegedly signed a noncompetition agreement (the “Kolbe Agreement”) shortly after transitioning into a new role with Zimmer that claimed to ZimmerBlogPhoto-300x81prohibit Kolbe from recruiting employees of Zimmer to work for a competitor. A couple years later, Kolbe terminated his employment with Zimmer, and went to work for a competitor of Zimmer, Heraeus. After Kolbe joined Heraeus, several of its positions were filled with former Zimmer employees. Zimmer then filed suit against Heraeus for violation of the Kolbe Agreement.

The trial court preliminarily enjoined Kolbe from recruiting Zimmer’s employees. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found the non-solicitation covenant was overbroad and thus unenforceable as written. However, it revised the non-solicitation covenant to make it “reasonable” by applying the covenant only to “those employees in which [Zimmer] has a legitimate protectable interest.” Heraeus Med., LLC v. Zimmer, Inc., 123 N.3d 158, 167-68 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019). Continue reading

Indianapolis, IndianaThe case of AWGI, LLC and Atlas Van Lines, Inc. versus American Wide Relocation Inc. d/b/a Atlas Moving and Storage (“American Wide”) was filed by Plaintiffs alleging American Wide infringed their rights in two separate United States Registered Trademarks. American Wide failed to appear or respond to Plaintiffs’ Complaint and upon Motion for Final Default Judgment, the Court granted default judgment to the Plaintiffs on October 1, 2019.

In accordance with the default judgment, American Wide and all those persons who receive actual notice of the Court’s Order are permanently enjoined and restrained from: causing likelihood of confusion; “directly or indirectly falsely designating or representing that any goods or services are authorized, approved, associated with, or originate from, Plaintiffs”; “directly or indirectly using the ‘Atlas’ mark and the Infringing Logo or any confusingly similar variants”; utilizing the “Atlas” mark and the Infringing Logo; and “publishing, assembling, marketing, distributing, or otherwise utilizing any literature . . . which bear the ‘Atlas’ mark and the Infringing Logo”.

American Wide was further ordered: to destroy all literature, advertisements, etc. that bear the “Atlas” mark and the Infringing Logo; to notify its customers that the “Atlas” mark and Infringing Logo are not connected with Plaintiffs; and to immediately comply with the Court’s Order including filing “a statement, under oath and penalty of perjury, that each and every injunctive provision has been fully and completely complied with.” Finally, American Wide was ordered to transfer all internet domains and social media accounts that incorporate the term “Atlas” to the Plaintiffs.

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Trane International, Inc. (“Trane”) of Davidson, North Carolina, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Grand Design RV, LLC (“Grand Design”) of Middlebury, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration No. 5,380,586 (the “‘586BlogPhoto1-300x58 Mark”) for the mark BUILT TO A HIGHER STANDARD. Trane is seeking actual damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

According to the Complaint, Trane is in the business of designing, building, and selling a variety of products including refrigeration and heating units for vehicles such as trucks and trailers. Trane alleges it has used the ‘586 Mark since at least 1992. Trane further claims that its air conditioners, furnaces, and heat pumps sold under the ‘586 Mark accounted for over $700 million of its sales in 2018.

Trane alleges Grand Design utilizes the ‘586 Mark on its temperature control devices that are used in recreational vehicles. Due to this use, Trane believes Grand Design’s actions will likely confuse consumers and will deceive third parties leading them to think Grand Design’s products are affiliated with Trane. Trane claims it sent two cease and desist letters in the spring of 2018, the second of which finally received a response from Grand Design refusing to cease the use of the ‘586 Mark. Instead, it is alleged Grand Design offered to use the designation “RV’S BUILT TO A HIGHER STANDARD”.

After multiple failed attempts at following up with Grand Design regarding its allegedly infringing use, Trane filed this suit for federal trademark infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114. Trane is further claiming federal unfair competition and trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Finally, Trane is seeking damages for common law unfair competition under the common law of the State of Indiana.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tyler Research Corporation (“TRC”), a corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business in Alberta, Canada, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Envacon, Inc., a Canadian corporation with a facility in Lafayette, Indiana, Keirnan Bozman, an individual residing in Alberta, Canada, and JKKB Holdings Corporation of Alberta, Canada, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,273,053 (the “‘053 Patent”). Plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, damages, costs, expenses, both prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court mayEnvacon-BlogPhoto deem just and proper.

TRC, Bozman, and non-party, Joseph Krepela, entered into an exclusive licensing agreement granting TRC the exclusive right to manufacture Bozman and Krepela’s innovative engine shut off valves (the “Shut Off Valves”) on November 11, 1999. For consideration under the licensing agreement, TRC assisted with the design and completed development of the Shut Off Valves and provided employment to Bozman and Krepela. The licensing agreement did not limit TRC’s rights geographically and TRC’s exclusive right was to be in place so long as any patent rights of Bozman and Krepela existed in reference to the Shut Off Valves.

Bozman and Krepela were to put forth their best efforts in obtaining patent protection in Canada and the United States for the Shut Off Valves. Just short of four months after the exclusive licensing agreement with TRC was signed, Bozman and Krepela assigned their rights to the Shut Off Valves and the exclusive licensing agreement to JKKB. The very next day, JKKB filed for patent protection in the United States and Canada for the Shut Off Valves. The ‘053 Patent issued on August 14, 2001, with TRC holding the exclusive license to manufacture the Shut Off Valves.


Plaintiff exclusively manufactured the Shut Off Valves from 2001 until 2004, when it decided to outsource some of the manufacturing steps to Envacon, pursuant to the exclusive licensing agreement. Envacon, even before they began manufacturing some parts of the Shut Off Valves, had marketed and sold the completed Shut Off Valves for TRC and paid TRC’s parent corporation for TRC’s manufacturing services. TRC and Envacon operated out of the same premises from November 23, 1999 until April 16, 2011 and as such, TRC was able to maintain oversight, direction, and control over Envacon’s actions and involvement in manufacturing the Shut Off Valves.

Without giving prior notice, Envacon abandoned the space it shared with TRC on April 16, 2011. As TRC could no longer provide the necessary control and oversight over the manufacturing after Envacon left, Envacon was no longer authorized to manufacture the Shut Off Valves. TRC claims that Envacon, Bozman, and JKKB have all participated in the manufacturing of Shut Off Valves that infringe at least Claims 4, 14, and 15 of the ‘053 Patent or have conspired to deprive TRC of its rights under the exclusive licensing agreement. Plaintiff is claiming patent infringement against Envacon and Bozman, civil conspiracy against all Defendants, tortious interference against Envacon and Bozman, and civil conspiracy for tortious interference with a contractual relationship against Bozman and Envacon.

TRC of its rights under the exclusive licensing agreement. Plaintiff is claiming patent infringement against Envacon and Bozman, civil conspiracy against all Defendants, tortious interference against Envacon and Bozman, and civil conspiracy for tortious interference with a contractual relationship against Bozman and Envacon.

Continue reading

The Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the Federal Circuits’ Decision for the Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA case regarding “secret sales” as prior art under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”). In their Opinion, the Court held that given the pre-AIA precedent that even “secret sales” could invalidate a patent, the same “on sale” language in the AIA provisions should be given the same presumption. Further, the addition of the phrase “or otherwise available to the public” does not allow the Court to conclude that Congress intended to alter the meaning of “on sale,” but instead, means that 35 U.S.C. § 102 could be applied to other non-delineated situations.

us-supreme-court-building-2-300x200Helsinn Healthcare (“Helsinn”) produces a treatment utilizing the chemical palonestron to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. During the development of this product, Helsinn entered into two separate and confidential agreements with MGI Pharma, Inc. (“MGI”) giving MGI the right to distribute, promote, sell, and market a 0.25 g dose of palonosetron in the United States. While the dosage was kept confidential, the agreements were reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission. About two years later, in January 2003, Helsinn filed their provisional patent application covering a 0.25 mg dose of palonestron. Helsinn went on to file four patent applications claiming priority to the January 2003 provisional application, with its fourth patent application being filed in 2013 and being subject to the AIA. This fourth patent application led to the issuance of U.S. Patent No. 8,598,219 (the “‘219 patent”).

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (collectively “Teva”) sought approval to market a generic 0.25 mg palonosetron product. Helsinn, in turn, filed suit against Teva for infringement of the ‘219 patent. Teva claimed that the ‘219 patent was invalid under the AIA because the invention was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).

Continue reading

Contact Information