Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

July 30, 2012

SCR Solutions Sues H2O Underpressure, Inc. For Patent Infringement of Manual SCR Catalyst Cleaning Method

Indianapolis; IN – Patent attorneys for Michael Ware, President of SCR Solutions of Madison, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit in alleging H2O Underpressure, Inc., of Dale, Wisconsin infringed provisional patent application no. 61,633,642, MANUAL SCR CATALYST CLEANING METHOD which has been filed with the US Patent Office.

On May 11, 2012, Michael Ware, President of SCR Solutions, filed the Complaint pro se against H20 Underpressure for willful patent infringement. The Complaint alleges that H2O Underpressure infringed, and continues to do, the Manual SCR Catalyst Cleaning Method by using it and selling it to the Duke Energy East Bend Power Plant in Union, Kentucky. SCR Solutions is also alleging that H20 Underpressure had previous knowledge of the ownership of the patent pending process and “conspired to steal and use so without written agreement or intention to compensate the owner” for the sale and use of the Manual SCR Catalyst Cleaning Method. SCR solutions claims to have complied with the statutory requirement of placing notice of the patent on all Manual SCR Catalyst Cleaning Method sells and also giving H2O Underpressure written notice of the infringement. SCR Solutions is seeking to enjoin H2O underpressure from using and selling the Manual SCR Catalyst Cleaning Method by demanding a preliminary and permanent injunction against the continuing infringement and damages.

July 27, 2012

U.S. Patent Office Publishes Rules Implementing the America Invents Act

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, DC. On Thursday, July 26, 2012, the United States Patent Office published in the Federal Register proposed rules and proposed examination guidelines for the first-inventor-to-file provision of the America Invents Act. The first-inventor-to-file provision converts the United States from a “first-to-invent” to a “first-inventor-to-file” system. The proposed rules and proposed examination guidelines amend the rules of patent practice to implement the conversion and show the Office’s interpretation of how the conversion impacts sections of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure related to novelty and obviousness. The proposed rules and proposed examination guidelines are accessible here:

First-Inventor-to-File Proposed Rules (77 Fed. Reg. 43742, July 26, 2012)

First-Inventor-to-File Proposed Examination Guidelines (77 Fed. Reg. 43759, July 27, 2012)

July 2, 2012

152 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in June, 2012

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The US Trademark Office issued the following 152 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in June, 2012 based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark attorneys:

	Serial Number	Mark	Click to View
1	4,163,724	AUCTIONTRAC	View
2	4,155,354	ICONIC	View
3	4,152,511	C CENTER FOR A SECURE RETIREMENT	View
4	4,164,736	MAMMOGRAM A FRIEND	View
5	4,165,913	TORQUE	View

July 1, 2012

Patent attorneys obtained issuance of 121 patent from the US Patent Office in Indiana in June, 2012

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 121 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and business in Indiana in June, 2012.

June 27, 2012

194 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in May, 2012

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The US Trademark Office issued the following 194 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in May, 2012, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

	Registration No.	Mark
1	4149541	ESENSE INCORPORATED IN EVERYTHING WE DO	VIEW
2	4151667	COOL CURE 365	VIEW
3	4150758	PRESS GANEY OUTCOMES DRIVEN. PERFORMANCE STRONG.	VIEW
4	4141938	JOURNEY FORWARD	VIEW
5	4150205	BODY ENVY	VIEW
6	4150167	SLUMBER MAX	VIEW
7	4150109	OA	VIEW
8	4150083	DON’T BE A TOOL – RENT ONE	VIEW
9	4150077	CTEMS	VIEW
10	4150057	WELLFOUNT	VIEW

June 27, 2012

U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Copyright Case over Gray Market Goods

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C.: The Supreme Court has recently decided to hear a case that could reconcile two competing sections within The Copyright Act–section 602(a)(1) which prohibits the importation of a work without the authority of the owner and section 109(a) which allows copyrighted works to be sold without the copyright owner’s permission–which will determine the applicability of foreign copyright owners’ control of the sale and distribution of their work.

On April 16, 2012 the Supreme Court Granted cert in the case of Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons in an attempt to resolve the issue of the copyright protections of gray market goods. Reuters.com reports that Kirtsaeng, a graduate student at The University of Southern California, is from Thailand and had his family purchase textbooks cheaply overseas and then shipped to him. He then resold them on eBay for a profit, in order to make money for school. According to Kirtsaeng’s petition for cert, he claims to have researched the Copyright Law including the Doctrine of First Sale, section 109(a), and felt that it was applicable to him. However, John Wiley & Sons, whose Asian subsidiary produced some of the books sold, disagreed with the interpretation and filed an infringement suit in 2008. Although Kirtsaeng profited $37,000 from the Sale of books produced by John Wiley & Sons, a jury found him liable of infringement and imposed damages of $600,000.

According to SCOTUSblog.com, the 2nd Circuit upheld the ruling, stating that the Doctrine of First Sale only applies to U.S. made goods. In their ruling, the 2nd circuit applied the Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Costco case, in which the court split 4-4 in its decision to apply the Doctrine of First Sale to U.S. made goods sold by businesses, and extended its reach to individuals as well. When the Supreme Court hears Kirtsaeng’s case, it will seek to resolve the discrepancy in the Copyright Law and the issue of whether the Copyright Law applies to a copy that was made and legally acquired abroad and then imported into the United States, SCOUTUSblog.com reports. According to supremecourt.gov, the time for the parties to file their briefs on the merits has been extended until August 31, 2012. The case will be heard next term, reports abajournal.com.

June 27, 2012

Patent attorneys obtained issuance of 168 patents from the US Patent Office in Indiana in May, 2012

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 168 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and business in Indiana in May, 2012.

Patent No. Title

1	D660,961	Varus/valgus resection guide set
2	D660,687	Accessory post
3	D660,631	Soap dispenser
4	8,188,883	Utility meter with communication system displays
5	8,188,292	Insecticidal N-substituted (heteroaryl)alkyl sulfilimines
6	8,188,273	Insecticidal (1,3,5)-triazinyl phenyl hydrazones
7	8,188,069	Azepine derivatives as gamma-secretase inhibitors
8	8,188,038	Osteogenic compositions containing a coloring agent
9	8,187,619	Enhanced compositions containing cells and extracellular matrix materials
10	8,187,543	Electrochemical gas sensor with a hydrophilic membrane coating
11	8,187,537	Diagnostic test unit with a container for test carriers
12	8,187,477	Methods and apparatus for isolating platelets from blood
13	8,187,475	Method and apparatus for producing autologous thrombin
14	8,187,453	Triglyceride and cholesterol sensing method and sensor

June 27, 2012

APP Press Sues Apress Media for Declaration of Non- Infringement of Trademark “App Press”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis; IN – Trademark attorneys for App Press, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a declaratory judgment suit seeking a declaration that it is not infringing the trademarks of Apress Media, LLC of New York, New York.

App Press, LLC brings action against Apress Media, LLC in order to protect the right to use and continue to conduct business under the registered trademark, and asserts that use of the mark for App Press does not infringe on any trademark held by Apress. App Press is a company that creates, owns, and licenses the use of web-based software that allows consumers to create apps that can be used on mobile devices. According to the Complaint, App Press applied for trademark registration on January 7, 2011 and was registered by the United State Patent and Trademark Office on August 9, 2011. During this period, the trademark was open to opposition on May 24, 2011. Apress Media is a publishing company that edits, publishes and sells books with the focus on technological issues and how-to advice. Apress Media applied for trademark registration on May 7, 2010 and was registered on March 8, 2011. According to App Press, on August 15, 2011, Apress Media sent a cease and desist letter demanding App Press immediately stop the use of their trademark alleging that it infringed on the trademark of Apress and constituted trademark infringement, unfair competition, cyberpiracy and dilution. App Press claims that they forwarded the letter to their counsel who contacted Apress Media’s counsel by phone. Almost two weeks passed that counsel for both parties went back and forth via telephone before they were able to confer regarding the issues set forth in the letter in which App Press agreed and sent a letter describing their product and why it was not infringing on Apress Media’s trademark. Approximately eight months later, on May 8, 2012, Apress again contacted App Press and again asserted that App Press’s use of the App Press trademark was infringing on the Apress trademark. Counsel for App Press has filed the Complaint for declaratory relief and to obtain declaration that App Press’s use of their trademark does not infringe upon any trademarks owned by Apress Media.

Practice Tip: The remedy of declaratory judgment is found in 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201 and allows for any US court to declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.
Continue reading

June 26, 2012

Dillinger Sues Pour House on Lincoln for Trademark Infringement of PUBLIC ENEMY

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis; IN – Trademark attorneys for Dillinger, LLC of Mooresville, Indiana filed a complaint for injunctive relief and damages in alleging The Pour House on Lincoln, Inc. d/b/a Dillinger’s Chicago Bar & Grill, Inc. of Chicago, Illinois infringed trademark registration nos. 3,483,359 for the mark DILLINGER’S and no. 4,091,160 for the mark PUBLIC ENEMY which have been registered by the US Trademark Office.

Dillinger, LLC is owned and operated by Jeff Scalf and, according to the Complaint, is the descendant of gentleman bandit John Dillinger. Dillinger, LLC owns numerous trademark registrations for DILLINGER, JOHN DILLINGER, PUBLIC ENEMIES, and many other trademarks related to the life of John Dillinger. Dillinger, LLC is also the owner of all rights, title, and interest to both DILLINGER’S and PUBLIC ENEMIES and both marks have been used in interstate commerce in connection with restaurant and bar services as early as 2002. According to the Complaint, Dillinger, LLC has never authorized The Pour House on Lincoln d/b/a Dillinger’s Chicago Bar & Grill to use the DILLINGER or PUBLIC ENEMIES marks in any way and also alleges that in July 2010 it came to their attention that the Defendants were operating a restaurant using the DILLINGER and PUBLIC ENEMIES trademarks. Upon their knowledge of the trademark usage, Dillinger, LLC alleges that The Pour House was contacted about the infringement and in August of the same year they traveled to Indianapolis for the purpose of obtaining a license for the use of the trademarks. The Complaint states that an oral agreement was reached and reduced to writing, but never executed and yet The Pour House willfully continued its infringing usage of the DILLINGER and PUBLIC ENEMIES trademarks, specifically on their website, food and drink menus and the menus posted on the storefront. Dillinger, LLC asserts five counts for the violations of the defendants, including demand for preliminary and permanent injunction; federal trademark infringement; cybersquatting; false designation of origin, false descriptions and unfair competition; and dilution by blurring. In order to avoid any irreparable harm from the loss of reputation the DILLINGER names could suffer as a result of the unauthorized use of the trademarks and the accrual thereof, Dillinger, LLC is seeking to permanently enjoin The Pour House from using the DILLINGER and PUBLIC ENEMIES trademarks or inducing such belief, actual damages suffered as a result of the alleged trademark violations, statutory and exemplary damages, and the profits derived from the infringing activities.

Practice Tip: U.S.C. title 15, chapter 22 governs trademarks, and §1117 specifically details the relief which can be granted as a result of trademark violation.
Continue reading

June 5, 2012

Trademark to Colt’s Luck Jersey? Recent Trademark Infringement Case over Tim Tebow Products Illustrates Issues

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New York, NY – The Southern District of New York recently issued an injunction in a case involving the trademark rights to NFL player Tim Tebow’s name and jersey. Trademark attorneys for Nike, Inc of Beaverton, Oregon, had filed a Trademark infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging that Reebok, International Ltd of Canton, Massachusetts infringed Tebow’s trademarks by producing and selling jerseys and other products bearing the Tebow marks. The complaint stated that Nike had an exclusive license to produce Tebow products bearing the Tebow marks. The complaint alleges that following the Denver Bronco’s trade of Tebow to the New York Jets, Reebok tried to take advantage of the high demand for Tebow’s Jets jersey by offering and selling unlicensed Tebow products.

On April 9, 2012, the court approved a final judgment that recognized Nike, Inc. was awarded the sole rights to the license–including the manufacture, distribution, and sale–of Tim Tebow merchandise, retroactive February 28, 2012, affiliated with the New York Jets. The court order defined Unauthorized Tebow Product as “an NFL-related jersey or t-shirt product sold or distributed by, manufactured by or for, or in the possession or control of Defendant Reebok International Ltd. . . . with the name Tebow affixed to the product after February 28, 2012.” The definition specifically targets any Tebow merchandise produced with his new team, the New York Jets. The terms of the court order issued prohibit Reebok from manufacturing, selling, donating, advertising or permitting any other individual or entity to do the an Unauthorized Tebow Product. Reebok was further ordered to repurchase or recall any existing Tebow merchandise already in distribution that was made after February 28, 2012.

Practice Tip: It will be interesting to see how valuable the trademark rights to number one draft pick Andrew Luck‘s jersey and his new affiliation with the Indianapolis Colts will become. Nike argued that the Tebow trademark was particularly valuable because of his high profile. He was already a prize at Stanford, and with his contract with the Colts, the trademark rights could be very valuable.

	PAT. NO.	Title
1	D662,685	Vault
2	D662,681	Aluminum extrusion
3	D662,502	Tablet computer cradle
4	D662,441	Spindle vase
5	8,208,265	Circuit board retainer
6	8,207,494	Laser ablation flowing atmospheric-pressure afterglow for ambient mass spectrometry
7	8,207,362	Bio-fuel and process for making bio-fuel
8	8,207,344	GPR119 agonists
9	8,206,983	In vitro methods for the induction and maintenance of plant cell lines as single suspension cells with intact cell walls
10	8,206,648	Liquid container with an extraction chimney
11	8,206,565	System and method for coding information on a biosensor test strip
12	8,206,455	Hip stem prosthesis