Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

March 27, 2012

Digonex Technologies Sue QCUE Inc. for Patent Infringement of Ticket Pricing Software

Indianapolis, IN – Patent attorneys for Digonex Technologies, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana has filed a patent infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Qcue Inc., of Austin, Texas infringed patent numbers of the 8,095,424 and 8,112,303, which have been issued by the US Patent Office.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants sell dynamic pricing software products aimed at pricing tickets for events by a variety of names “Dynamic Pricing Dashboard,” “the Qcue Product,” and “software-based dynamic pricing solution” that infringe the patents held by Digonex. The technology is apparently marketed to sports teams and event promoters. The complaint alleges that Qcue has sold infringing products to Major League Baseball, Major League Soccer, National Basketball Association, National Hockey League and NASCAR. The complaint makes two claims of patent infringement and seeks a declaration of infringement, an injunction, damages, attorney fees and costs. The complaint also alleges that Qcue has the specific intent to induce others to infringe Digonex’s patents.

Practice Tip: The complaint alleges that Qcue has referenced the two Digonex patents in a Qcue patent application pending before the US Patent Office. This, in part, is Digonex’s “evidence” of willful infringement. Also, Patent Office’s records reveal that in prosecuting the 8,095,424 patent it submitted an Information Disclsosure Statement on September 30, 2011, after the claims had been allowed. However, the Patent Office refused to consider the IDS becuase it did not comply with Patent Office regulations. Therefore, there may be some question regarding the validity of this patent.

March 23, 2012

Northern District Denies Motion to Strike Expert’s Survey Regarding Likelihood of Confusion in Trademark Infringement Case of Dwyer Instruments v. Sensocon Inc

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, IN – Judge Theresa Springmann of the Northern District of Indiana has denied a motion to strike the report of an expert who conducted an internet survey regarding the likelihood of confusion created by a trademark infringement defendant.

In January 2009, trademark attorneys for Dwyer Instruments of Michigan City, Indiana had filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Sensocon, Inc. and Tony E. Kohl of Highland City, Florida infringed Dwyer’s federally registered trademarks that are placed on Dwyer’s pressure gauge lens covers by placing confusingly similar marks on Sensocon’s own products. The complaint also made claims of trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin, counterfeiting, false designation of origin and copyright infringement.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and Sensocon filed a motion to strike the report of Dwyer’s expert who had performed a survey on the likelihood of confusing that is created by the alleged trademark infringement. The Court denied the motion to strike, applying the standards for admission of expert evidence under Federal Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) and its progeny. The Court noted that similar surveys are routinely admitted into evidence in trademark infringement cases. The court quoted a Seventh Circuit case, stating “[w]hile there will be occasions when the proffered survey is so flawed as to be completely unhelpful to the trier of fact and therefore inadmissible, . . . such situations will be rare.” AHP Subsidiary Holding Co. v. Stuart Hale Co., 1 F.3d 611, 618 (7th Cir. 1993).

Practice Tip: The Court noted that Sensocon could still attack the expert’s report by calling its methods into question and asking the court to grant little weight to the report. The court also granted Sensocon permission to file a report of its own expert to rebut Dwyer’s expert.

March 21, 2012

Southern District Grants Motion to Dismiss for Pacific Coast Breaker, Inc. in Trademark Infringement Suit Over Circuit Breakers with the ZINSCO Mark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – The Southern District of Indiana has granted a Motion to Dismiss in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Connecticut Electric, Inc. of Anderson, Indiana alleging that Pacific Coast Breaker, Inc. of McClellan, California and and PC Systems, Inc., also of California, infringed trademark registration no. 975,845 for the mark ZINSCO registered with the US Trademark Office.

The suit involves circuit breakers sold by Pacific Coast that are manufactured in China by PC and sold only to Pacific Coast. The plaintiff claimed that Pacific previously purchased its breakers from Connecticut, but stopped purchasing circuit breakers from plaintiff and began selling circuit breakers that look “identical in appearance to the ZINSCO circuit breakers.” We previously blogged about the case here.

The court granted this motion to dismiss finding a lack of personal jurisdiction because neither of the California defendants had sufficient contact with Indiana. Connecticut had argued that there were sufficient contacts with Indiana because Pacific Coast had sold 648 circuit breakers to Indiana residents over the last five years. However, the court could not distinguish whether these Indiana sales were of the allegedly infringing product or of the authentic product. At most, the court believe only $3,780 worth of sales were allegedly infringing products, which the court concluded was not substantial enough to create personal jurisdiction.

Practice Tip: The court also rejected Connecticut’s argument for personal jurisdiction because Pacific committed intentional torts of trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, unfair competition, forgery, and counterfeiting which were directed into Indiana.

March 20, 2012

Southern District Grants Summary Judgment for Coach in Trademark Infringement Case Over Knock-Offs

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis; IN – The Southern District of Indiana has issued a partial summary judgment in favor of Coach, Inc. and finding that Teresa Barnes, the owner of a Muncie store, had committed trademark infringement and counterfeiting for the sale of knock-off Coach goods.

In April 2011, trademark attorneys for Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. of New York, New York, had filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Chaos of Muncie, Chaos on Campus, LLC and Teresa Barnes of Muncie, Indiana have been offering for sale and advertising Coach knock-off products. The complaint alleged that in February 2011, the store was offering for sale fifty-five Coach knock-off items including flip-flops, handbags, wallets, and sunglasses. The complaint made claims of trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, common law trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, forgery, and counterfeiting. We blogged about the case here.

In the court’s decision granting summary judgment, it noted that Coach had requested summary judgment and Ms. Barnes had failed to reply. The court then reviewed the elements of trademark infringement and counterfeiting, found there was no factual dispute and found that the Coach should be granted summary judgment on the issue of liability. The court has ordered Coach to submit evidence on its damages.

Practice Tip: As the court noted, “A corporate officer, director or shareholder is, as a general matter, personally liable for all torts which she authorizes or directs or in which she participates, even if she acted as an agent of the corporation and not on her own behalf.” The court also noted that “an officer of a corporation can be personally liable for trademark infringement if the officer is a moving, active conscious force behind the defendant corporation’s infringement.” Citing Bambu Sales, Inc. v. Sultana Crackers, Inc., 683 F.Supp. 899, 913-14 (E.D.N.Y.1988). In this case, the court held that Ms. Barnes is personally liable because she was the sole owner of Chaos and managed all of the store’s business decisions.

March 13, 2012

Reindeer Logistics Sues McKnight Logistics For Trademark Infringement of Reindeer Auto Relocation Mark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark attorneys for Reindeer Logistics, Inc. of Zionsville, Indiana filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging McKnight Logistics, Inc. of Temecula, California infringed trademark registration no. 3542813 for the mark REINDEER AUTO RELOCATION, which was filed with the US Trademark Office.

The complaint states that Reindeer uses its mark Reindeer Auto Relocation in association with “high quality auto relocation services.” The complaint alleges that the defendant, McKnight, operates a website at www.reindeerautotransport.com to advertise auto relocation services and to “consummate” transactions. Reindeer discovered this allegedly infringing website in February 2012, and its trademark attorneys sent a cease-and-desist letter to McKnight. The complaint states that McKnight continues to use the infringing website and slogan. Reindeer alleges that the only possible purpose of McKnight’s use of that website and slogan are to “illegally divert traffic from Reindeer’s site and/or to confuse the public.” The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement, violation of federal anti-cybersquatting act, federal and state unfair competition and trademark dilution. Trademark attorneys seek an injunction, an accounting of profits, damages, attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: The plaintiff here makes a claim under the anti-cyberquatting act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), which establishes a cause of action for registering or operating a domain name that is confusingly similar to a registered trademark or name.

March 12, 2012

Organic Seed Growers’ Patent Infringement Suit Against Monsanto Has Been Dismissed For Lack of Jurisdiction

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New York, NY – The Southern District of New York has dismissed an innovative patent infringement lawsuit brought by a group of organic farmers against agriculture giant Monsanto Company for lack of jurisdiction. Monsanto has filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiffs have not demonstrated a justiciable case or controversy and therefore the court does not have subject matter jurisdiction because there was no current case or controversy.

We previously blogged about the case here. Earlier this year, patent attorneys for a group of 60 organizations and farmers, including the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association, filed a patent lawsuit in the Southern District of New York against agriculture giant Monsanto Company of St. Louis, Missouri. The plaintiffs are farmers who do not want their organic seeds contaminated by the transgenic or genetically modified seeds that are produced and patented by Monsanto. They feared contamination occurs when organic seeds come into contact with genetic material from transgenic seeds through natural pollination processes, such as the wind blowing transgenic pollen to a organic farm nearby. The plaintiffs alleged that, given Monsanto’s reputation for vigorously defending its patents, they have brought “this action to protect themselves from ever being accused of infringing patents on transgenic seed.” Their complaint begins: “Society stands on the precipice of forever being bound to transgenic agriculture and transgenic food. Coexistence between transgenic seed and organic seed is impossible because transgenic seed contaminates and eventually overcomes organic seed. ” The organic farmers sought a declaratory judgment that all of Monsanto’s transgenic seed patents are invalid as injurious to public health and for numerous other reasons. “

The Organic Seed Farmers have not yet indicated whether they will appeal this decision.

Practice Tip: As the court noted in finding it did not have jurisdiction: “The Declaratory Judgment Act provides, “In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, . . . any court of the United States . . . may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought.” 28 U.S.C.§ 2201(a).” A plaintiffs belief that a lawsuit may be threatened, even if somewhat realistic, must typically allege some affirmative facts to support the threat in order for the court to find an actual case or controversy exists.

March 9, 2012

Bill to Expand Indiana’s Right to Publicity Law Won’t Pass This Year

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Today is the last day of the Indiana General Assembly’s legislative session, called Sine Die, and it looks like the session will end without passing of proposed changes to the Indiana Right to Publicity law. The bill would have clarified that a person who died before 1994 does have the publicity rights provided by the law. This bill is co-authored by Representatives <a href="http://www.in.gov/h57/" font ShelbyvilleSean Eberhart of Shelbyville and Ralph Foley of Martinsville. As we blogged, the bill was passed by the Indiana House, but did not make it through the Senate committee.

As we have previously blogged about Indiana Right to Publicity law is considered one of the strongest in the world.

Practice Tip: The authors of this bill are free to propose it again next year. This year’s legislative session was a “short session” and the law makers were focused on several high-publicity issues. It looks like the right to publicity bill had some initial momentum, but the lawmakers ran out of time to get it passed.

March 8, 2012

Fostech Outdoors, LLC Sues Slide Fire Solutions, Inc. for Patent Infringement of Semi-Automatic Firearm Device

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN- Patent attorneys for Fostech Outdoors, LLC of Paris Crossing, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Slide Fire Solutions, Inc. of Moran, Texas infringed patent no. 6101918, METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR ACCELERATING THE CYCLIC FIRING RATE OF A SEMI-AUTOMATIC FIREARM, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The patented technology is described as “bump fire stocks” which are a device that, when attached to certain firearms, allows the firearm to rapidly fire multiple shots. The complaint alleges that Slide makes, imports, and/or sells a product called “SSAR-15 stock” that infringes the ‘918 patent “when used in conjunction with certain firearms assemblies.” The complaint alleges that Slide actively induces other to infringe the Fostech’s patent and that Slide should be liable for contributory infringement because it knows there are no non-infringing uses for its product. The complaint makes one claim of patent infringement and seeks an injunction, damages, costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: The plaintiff here has made a claim of contributory patent infringement, which governed by 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) and is defined as selling or importing a device “for use in practicing a patented process, constituting a material part of the invention, knowing the same to be especially made or especially adapted for use in an infringement of such patent, and not a staple article or commodity of commerce suitable for substantial noninfringing use”

Personal jurisdiction may be an issue in this case. The plaintiff alleges Slide regularly conducts business in Indiana and the events giving rise to the suit occurred in Indiana. However, none of the specific acts of infringement seem to have occurred in Indiana.
Continue reading

March 7, 2012

Orange Communications, LLC Sues Orange Public Relations, LLC and Blastmedia, Inc. for Unfair Competition, Trademark Infringement and Trade Name Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark attorneys for Orange Communications, LLC of Minneapolis, Minnesota filed a trademark ,trade name infringement in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Orange Public Relations, LLC of Fishers, Indiana and Blastmedia, Inc of Fishers, Indiana infringed Orange trade name and trademark, which apparently has not been registered with the US Trademark Office.

Orange Communications alleges that it applied for LLC status in Indiana in January 2010 and by January 2011 had set up its website, facebook page and twitter account. Orange Communications describes its trademark as “a circular, orange symbol which resembles a gear with a hole in the middle.” The plaintiff alleges that Orange PR was organized in May 2011 and began a website, facebook page and twitter account soon after. The complaint states that Orange Communications sent a cease and desist letter to Orange PR in January 2011 demanding that Orange PR stop using the Orange trade name and logo. The complaint states that Orange PR changed its twitter handle to “Orange Blast” but has not otherwise responded. The complaint further alleges that potential clients have been confused about the relationship and identity of the Plaintiff and Orange PR. The complaint makes claims of unfair competition and trademark infringement under the federal Lanham Act and common law trademark infringement. Orange Communications seeks an injunction, damages, costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: The complaint names two corporate defendants: Orange PR and Blastmedia LLC. However, it is unclear what role the plaintiff believes that Blastmedia had in the alleged unfair competition and infringement. The only mention of Blastmedia is the allegation that “Defendants Orange PR and Blastmedia share the same CEO and other senior management employees.”
Continue reading

March 5, 2012

Northern District of Indiana Consolidates Cases, Discovery in Dispute Between Elkhart RV Manufacturers, Includes Patent and Copyright Infringement Claims

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, IN – The Northern District of Indiana has issued an order consolidating related trade secret, copyright infringement and patent infringement lawsuits a dispute between RV manufacturers, Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC of Elkhart, Indiana and Forest River, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana. This order address five cases currently pending in Northern District of Indiana: 3:08-CV-490-JD-CAN, 3:09-CV-302-JD-CAN, 3:10-CV-011-JD-CAN, 3:10-CV-409-JD-CAN, and 3:11-cv-250-JD-CAN. In addition to Heartland and Forest River, Brian Brady, Catteron Partners and Thor Industries are also named in the suits.
The court found that three of the cases, 3:08-CV-490-JD-CAN, 3:09-CV-302-JD-CAN, and 3:10-CV-409-JD-CAN, involve Heartland’s acquisition of Forest River’s Master List. Since they involve similar questions, the court consolidated these three cases.
The court did not consolidate two of the cases. The court noted that 3:10-CV-011-JD-CAN is a copyright infringement case, where Forest River claims that Heartland infringed its “r.Pod” floor plan. The fifth case, 3:11-cv-250-JD-CAN, is a patent infringement case. In June. Patent lawyers for Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC of Elkhart, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit alleging Forest River, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana infringed Patent No. 7,878,545, Travel trailer having improved turning radius, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.
Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News blogged about the case here: Heartland Recreational Vehicles LLC Sues Forest River Inc. for Patent Infringement of Travel Trailer Turning Radius. The court found that the patent infringement case should not be consolidated because it would likely create confusion and make the litigation more complex.
The court, however, ordered that discovery in all five of the cases be consolidated.

Practice Tip: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), common questions of law and fact are a prerequisite to the consolidation of cases