Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 174 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in January, 2012.
| Pat. No. | Title | |
| 1 | D653,405 | Cage having a divider panel for containing an animal |
| 2 | D653,173 | Truck cab |
| 3 | D653,161 | Spindle vase |
| 4 | D653,047 | Health care bed frame |
| 5 | 8,107,652 | Controlled leakage omnidirectional electret condenser microphone element |
The US Trademark Office issued the following 146 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January, 2012, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:
| Reg. Number | Mark | Click to View | ||
| 1 | 4,089,821 | PETSIT USA | VIEW | |
| 2 | 4,092,607 | THE SENDING CENTER | VIEW | |
| 3 | 4,091,138 | SUBSCRIBERS FANS AND FOLLOWERS | VIEW | |
| 4 | 4,091,088 | VIVACIT-E | VIEW | |
| 5 | 4,090,901 | VISITBLOOMINGTON.COM | VIEW |
Chicago, IL – Copyright attorneys for Rude Music Inc. of Palatine, Illinois have filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the American Conservative Union of Washington, D.C. infringed the copyrighted song “Eye of the Tiger,” which has been registered with the US Copyright Office.
Rude Music is owned by Frank Sullivan, who is a co-author of “Eye of the Tiger,” which was the theme song from the movie Rocky III. 
The complaint alleges that Newt Gingrich has been appearing at campaign and fundraising events since 2009 where the copyrighted song was played as he took the stage. Some of these events were fundraising events for the American Conservative Union while other events were part of Gingrich’s presidential campaign. The complaint states that Gingrich’s use of the song is unlicensed, unauthorized and willful infringement. Interestingly, the complaint alleges that Gingrich’s experiences in the House of Representatives as well as being president of Gingrich Productions, a multimedia company, make him knowledgeable about copyright infringement. The complaint seeks an injunction barring Gingrich’s use of the song, damages, attorney fees and costs.
Practice Tip: While this type of unauthorized use of a copyrighted song is likely infringement, it is an interesting question whether Gingrich would have the defense of fair use, particularly in the context of political speech and its first amendment protection. Other political campaigns have also faces similar suits. In 2008, John McCain was sued over his use of the song “Running on Empty” by Jackson Brown. McCain filed a motion to dismiss, citing the fair use doctrine. The court denied the motion to dismiss, but the case was settled soon after.
Continue reading
Indianapolis, IN – The Southern District of Indiana has dismissed a patent infringement lawsuit, finding that the complaint failed to give fair notice of the patent infringement claim. Patent attorneys for AirFX, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana had filed a lawsuit against Custom Cycle Control Systems, Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada, alleging Custom had infringed patent no. 7,559,396 Motorcycle air suspension System.
AirFX’s complaint alleged that AirFX received a defective product made by Custom Cycle Control Systems
from a customer, who believed he had purchased a genuine AirFX product that utilized the patented technology. AirFX claims that Custom Cycle has been manufacturing and selling products that infringe its patent and that the inferior products of Custom Cycle have damaged the reputation of AirFX. Patent attorneys filed an amended complaint in September.
In this entry by Chief Judge Richard L. Young, the court noted several “deficiencies that concern the court” in the amended complaint. The court pointed out that the Plaintiff failed to identify the means or theory of infringement and simply alleged the defendant infringed the patent. Further, the complaint included a period before the patent was assigned to AirFX. Finally, the court noted that the Plaintiff’s patent attorney failed to attach a copy of the patent to complaint. The Plaintiff did attach a copy of a patent, however, it was not the patent at issue in this case. In sum, the court found the complaint failed to give the defendants sufficient notice of the claims against it. The court gave AirFX only 15 days to file a second amended complaint.
Practice Tip: As we blogged about last June, AirFX filed this patent infringement case at the same time as a second patent infringement case against J.D. Braun and other out-of-state defendants. The patent infringement case against J.D. Braun was dismissed in November for lack of personal jurisdiction. See our blog on the dismissal. Unless AirFX is able to amend their complaint sufficiently within the short 15 day deadline, AirFX’s patent infringement attorneys will have struck out in the Southern District.
Continue reading
Alexandria, VA – The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the US Trademark Office has reached a decision regarding the opposition of trademark registration filed by Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. of New York, New York against AFP Imaging Corporation of Elmsford, New York on trademark serial no. 77/492,131 for the mark ROLL-X registered with the US Trademark Office.
In 2008, AFP filed a trademark application with the US Trademark Office for the mark ROLL-X, with the product category of “x-ray tables for medical and dental use.” Rolex Watch filed an opposition
to that registration, arguing that there was a likelihood of confusion between AFP’s products and the Rolex trademark that Rolex has used for many years and that the Rolex marks would likely be diluted by tarnishing or blurring of the marks. The opinion notes that Rolex’s trademarks state that their products are “watches, clocks, parts of watches and clocks, and their cases.” After considering all the statutory factors, the Board determined that Rolex had not demonstrated that AFP’s proposed trademark registration would result in dilution of Rolex’s trademarks.
Practice Tip: In considering whether a trademark application dilutes a prior mark by blurring, there are six factors to consider pursuant 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B)(i-vi). These are: the degree of similarity between the two marks, the degree of distinctness, the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in exclusive use, the degree of recognition of the famous mark, intent to create association with the famous mark, and finally, actual association with the famous mark.
Continue reading
Indianapolis, IN – Copyright attorneys for Lioness Vizions, LLC, Angentia Childs of Indianapolis, Indiana and Delina Hill-Brooker of Powder Springs, Georgia filed a copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Rhasha and Mikel Hoosier of Gahanna, Ohio, Reign Media Group and Romantic Media Group of the State of Ohio infringed the copyrighted work Revealing & Healing: 3 Women’s Stories of Survival. The plaintiffs also allege other claims based on the operation of a limited liability company that marketed and sold the book.
The complaint describes how Ms. Childs, Ms. Hill-Brooker and Ms. Hoosier wrote a book together, which is the allegedly copyrighted work. Because they could not find a publisher, the three women formed a limited liability company, Lioness Vizions LLC, to publish, market and sell their book.
The complaint states that the three women assigned their copyright to the company. The complaint states that in August 2010, Ms. Hoosier resigned from company and then dissolved the company without the authorization of the two other women. The complaint alleges that Ms. Hoosier, however, went on to market and sell the book on her own and formed another company to sell the book. The complaint states that Ms. Hoosier has appeared on radio shows and done other promotional activities to sell the book and has not shared the profits with the other co-authors. The complaint makes claims of wrongful dissolution for Lioness Vizions LLC, copyright infringement, right of publicity infringement, breach of operating agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, civil theft, tortuous interference with existing or potential business relationships, and unfair competition. Copyright attorneys are seeking an injunction, damages, return of all copies of the book, an order reinstating Lioness Vizions LLC, disgorgement of profits,
Practice Tip: It is interesting to note that the Plaintiffs claim venue is proper in Indiana because “solicitation of the Plaintiffs took place” in Indiana. Lioness Vizions LLC was registered as an Ohio limited liability company.
Continue reading
Indianapolis, IN – Patent attorneys for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent infringement
suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Accord Healthcare, Inc., USA of Durham, North Carolina infringed patent no. 7,772,209, Antifolate combination therapies, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.
The complaint states that in December Accord sent a letter notifying Lilly that Accord had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ADNA) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its generic version of Alimta. Lilly alleges that Accord’s proposed product and labeling will infringe its patents. Lilly seeks an injunction to prevent Accord from developing, manufacturing and selling the allegedly infringing product.
Practice Tip: Lilly has already won a patent infringement case over Alimta. As we blogged about last year, the District Court of Delaware affirmed the validity of Alimta patents. This lawsuit, however, is over a patent that was not the subject of the District Court of Delaware’s decision.
Continue reading
Indianapolis, IN – A bill pending in the Indiana General Assembly would make changes to Indiana’s Right of Publicity Law, I.C. 32-36-1-8. The bill would clarify that a person who died before 1994 does have the publicity rights provided by the law.
This bill is co-authored by
Representatives Sean Eberhart of Shelbyville and Ralph Foley of Martinsville. It has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The Indianapolis Star quoted Representative Foley as explaining the need for the law as confusion in federal courts regarding whether the publicity rights attach to persons who died before 1994.
As we have previously blogged about, Indiana’s Right to Publicity law is considered one of the strongest in the world. This bill, if passed, appears to strengthen that law even further. The Indiana Law Blog has compiled some recent blogs regarding the Right to Publicity law.
Practice Tip: The Indiana General Assembly has a “short session” this year, meaning March 14 will be the last day of the session. If this bill is to become a law this session, it must move quickly through the House and Senate committees in the next several weeks in order to get to Governor Daniel’s desk by March 14.
Continue reading
Indianapolis, IN – A trade secret and breach of contract lawsuit filed in Marion County Superior Court has been removed to the Southern District of Indiana. In December, intellectual property attorneys for Angie’s List 
of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a suit in Marion County Superior Court alleging Click and Improve, Inc. d/b/a, ClickAndImprove.com, Avi Zikry and Jesse Friedman of New York State breached a membership agreement by misappropriating trade secrets and committing computer fraud and abuse.
Angie’s List provides consumer reviews of different service providers. Click and Improve is a competitor website started in 2011. Zikry and Friedman are Click and Improve’s principles. The complaint alleges Zikry and Friedman became a member of Angie’s List in 2011 and signed a membership agreement that limited the ways that members could use the information on Angie’s List. The complaint alleges Zikry and Friedman essentially stole reviews and other information on Angie’s List and published the information on their competing website. The complaint states over 24,000 proprietary files were stolen. The complaint makes claims of breach of contract, tortuous interference with contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, computer fraud and abuse, computer trespass, conversion, fraud and theft. Angie’s List seeks an injunction, damages, treble damages, costs and attorney fees.
Practice Tip: Any case filed in state court that makes a federal claim can be removed to federal court upon request. Most intellectual property cases involve a federal claim under the federal patent, trademark or copyright laws. Here, however, the plaintiff made a federal claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
Continue reading
Washington, D.C. – The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement case. Patent attorneys for Abbott Point of Care of Princeton, New Jersey had filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Alabama alleging that Abbott should have legal title to patent no. 6,845,327, Point-of-care in-vitro blood analysis system, and 6,896,778, Electrode module which has been issued by the US Patent Office. The patents are owned by Epocal, Inc. of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, who was named as defendant in this suit. 
The Northern District of Alabama had granted Epocal’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Abbott’s complaint. Abbott appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.
According to the opinion, Dr. Imants Lauks was once an employee of Abbott’s predessor company, but went on to start Epocal after he left that employment. Dr. Lauks has assigned all his patent rights to Epocal. Pursuant a series of employment and consulting contracts with Abbott, Dr. Lauks agreed to assign to Abbott all patent rights to any inventions he conceived while employed with Abbott. Abbott claims that the patents in questions cover inventions that were conceived while Dr. Lauks was employed with Abbott and therefore Abbott should have the patent rights. Epocal filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Epocal claimed the patents in question were conceived after Dr. Lauks’s employment terminated, therefore Abbott has no ownership.
Chief Judge Rader, writing the opinion of the court, agreed with the district court that Abbott did not have any rights to the patents and therefore, lacked standing to bring a patent infringement lawsuit. The opinion noted that the district court had concluded the terms of the most recent agreement did not cover the invention in question. Justice Bryson wrote a dissenting opinion, noting he found that contracts to be ambiguous and would have remanded for further discovery of extrinsic evidence of the intention of the parties in entering the employment contract.
Practice Tip: Employment and consultancy contracts routinely require assignment of intellectual property rights. In this case, the language of the clause in the employment/consultancy agreement changed over time. The court discussed that if the language in the first contract would have been identical to the language in the latest contract, Abbott would have had rights to the patents in question. This illustrates the importance of having an intellectual property attorney draft these clauses carefully.
Continue reading
