Northern DistriUntitled-2-300x39ct of Indiana – The Beachwaver Co. of Libertyville, Illinois commenced intellectual property litigation in the Northern District of Indiana asserting infringement of patents pertaining to a rotating curling iron.

Defendant is T3 Micro, Inc. of Venice, California, which is accused of infringing Beachwaver’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,398,796 (“the ‘796 patent”) and 9,504,301 (“the ‘301 patent”).  These patents have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Both patents are titled “Hair Styling Device.”  One of the two patents was the subject of at least one additional lawsuit in Indiana recently.  That lawsuit, filed in October, covered only the ‘796 patent but included counts for both direct and induced infringement.  In contrast, in this litigation, Indiana attorneys for Plaintiff list only one count of infringement for each of the two patents-in-suit:

South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiff Hawk Technology Systems, LLC of Miami, Florida filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement.

Hawk accuses Defendant Instant Auto Finance Inc. of South Bend, Indiana of infringing U.S. Patent No. RE43,462 (the “‘462 patent”), which is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,265,410.  Claim 12 of the ‘462 patent, and possibly others, is at issue in this litigation.  That claim covers a method of simultaneously displaying and storing Untitled-3-300x154multiple video images.

In this complaint, filed by an Indiana patent attorney in conjunction with a lawyer from Minnesota, Hawk contends that Instant Auto Finance infringed the ‘462 patent by using a video storage and display system and/or methods that infringe one or more of the claims in the ‘462 patent.  Plaintiff seeks damages as well as reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees.

New Albany, Indiana – FireKing Security Products, LLC of New Albany, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement of a patent related to smart safes.

Defendant in this litigation is American Security Products Company of Fontana, California.  Both Plaintiff and Defendant are in the business of manufacturing smart safes, which feature technology designed to count and log each deposit as it is made into the safe as well as generating and transmitting daily reports of the amount of cash stored in the safe.

American Security makes a line of smart safes offered under the name “CashWizard.”  FireKing asserts that these products infringe its patent for “Electronic Transmission and Tracking of Deposit Information,” which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as Patent No. 7,216,098 (the “’098 patent”).  FireKing asserts that it has multiple patents associated with its smart-safe products, including the ‘098 patent, which is the only patent at issue in this Indiana lawsuit.

Evansville, Indiana – Richard Litov of Evansville, Indiana sued Freedom Heritage Museum, Inc., of Evansville, Indiana alleging trademark infringement.  Litov asserts claims under both federal and Indiana law.Freedom

Litov claims that he conceived the idea for the museum – a collection of exhibits and artifacts from the World War II era – as well as the museum’s name, stating that he served as its founding president and a founding board member.  He asserts that the museum used the trademarked name pursuant to permission that he granted “as president and board member” of the museum.

The trademark in question has been registered under Litov’s name as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,939,292.  Litov states in his complaint that the registration covers the words FREEDOM HERITAGE MUSEUM and an associated design.  The word portion of the trademark, as listed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s website, is FREEDOM HERITAGE MUSEUM, EST. 2012, EVANSVILLE INDIANA.  The application for the trademark registration was filed on July 6, 2015 and granted on April 19, 2016.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiffs King Sheng Co., Ltd., which does business as Seiki, and David Tsai, both of Taiwan, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendant in this Indiana litigation is Hollywood Engineering, Inc. d/b/a Hollywood Racks of Los Angeles, California.  It is accused of having infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,240,816 (“the ‘816 patent”), which relates to a bike rack for use on vehicles.  Plaintiffs contend that Defendant“has made, imports, sells, offers to sell, and/or uses” numerous infringing products.  The products at issue include items offered under model numbers HR200, HRT220, HR1000, HR1000R, HR1400, HR1450, HR1450E, HR1450R, HR1475, and Sunlite models 45815 and 45816.


Defendant is accused of having infringed the ‘816 patent directly and/or jointly with other entities, with the alleged infringement occuring literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.  Plaintiff further contends that Defendant is liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) for inducing infringement of the patent-in-suit and under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) for contributory infringement.  Stating that Defendant has had actual notice of the ‘816 patent since no later than 2009, Plaintiff also asserts that infringement of the ‘816 patent has been willful and deliberate.

Indianapolis, Indiana – Cook Productions, LLC of Los Angeles, California filed a lawsuit accusing unnamed Doe Defendants of copyright infringement.  The lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of Indiana, mirrors another lawsuit filed by Cook Productions in the Northern District of Indiana.Untitled-5-192x300

The copyrighted work at issue is the motion picture “Mr. Church,” which features Eddie Murphy and Britt Robertson.  The movie has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. PA 2-002-851.

In this litigation, filed by a copyright lawyer for Plaintiff, the ten unnamed Doe Defendants are accused of having participated in a BitTorrent swarm to disseminate illegal copies of the movie.  Plaintiff states that it used geolocation technology to trace Defendants to the Southern District of Indiana.

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.


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

Untitled-6-210x300South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiff Cook Productions, LLC of Los Angeles, California sued 11 unnamed “Doe” Defendants in the Northern District of Indiana for infringing the copyrighted motion picture “Mr. Church.”

The movie, which features Eddie Murphy and Britt Robertson, tells the story of a lifelong friendship that began when a cook agreed to help a little girl and her dying mother.  It was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on August 29, 2016 under Registration No. PA 2-002-851.

In this Indiana lawsuit, a copyright attorney for Plaintiff contends that Mr. Church was unlawfully released on the internet and shared, potentially worldwide, using the BitTorrent file-sharing protocol.  Defendants in this litigation are accused of having participated as part of a BitTorrent “swarm,” in which each Defendant shared portions of the movie with other Defendants, ultimately resulting in each Defendant obtaining a complete copy.  Plaintiff asserts that it used geolocation technology to trace the Internet Protocol addresses of each Defendant to a point of origin within the Northern District of Indiana and that, consequently, jurisdiction in Indiana is proper.

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
5095457 KENRA TSDR
5095293 PSNOB TSDR
5095098 ZYLO TSDR
5090995 J U TSDR


Continue reading

Contact Information