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 | |
| 5097638 | NEGOTIATOR | TSDR | |
| 5095522 | WE’VE GOT YOUR BACK | TSDR | |
| 5095457 | KENRA | TSDR | |
| 5095293 | PSNOB | TSDR | |
| 5095265 | LET’S TALK ABOUT THE GORILLA IN THE ROOM | TSDR | |
| 5095098 | ZYLO | TSDR | |
| 5090995 | J U | TSDR |
The Supreme Court on December 2, 2016, agreed to review an en banc Federal Circuit decision that no changes to the Federal Circuit’s law of patent exhaustion are required by the Supreme Court’s decisions in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 1351 (2012), and Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008). Impression Products, Inc., v. Lexmark International, Inc., U.S., No. 15-1189, cert. granted 12/2/2016.
En Banc Federal Circuit Decision
In a 10-2 decision, the en banc Federal Circuit held that a patentee, when selling a patented article subject to a single-use/no-resale restriction that is lawful and clearly communicated to the purchaser, does not by that sale give the buyer, or downstream buyers, the resale/reuse authority that has been expressly denied. 816 F.3d 721 (2016). It also held that a U.S. patentee, merely by selling or authorizing the sale of a U.S.-patented article abroad, does not authorize the buyer to import the article and sell and use it in the United States, which are infringing acts absent patentee-conferred authority. Judge Dyk filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Judge Hughes, generally agreeing with the position argued in the government’s amicus brief.
The Justice Department told the Federal Circuit (and later the Supreme Court in urging review) that foreign sales may exhaust patent rights unless the patentee reserves its rights, and that Mallinckrodt Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700 (Fed. Cir. 1992), should be overruled because it erroneously held that patentees can impose servitudes on chattels with post-sale restrictions.
Indianapolis, Indiana – Alcon Research, Ltd. of Fort Worth, Texas and Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. of Fribourg, Switzerland filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. They assert infringement of two patents covering Pataday®, an ophthalmic pharmaceutical. Pataday is covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 6,995,186 (the “‘186 patent”) and 7,402,609 (the “‘609 patent”).
Defendant Akorn, Inc., a generic drugmaker based in Lake Forest, Illinois, filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Plaintiffs’ drug prior to the expiration of the two patents-in-suit. Plaintiffs contend that the submission of this ANDA is an act of patent infringement.
In this Indiana complaint, patent lawyers for Alcon ask the court to adjudicate the following:
Indianapolis, Indiana – Klipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. It alleges infringement of several trademarks protecting the Klipsch® mark.
Listed as sole Defendant in this lawsuit is Robert Pignari of Costa Mesa, California, who does business as Main St. Electronics. Pignari also maintains an Amazon.com presence under the name “Audio Video Sales Guy.”
Klipsch accuses Defendant Pignari, who is not an authorized Klipsch distributor, of selling Klipsch products without its permission. Pignari is further accused of removing the correct serial numbers from the shipping boxes of the Klipsch products he sells and replacing them with fake serial numbers. Because Klipsch voids a product’s warranty in such cases, Pignari’s customers have purchased Klipsch products advertised as “brand new” but which carry no warranty from Klipsch.
Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Heartland Consumer Products LLC of Carmel, Indiana filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark and trade dress infringement, trademark dilution and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, as well as related wrongdoing under the Indiana State Trademark Act, the common law of the State of Indiana and the Indiana Crime Victims Act. The intellectual property at issue pertains to Splenda®, a Heartland trademark under which it offers sucralose, a low-calorie sweetener.
Defendants in the litigation are Dunkin’ Brands, Inc. and Dunkin’ Donuts Franchised Restaurants LLC 
of Canton, Massachusetts. They are accused of “deceiving customers into believing the Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants carry Splenda® Brand Sweetener,” by both tacitly and affirmatively misrepresenting that the non-Splenda sucralose product that the Dunkin’ Defendants offer is, in fact, Heartland’s Splenda. Plaintiff contends that consumers were confused about whether the sweetener that the Dunkin’ Defendants offered was Splenda and that some have complained that adding the other sweetener to their Dunkin’ Donuts products imparted a “funny taste.”
Defendants discontinued their agreement to purchase and offer Heartland’s Splenda in April 2016. According to the Indiana complaint, following that decision, Defendants began offering sweetener in yellow packets similar to the single-serving packets in which Splenda is offered to the public. Plaintiff contends that, when asked, Defendants in a “clear majority of stores affirmatively represented, through their agents or employees, that non-Splenda® sucralose sweetener was instead Splenda® Brand Sweetener.” Plaintiff further contends that Dunkin’ Defendants are misappropriating Plaintiff’s trademarked “Sweet Swaps®” by the use of a similar term “Smart Swaps.”
Indianapolis, Indiana – Patent attorneys for Plaintiff Eli Lilly and Company filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement. Defendant is Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC of Lake Zurich, Illinois.
Lilly, an Indianapolis-based company, is a developer and seller of pharmaceutical drugs. One of its drugs, ALIMTA®, is marketed as a chemotherapy agent used for the treatment of various types of cancer.
Fresenius, formerly known as APP Pharmaceuticals, LLC, manufactures and sells generic drugs. Earlier this year, Fresenius amended its Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”), which was previously filed to seek U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval to manufacture three different concentrations of ALIMTA. Through its recent amendment, Fresenius now asks for approval to manufacture and sell a fourth generic version of ALIMTA. Lilly filed this litigation in response.
Hammond and Indianapolis, Indiana – A copyright litigator for Plaintiff ME2 Productions, Inc. of Carson City, Nevada filed three new complaints in Indiana federal courts alleging copyright infringement.
Plaintiff asserts that a total of 25 as-yet-unknown Defendants infringed the copyrighted movie “Mechanic: Resurrection,” which stars Jason Statham, Jessica Alba and Tommy Lee Jones. The movie has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. PA-1-998-057.
In its complaints, Plaintiff contends that Defendants were traced to Internet Protocol addresses in Indiana using geolocation technology. Two lawsuits were filed in the Northern District of Indiana; one was filed in the Southern District of Indiana.
Indianapolis, Indiana – A copyright litigator for Plaintiffs Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”) of New York, New York, as well as Sony/ATV Songs LLC d/b/a Sony/ATV Tree Publishing, Chinquapin Music, Boy Rocking Music, Warner-Tamerlane Publishing Corp., Del Sound Music, and Universal – Songs of Polygram International, Inc., brought a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana asserting copyright infringement.
Plaintiff BMI is a licensor of approximately 10.5 million copyrighted musical compositions. The remaining Plaintiffs own the copyrights to the musical compositions that are at issue in this Indiana lawsuit.
Defendants are Hoosier Daddy’s NCIN, LLC d/b/a Hoosier Daddy’s Bar & Grill and its president, Jeff Burchett of New Castle, Indiana. Plaintiffs state that Burchett is responsible for the operation and management of the business entity and the restaurant.
The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 187 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in October 2016 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:
| Registration No. |
Word Mark | Click To View | |
| 5073335 | FIT & FRESH | TSDR | |
| 5070455 | LARP DISTRIBUTION | TSDR | |
| 5070443 | SUPER HEROES DIRECT | TSDR | |
| 5068794 | AIL | TSDR | |
| 5068747 | POOL-PETS.COM | TSDR | |
| 5059658 | THE MAMALOGUES | TSDR | |
| 5056582 | URBANMONEY | TSDR | |
| 5060603 | DEMANDJUMP | TSDR |
The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 144 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in October 2016, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:
| Patent No. | Title | |
| 1 | D770,038 | Medication injection device |
| 2 | 9,479,641 | System and method for routing a communication utilizing scoring |
| 3 | 9,479,070 | Power conversion system |
| 4 | 9,479,034 | Continuously formed annular laminated article and method for its manufacture |
| 5 | 9,476,824 | Optical chemical classification |
| 6 | 9,476,491 | Lockup clutch for a torque converter |
| 7 | 9,476,487 | Nested endload assembly for a variator |
| 8 | 9,476,377 | System, method, and apparatus for fuel injection control |
| 9 | 9,476,339 | Recessed exhaust reductant injector with cover plate |
| 10 | 9,476,338 | Ammonia sensor control, with NO.sub.x feedback, of an SCR aftertreatment system |
