Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

February 3, 2017

217 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in January 2017

Overhauser Law Offices the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign trademark searches, trademark applications and assists with enforcing trademarks via infringement litigation and licensing.

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 217 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2017 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.	Word Mark	Click To View
5114184	AKESOCARE	TSDR
5113123	AKESOCARE	TSDR
5133813	BIOSTOP	TSDR
5133682	A STUDENT UNION FOR ADULTS	TSDR
5133485	CLOSET CANDY BOUTIQUE	TSDR
5133340	TRUCONTOUR	TSDR

February 2, 2017

Patent Office Issues 216 Patents To Indiana Citizens in January 2017

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 216 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January 2017, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys.
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.

	Patent No.	Title
1	9,560,215	System, method, and computer-readable medium for rebilling a carrier bill
2	9,558,682	Tamper evident security seal
3	9,557,356	Utility meter with wireless pulse output
4	9,557,325	Method of altering the binding specificity of proteins by oxidation-reduction reactions
5	9,557,274	Analytical devices for detection of low-quality pharmaceuticals

January 23, 2017

U.S. Court of Appeals Rules In Lilly’s Favor on Alimta Vitamin Regimen Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld the district court’s decision and ruled in favor of Eli Lilly regarding validity and infringement of the vitamin regimen patent U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 for Alimta® (pemetrexed for injection).

In the case of Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., et al., the court affirmed the earlier district court’s rulings that the vitamin regimen patent is valid and would be infringed by the generic challengers’ proposed products. If the patent is ultimately upheld through all remaining challenges, Alimta would maintain U.S. exclusivity until May 2022, preventing marketing of generic products for as long as the patent remains in force. The Alimta compound patent remains in force through January 24, 2017.

In March 2014, the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana upheld the validity of the vitamin regimen patent. In August 2015, the same court ruled in Lilly’s favor regarding infringement of the vitamin regimen patent.

January 20, 2017

Indiana Court of Appeals Rules on Irreparable Harm in Breach of Non-Compete/Non-Solicitation Agreements

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Marion Superior Court in litigation between two civil engineering firms, Plaintiff American Structurepoint Inc. and Defendant HWC Engineering Inc. Three former employees of ASI, also listed as Defendants in the trial court, were listed in this appeal.

This dispute arose in 2014 when ASI employee Martin Knowles left ASI to join HWC as its vice president of operations. Jonathan Day and David Lancet also left ASI to begin employment at HWC.

These former ASI employees had entered into noncompetition and non-solicitation agreements with ASI. Despite these agreements, ASI contended in a lawsuit filed in Indiana state court that its former employees engaged in various acts prohibited by the agreements. ASI claimed that Day had created a list of ASI employees whom he believed might be interested in leaving to join HWC. ASI also asserted that Day subsequently shared that list with Knowles and called various ASI employees regarding employment with HWC. ASI alleged that a total of six job offers were made by HWC to ASI employees. ASI further introduced evidence that Knowles engaged in prohibited business-development activities with ASI clients to ASI’s detriment.

January 12, 2017

Indiana Cable/Satellite TV Litigation: Fight Promoter Sues Billiard Hall for Interception of Championship Fight

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Terre Haute, Indiana – Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. of Feasterville, Pennsylvania has sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging violations of 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553.

Joe Hand Promotions specializes in distributing and licensing sporting events to commercial locations such as bars and restaurants. It is the exclusive domestic distributor of the Ultimate Fighting Championship® series of mixed-martial-arts fights.

Defendant in the lawsuit is Joseph Brush d/b/a Break Time Billiards of Terre Haute, Indiana. Brush has been accused of illegally intercepting and broadcasting Ultimate Fighting Championship® 198: Werdum v. Miocic, which was telecast nationwide on May 14, 2016.

January 11, 2017

Seventh Circuit Copyright Law: Pro Se Plaintiff Loses Counterfeiting Claim Against Amazon

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, Illinois – The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against Plaintiff Reginald Hart in an intellectual property lawsuit filed against Amazon.com.

Plaintiff Hart, filing pro se, sued Amazon.com, Inc. alleging various state and federal claims, including copyright infringement, aiding and abetting counterfeiting, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hart, the author of two self-published books, Vagabond Natural and Vagabond Spiritual, claimed that Amazon had permitted six counterfeit copies of his books to be advertised for sale and/or sold on its website by third parties. Hart further claimed that Amazon had “forcefully exploited” the books by counterfeiting them “for its own commercial use.” He stated that the books, which detailed his experiences as a homeless man, would have generated “millions of dollars for Amazon” and allowed him “to end homelessness [and not only for himself] both in the U.S. and abroad.”

Hart asserted to the court that he was certain that the books were unauthorized reproductions of his works as they did not bear “indicia of authenticity known only to him.” The indicator that a book was genuine, according to Plaintiff, was his fingernail indentations on the cover of the book. Plaintiff provided photographs purporting to show both authorized copies of Plaintiff’s books and books alleged to be fake. The court, however, concluded that the “two types of book are in all respects identical.”

January 9, 2017

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Klipsch Takes New “Gray Market” Dispute to Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Klipsch Group, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition by a “gray market” seller of Klipsch audio equipment.

Defendant in this Indiana trademark litigation is listed only as “Concealedaudio.com,” as Klipsch indicates that the website’s proprietors “conceal[] their true identity from customers by using drop shipping addresses and registering their domain name through a third party.” Jurisdiction in Indiana is asserted on the grounds that, inter alia, Defendant sells infringing goods in Indiana.

Klipsch contends that Defendant interfered with its intellectual property rights in three Klipsch trademarks. The trademarks at issue are U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 978,949; 2,917,215 and 3,863,511. These registrations, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, cover various forms of the KLIPSCH® trademark.

January 4, 2017

202 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in December 2016

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 202 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in December 2016 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys.

Overhauser Law Offices the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign trademark searches, trademark applications and assists with enforcing trademarks via infringement litigation and licensing.

Registration No.	Word Mark	Click To View
5114675	PROMISE	TSDR
5116297	GROW TUBS	TSDR
5116290	ADOPTION AS A SERVICE	TSDR
5114570	B	TSDR
5114408	HOOPS	TSDR
5114300	AQUAPACER	TSDR

January 3, 2017

Patent Office Issues 169 Patents To Indiana Citizens in December 2016

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 169 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in December 2016, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys.

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.

	Patent No.	Title
1	9,560,215	System, method, and computer-readable medium for rebilling a carrier bill
2	9,558,682	Tamper evident security seal
3	9,557,356	Utility meter with wireless pulse output
4	9,557,325	Method of altering the binding specificity of proteins by oxidation-reduction reactions
5	9,557,274	Analytical devices for detection of low-quality pharmaceuticals

December 30, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Super 8 Sues Former Franchisees for Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Super 8 Worldwide, Inc. f/k/a Super 8 Motels, Inc. of Parsippany, New Jersey sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging trademark infringement and other wrongdoings.

Plaintiff Super 8 operates a franchise system for guest lodging. It claims ownership to the SUPER 8® service mark as well as various related trade names, trademarks and service marks, some of which have been registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. It estimates the value of the entity’s goodwill to exceed hundreds of millions of dollars.

In this Indiana intellectual property lawsuit, Super 8 alleges that former franchisees have violated the terms of a franchise agreement entered into with Super 8. Three Indianapolis Defendants were listed: Auburn Lodging Associates, LLP (“ALA”), Kokila Patel and Dilip Patel. A fourth Defendant Chicago Capital Holdings, LLC (“CCH”) of Hinsdale, Illinois was also named.