Lancaster, South CarolinaNutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. (collectively known as “Nutramax”) have filed suit against Indiana company, Abumayyaleh Bros, LLC.  The Plaintiffs allege multiple intellectual property violations including trademark infringement, unfair competition, and tortious interference with contractual relationships.

Pic-226x300According to the complaint, Nutramax contends that Abumayyaleh Bros, LLC is reselling Nutramax products, specifically their Proviable®-DC Digestive Health Supplement Capsules, on Amazon without authorization. The Plaintiffs are concerned that the products bear Nutramax’s well-known trademarks, such as PROVIABLE and NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, but do not adhere to the stringent storage, distribution, and customer support standards set by Nutramax for its authorized resellers.

Nutramax asserts that the defendants’ unauthorized use of their trademarks constitutes a trademark infringement violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)). By selling products under the Nutramax Marks without authorization, the Plaintiffs claim the defendants are causing consumer confusion regarding the source and authenticity of the products.

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following  182 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in July 2024 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration Number Wordmark
7459695 INGATE SOLUTIONS YOUR VISION. OUR MISSION.
7448640 SIMCO OF SOUTHERN INDIANA
7464312 FREE PRESS INDIANA
7451751 VODKA SPLASH
7446480 ABC

Continue reading

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following xxx patents to persons and businesses in Indiana in June 2024:

Patent Number                                                                     Patent Title 
US 12016952 B2 Methods of preparing a monodisperse oligo(ethylene glycol) reagent composition
US 12016600 B2 Orthopedic compression plate and method of surgery
US 12018263 B2 Optimal maize loci
US 12021462 B2 Systems and methods for controlling an electric motor
US 12017788 B2 Windmill synchronization in an electric propulsion system

Continue reading

Eli Lilly and Company, a leader in pharmaceutical innovation for nearly 150 years, has filed legal complaints against more than six medical spas and wellness centers for selling products that claim to contain Tirzepatide, the active ingredient in its popular diabetes and weight loss medications, MOUNJARO® and ZEPBOUND®. The complaints allege multiple infringements under federal and state laws, aimed at safeguarding patients from deceptive practices surrounding the FDA-approved medications.Pic

According to the suits, MOUNJARO® and ZEPBOUND ® were developed through rigorous clinical trials and FDA approval processes. However, Lilly claims that the drugs offered by the Defendants in the cases are compounded products—neither tested nor approved by the FDA.

The lawsuit contends that the Defendants have deliberately misled consumers by creating the false impression that their products are equivalent to Lilly’s MOUNJARO® and ZEPBOUND®. This deception is allegedly propagated through deceptive advertising, including the use of Lilly’s trademarks without authorization, and misleading claims about the safety and approval status of their compounded drugs.

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following  179 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in June 2024 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration Number                                   Wordmark
7404836 MN
7409773 FINANCIAL SERVICES BUILT FOR HARDWORKING PEOPLE
7430759 INDIANA ANESTHESIA SOLUTIONS
7417920 ADDICTIVELY TOXIC
7417161 THANK YOU FOR BEING SUCH AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF MY STORY
7422200 WEBSTONE

Continue reading

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 192 patents to persons and businesses in Indiana in May 2024:

PATENT NUMBER                                               PATENT TITLE
US 11995034 B2 Hierarchical tags with community-based ratings
US 11992228 B2 Reciprocating rasps for use in an orthopaedic surgical procedure
US 11993124 B2 Side-by-side vehicle
US 11993954 B2 Mortise and multipoint latching assembly
US 11992611 B2 Respiratory therapy apparatus control
US 11996582 B2 Separators for VRLA batteries and methods relating thereto

Continue reading

Judge-Collins-183x300Fort Wayne, Indiana – United States Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins has announced her plans to retire in July 2025, culminating a distinguished thirty-seven-year career in public service. Judge Collins has served nearly a decade as a Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana. Her career includes twelve years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Hammond and sixteen years as a prosecuting attorney for the Lake County Prosecutor’s Office, where she handled numerous complex and high-profile federal and state criminal cases.

Judge Collins graduated from Drake University School of Law and DePauw University. She has also contributed to legal education as an Adjunct Professor of Law at Valparaiso University School of Law, teaching trial practice. Her exemplary service has been recognized with several awards, including the Meritorious Public Service Award and the Director’s Award for Superior Performance as an Assistant United States Attorney.

Chief Judge Brady praised Judge Collins, stating, “The judges of the Northern District of Indiana are grateful for Magistrate Judge Collins’ service to the Court. Her well-deserved retirement marks the end of an admirable career of public service.”

Eli Lilly and Co., together with POINT Biopharma, are facing a lawsuit accusing them of willful infringement of a cancer treatment patent held by the Purdue Research Foundation. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that the defendants have infringed on patents related to radiotherapeutic drugs for prostate cancer, particularly focusing on POINT’s drug PNT2002. Pic-1

The Purdue Research Foundation, along with co-plaintiffs Endocyte Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., claims that POINT’s PNT2002 infringes on U.S. Patent 10,624,970, which covers treatments targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). The plaintiffs assert that POINT’s actions have caused substantial damage and are seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Lilly’s spokesperson stated that the lawsuit lacks merit and expressed confidence in defending against the claims. The case, assigned to District Judge Richard Young and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker, is documented under Case No. 1:24-cv-01011.

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 217 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in May 2024 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration         Number           Wordmark
7377089 M MERCHANTS BANK OF INDIANA
7377091 MERCHANTS BANK OF INDIANA
7377090 M MERCHANTS BANK OF INDIANA
7383748 GUIDED PATHWAYS
7383753 GAME CHANGERS

Continue reading

PicThe court’s recent opinion by Justice Massa in Illinois Casualty Company (ICC) v. Thirty-Three Models addresses the key question of “Who decides?” in the context of arbitrability, focusing on whether disputes should be resolved by arbitration or through the courts based on the parties’ agreements. This case exemplifies an intellectual property law dispute centered on the right of publicity, which protects an individual’s identity from unauthorized commercial exploitation. The right of publicity grants individuals exclusive authority to license their own identity for commercial purposes, safeguarding their name, likeness, and other recognizable aspects from being used without permission for profit. By addressing the misuse of a person’s identity for commercial gain, this case shows the importance of upholding intellectual property rights to ensure individuals retain control over how their identity is used in the marketplace.

The main issue explored in this opinon is who has the authority to decide if a dispute must be resolved through arbitration. The court considered two primary questions:

  1. Does incorporating American Arbitration Association (AAA) rules indicate a clear intent to delegate arbitrability to an arbitrator.
Contact Information