Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

July 22, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Adds Mylan to List of Defendants Accused of Infringing Alimta

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Mylan Laboratories Limited of Hyderabad, India; Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Morgantown, West Virginia; and Mylan Inc. of Canonsburg, Pennsylvania (collectively, “Mylan”) infringed Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the 209 patent”), which covers the pharmaceutical product Alimta®.

Lilly is engaged in the business of research, development, manufacture and sale of pharmaceuticals worldwide. Alimta, which is licensed to Lilly, is a chemotherapy agent used for the treatment of various types of cancer. Alimta is composed of the pharmaceutical chemical pemetrexed disodium. It is indicated, in combination with cisplatin, (a) for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, or (b) for the initial treatment of locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer.

The drug is also indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy. Additionally, Alimta is used for maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after four cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. One or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 cover a method of administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need thereof that also involves administration of folic acid and vitamin B12.

This Indiana patent infringement lawsuit arises out of the filing by Defendants of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of Alimta prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Defendants included as a part their ANDA filing a certification of the type described in Section 505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 55(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), with respect to the ‘209 patent, asserting that the claims of the ‘209 patent are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of Defendants’ ANDA products.

In its patent infringement complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, Lilly states that Defendants intends to engage in the manufacture, use, offer for sale and/or sale of Defendants’ ANDA Products and the proposed labeling therefor immediately and imminently upon approval their ANDA filing, i.e., prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Lilly asserts that Defendants’ actions constitute and/or will constitute infringement of the ‘209 patent, active inducement of infringement of the ‘209 patent, and contribution to the infringement by others of the ‘209 patent.

Lilly lists a single count in this lawsuit – infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 – and asks the court for:

a) A judgment that Mylan has infringed the ‘209 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of the ‘209 patent;
b) A judgment ordering that the effective date of any FDA approval for Mylan to make, use, offer for sale, sell, market, distribute, or import Mylan’s ANDA Product, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, be not earlier than the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;
c) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Mylan, and all persons acting in concert with Mylan, from making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing Mylan’s ANDA Product, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, or the inducement of or contribution to any of the foregoing, prior to the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;
d) A judgment declaring that making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing of Mylan’s ANDA Product, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, prior to the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, infringes, will infringe, will actively induce infringement of, and/or will contribute to the infringement by other of the ‘209 patent; and

e) A declaration that this is an exceptional case and an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285.

Practice Tip: Lilly has also sued all Mylan Defendants for patent infringement of Effient®. It has also won a lawsuit, which was heard by the Federal Circuit, against Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. for infringing the patented Strattera®.

July 20, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Trademark Infringement Litigation to Proceed in Federal Court

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana state court complaint filed by Indiana trademark attorneys for 7E Fit Spa Licensing Group LLC, 7E Holdings 1 LLC, and 7E LLC was removed to the Indianapolis Division of the Southern District of Indiana upon the request of trademark lawyers for Defendants 7EFS of Highlands Ranch, LLC, Spectrum Medspa, Gordon Smith and Jane Smith.

Plaintiffs contend that they entered into various agreements with Defendants, including licensing and operating agreements, and that Defendants breached portions of one or more of the agreements in the operation of Defendants’ Littleton, Colorado business establishment.

Defendants are accused of violating the Lanham Act – 15 U.S.C. § 1114(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and 15 U.S.C. § l 125(c) – as well as common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of contract, tortious interference, breach of fiduciary duties and conversion.

July 14, 2015

House Judiciary Committee Approves Patent Reform Bill by Substantial, Bipartisan Vote

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee recently approved the Innovation Act (H.R. 9) by a vote of 24-8. This bipartisan bill takes steps to combat the ever-increasing problem of abusive patent litigation. The legislation addresses abusive practices taking place in federal courts.

The Innovation Act is supported by a wide range of groups that include stakeholders from all areas of the economy representing businesses of all kinds from every corner of the United States, including independent inventors and innovators.

Key Components of the Innovation Act include:

July 13, 2015

Seventh Circuit Copyright Litigation: Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, Illinois – Richard Bell, an Indiana copyright attorney and professional photographer appealed a ruling by the United States District for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

In this copyright lawsuit, Bell, a repeat Plaintiff in the federal courts of Indiana, alleged copyright infringement by multiple Defendants in a lawsuit that he filed on his own behalf in the Southern District of Indiana. He asserted that each Defendant had impermissibly displayed a photo that he owns on websites promoting their respective businesses. His copyright infringement complaint sought both damages and an injunction prohibiting future use of the photo.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on the issue of damages. The district court found that Bell could not demonstrate how Defendants had caused him financial harm and, thus, Bell was entitled to no monetary recovery. After that ruling, the trial court issued a judgment against Bell, which Bell appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

The Seventh Circuit declined to hear the matter on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction, noting that the district court had ruled on the issue of damages but not on the issue of injunctive relief. The appellate court would not have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 until a “final decision” had been reached. In turn, such a “final decision” required that the litigation had been concluded on its merits.

Practice Tip: Bell’s approach here is curious. First, he appealed the district court’s ruling. Then, he apparently argued to the Seventh Circuit that his own appeal was premature because the district court’s judgment had not been final. As the appellate court noted, “Bell is correct: the court did not resolve his claims for injunctive relief. As such, the district court’s ruling was not final, and Bell’s appeal is premature.”

Practice Tip: Richard Bell has sued hundreds of defendants for copyright infringement in the Indiana federal courts. Previous blog posts regarding his litigation include:

• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Base FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

July 10, 2015

Patent Quality Chat Webinar: Face-to-Face Examiner Interviews and a Demonstration of USPTO Tools

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Alexandria, Virginia – The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) will hold its next in a series of Patent Quality Chats on Tuesday, July 14th, with its second Chat on this month’s topic – Face-to-Face Examiner Interviews: A Demonstration of USPTO Tools hosted by Director of Technology Center 2400 Timothy Callahan. Mr. Callahan will be demonstrating USPTO tools for virtual, face-to-face interviews and discussing various initiatives for enhancing the quality of Examiner-Applicant interviews while collecting feedback and listening for new stakeholder ideas on the same.

The USPTO held its first Patent Quality Chat webinar in June; that month’s topic was Clarity of the Record, hosted by Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Drew Hirshfeld. Deputy Commissioner Hirshfeld discussed various patent examiner training modules covering the topics of 35 U.S.C § 112, functional claiming, and making the record clear; he also reviewed the Clarity of the Record Quality Initiative. A video recording of this 1-hour inaugural event can be found here and is also linked on the USPTO’s Patent Quality Chat webpage where the slide presentation from the June 9th event can also be found.

Regularly scheduled on the second Tuesday of each month, these Patent Quality Chats are a lunchtime webinar series designed to provide information on various patent quality topics and to continue the dialogue between the USPTO and its stakeholders about enhancing patent quality.

July 9, 2015

Patent Office Issues 194 Patents To Indiana Citizens in June 2015

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 194 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in June 2015, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

PAT. NO.		Title
D733,329		Wall panel
D733,328		Wall panel
9071116		Apparatus for installing stator winding conductors
9070987		Connector with secure wafer retention
9070518		Starter system
9070023		System and method of alerting a driver that visual perception of pedestrian may be difficult
9068949		System and method for multiplex spectroscopic imaging
9068338		Lift station flow diverter and method of using same
9068123		Multipurpose coke plant for synthetic fuel production
9068038		Extrudable pressure sensitive adhesive composition and methods for preparing the same

July 7, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly and Lupin in Federal Court Anew, Patent Infringement of Axiron Now Alleged

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – In conjunction with non-Indiana co-counsel, an Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company, Eli Lilly Export S.A. (collectively, “Lilly”) and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd., sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Lupin Ltd. of Mubai, India and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland infringed on various of Plaintiffs’ patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520. These patents have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lilly is engaged in the business of research, development, manufacture and sale of

pharmaceutical products worldwide. Acrux is engaged in the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products. They sell their products worldwide. The Lupin Defendants are generic pharmaceutical companies that develop, manufacture, market, and distribute generic pharmaceutical products for sale.

At issue in this patent litigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520. These patents are alleged to cover a testosterone metered transdermal solution used to treat males for conditions associated with a deficiency or absence of endogenous testosterone. This pharmaceutical product, trademarked as Axiron®, is marketed and sold by Lilly.

Plaintiffs contend that the Abbreviated New Drug Application No. 208061 submitted in the name of Lupin Ltd. to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval to market a generic version of Lilly’s Axiron product constitutes patent infringement.

In its complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, Lilly alleges the following counts:

• Count I for Patent Infringement: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,419,307
• Count II for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,419,307
• Count III for Patent Infringement: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,419,307
• Count IV for Patent Infringement: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,177,449
• Count V for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,177,449
• Count VI for Patent Infringement: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,177,449
• Count VII for Patent Infringement: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944
• Count VIII for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944
• Count IX for Patent Infringement: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944
• Count X for Patent Infringement: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,807,861
• Count XI for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,807,861
• Count XII for Patent Infringement: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,807,861
• Count XIII for Patent Infringement: Direct Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,993,520
• Count XIV for Patent Infringement: Inducement To Infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,993,520
• Count XV for Patent Infringement: Contributory Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,993,520
• Count XVI for Declaratory Judgment: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,419,307
• Count XVII for Declaratory Judgment: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,177,449
• Count XVIII for Declaratory Judgment: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,435,944
• Count XIX for Declaratory Judgment: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,807,861

• Count XX for Declaratory Judgment: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,993,520

Plaintiffs ask the court for judgment in their favor as follows:

a) United States Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520 are valid and enforceable;
b) Under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)(A), Defendants infringed United States Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520 by submitting ANDA No. 208061 to the FDA to obtain approval to commercially manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell, or import into the United States Lupin’s Generic Product prior to expiration of said patents;
c) Defendants’ threatened acts of commercial manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale in, or importation into, the United States of Lupin’s Generic Product prior to the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520 would constitute infringement of said patents;
d) The effective date of any FDA approval of Lupin’s Generic Product shall be no earlier than the latest of the expiration date of United States Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520 and any additional periods of exclusivity, in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A)
e) Defendants, and all persons acting in concert with Defendants, shall be enjoined from commercially manufacturing, using, offering for sale, or selling Lupin’s Generic Product within the United States, or importing Lupin’s Generic Product into the United States, until the expiration of United States Patent Nos. 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,435,944; 8,807,861; and 8,993,520 in accordance with 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(e)(4)(B) and 283;) This is an exceptional case and Plaintiffs should be awarded their costs, expenses, and disbursements in this action, including reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 285 and 271(e)(4); and

g) Plaintiffs are entitled to any further appropriate relief under 35 U.S.C.§ 271(e)(4).

The case was assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-01047-SEB-DML.

Practice Tip: Information on Lilly’s lawsuit against the Lupin Defendants, which asserts patent infringement relating to the drug Effient, can be found here.

July 2, 2015

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana copyright lawyer and professional photographer Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed a federal intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana. He alleges copyright infringement by Randolph Ventures, LLC of Peoria, Illinois. At issue is a copyrighted photo of the Indianapolis skyline taken by Bell that has been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office.

In 2000, Plaintiff Bell photographed the downtown Indianapolis skyline. Bell indicates in this Indiana complaint that the photo has been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office as Registration Number VA0001785115.

In this Indiana lawsuit for copyright infringement, Bell asserts that Defendant Randolph Ventures used Bell’s copyrighted image without permission when it displayed the photo to advertise its business on the Internet at http://webdesign309.com/indianapolis/. Bell claims that the limited liability company that he sued “willfully and recklessly falsely claimed that he owned the copyrights of all images and photos” contained on that website, including Bell’s photo of Indianapolis. Bell asserts that Defendant has thus profited from the use of the copyrighted photo.

In this single-defendant lawsuit, Bell contends that “as a direct and proximate result of their wrongful conduct, Defendants have [sic] realized and continue to realize profits and other benefits rightfully belonging to Plaintiff.” The acts in question are alleged to have been committed willfully and deliberately and with oppression, fraud, and malice.

In this federal complaint, which copyright attorney Bell filed on his own behalf, counts of copyright infringement and unfair competition are asserted. Bell asks for an accounting of all gains, profits and advantages derived by Defendant Randolph Ventures as a result of the alleged infringement and for statutory and/or actual damages. He also seeks reimbursement of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Richard Bell has sued hundreds of defendants for copyright infringement in the Indiana federal courts. Previous blog posts regarding his litigation include:

• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Base FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

July 1, 2015

156 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in June 2015

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 156 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in June 2015 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.	Word Mark	Click To View
4762035	EASY, DO-IT-YOURSELF SIGNS, FREE, SIGNCREATOR DEFLECTO.COM/SIGNCREATOR, ONLINE, CUSTOMIZABLE TEMPLATES	VIEW
4760442	PREPARED TO BE A PIONEER	VIEW
4760361	M.E.T.A.: MAPPING EDUCATION TOWARDS ACHIEVEMENT	VIEW
4760354	OPOCOFI BREWING	VIEW
4760110	MS	VIEW
4760087	F.A.D.E:	VIEW
4760077	WHERE BEAUTIFUL THINGS BEGIN	VIEW
4759863	3 FLOYDS	VIEW
4759737	MOVE YOUR FEET SO OTHERS CAN EAT	VIEW
4759647	LIVEGREENANDPROSPER	VIEW

June 29, 2015

Seventh Circuit Trademark Law: District Court Has Discretion Regarding Award of Attorneys’ Fees Under Lanham Act

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, Illinois – The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act by the District Court for the Southern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff William Burford and Defendant Accounting Practice Sales, Inc. (“APS”) were parties to a contract under which Burford had agreed to market and facilitate the purchase and sale of accounting practices on behalf of APS. APS terminated the contract. Shortly thereafter, Burford started a competing business. For this business, Burford chose the name “American Accounting Practice Sales.” Burford also sued APS and Gary Holmes, the owner of APS, for breach of contract.

In response to Burford’s contract-claims lawsuit, APS filed a four-count counterclaim. Included in those counterclaims was an allegation that Burford had misappropriated APS’s trade name in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. by using the business name “American Accounting Practice Sales.”

The district court held for APS on the contract claim, reasoning that the contract between the parties was of indefinite duration and was therefore terminable at will. After this ruling in favor of APS, but before the district court could consider the counterclaim, APS voluntarily dismissed its counterclaim under the Lanham Act with prejudice.

Burford then contended that, as the prevailing party on the Lanham Act claim, he was entitled to attorneys’ fees under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), asserting that APS’s pursuit of the Lanham Act claim was meritless and amounted to an abuse of process. The district court refused to grant attorneys’ fees on the theory that APS’s claim under the Lanham Act claim could have been pursued by a rational party seeking to protect its trademark.

Burford appealed. As part of his appeal, he asked the Seventh Circuit to reverse the district court’s denial of his request for attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act. Circuit Judges William J. Bauer and David F. Hamilton, and District Court Judge Sara L. Ellis, sitting by designation, heard the matter.

The Seventh Circuit first held that the district court had erred in holding that the contract had not been breached. While indefinite-term contracts are by default terminable at will, it noted that the parties had contracted around that general rule by providing that APS could terminate the contract only if Burford violated the terms of the contract. On this issue, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court.

On the question of attorneys’ fees, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)(3), district courts have the discretion to award attorneys’ fees to those prevailing under the Act in “exceptional cases.” Such an “exceptional case” within the meaning of the Lanham Act can be found in those cases where the district court determines that the decision to bring the claim could be called an abuse of process.

In turn, such an abuse of process can be discerned in cases where, for example, “a rational litigant would pursue [the claim] only because it would impose disproportionate costs on his opponent” or where there was evidence that the party advancing the Lanham Act claim had done so “to obtain an advantage unrelated to obtaining a favorable judgment.”

The Seventh Circuit noted that Burford had failed to persuade the district court that the pursuit of the claim was objectively unreasonable or was intended to harass or to obtain an advantage unrelated to winning a favorable judgment. Consequently, because decision whether to award attorneys’ fees under the Lanham Act is left to the district court’s sound discretion, the lower court’s refusal to grant such fees was affirmed.