Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

June 12, 2015

USPTO to Host Additive Manufacturing Partnership Meeting

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) will host an Additive Manufacturing Partnership Meeting on Wednesday, July 8, 2015 on the Alexandria campus. Additive manufacturing, sometimes called “3D printing,” refers to a group of new technologies that create objects from 3D computer models, usually by joining thin materials, layer upon layer. The meeting will serve as a forum for sharing ideas, experiences, and insights between individual users and representatives from the USPTO.

Additive manufacturing is used in the fields of jewelry, footwear, architecture, engineering and construction, automotive, aerospace, dental and medical industries, education, geographic information systems, civil engineering, and many others.

What: Additive Manufacturing Partnership Meeting

June 11, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Eco Elettrocomponenti Alleges Sale of Counterfeit Lights by National Supply

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – An Indiana trademark lawyer for Eco Elettrocomponenti SRL of Reggio Emilia, Italy (“Eco”) filed a trademark-infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that National Supply of Green Bay, Wisconsin sold counterfeit Eco products.

Plaintiff Eco is a manufacturer and supplier of components for lighting attractions. Among its products are cabochon lenses commonly referred to as “Star Lights.” Eco claims that its Star Light cabochon lenses have a distinct physical appearance and configuration. Eco indicates that it owns a trademark, Registration Number 4,401,967, for this distinct configuration.

Defendant National Supply sells specialty lighting and electrical products, including cabochon lenses. National Supply has been accused of having purchased counterfeit Star Lights for resale to consumers. In January 2015, a U.S.-based distributor of Eco’s Star Light contacted National Supply to discuss National Supply’s Internet sales of lenses advertised as Star Light lenses. Eco indicates that, in response to this discussion, National Supply voluntarily agreed not to sell Star Lights.

Eco contends that the sale of such lights by National Supply is nonetheless ongoing, stating that “National Supply offers for sale counterfeit ECO products.” Eco, via its Indiana trademark attorney, has sued National Supply, asserting that National Supply intentionally, knowingly, and willfully purchased and redistributed counterfeit Eco products. This trademark lawsuit asks the Indiana court for actual and/or statutory damages; a finding that this is an exceptional case meriting an award of costs, including attorneys’ fees and enhanced damages; and for injunctive relief.

June 10, 2015

Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation: DISH Network Accuses Indiana Resident of Piracy

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Intellectual property attorneys for DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and NagraStar L.L.C., all of Englewood, Colorado (collectively, “DISH Network”), filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Danny Abner of Paris Crossing, Indiana illegally intercepted, decrypted and viewed DISH Network satellite programming.

Defendant Abner has been accused by DISH Network of “circumventing DISH Network’s security system and receiving DISH Network’s satellite broadcasts of copyrighted television programming without payment of the required subscription fee.” This intellectual property lawsuit, brought in the Southern District of Indiana, claims Abner violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605 et seq., and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.

According to DISH Network, Abner’s piracy occurred via the use of Nfusion Private Server (“NFPS”), a television-pirating service. Francis Philip, a/k/a Vgiddy, sold subscriptions to the NFPS service. Philip provided DISH Network with copies of his business records pertaining to Abner, which showed that Abner had purchased one or more subscriptions to the piracy service in 2012.

Through the NFPS piracy service, Abner allegedly obtained DISH Network’s digital “keys,” which he used to decrypt and view DISH Network programming. The type of piracy of which Abner is accused, Internet key sharing, is still possible despite DISH Network’s latest generation of security technology.

In the complaint, filed by intellectual property lawyers for DISH Network, the following counts are alleged:

• Count I: Circumventing an Access Control Measure in Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)
• Count II: Receiving Satellite Signals Without Authorization in Violation of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a)

• Count III: Intercepting Satellite Signals in Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a) and 2520

DISH Network seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reimbursement for DISH Network’s costs, attorneys’ fees, and investigative expenses.

June 9, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Donaldson Co. Sues Action Filtration Alleging Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for Donaldson Company, Inc. of Bloomington, Minnesota, (“Donaldson”) commenced an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Action Filtration, Inc. of Hope, Indiana infringed Patent No. 6,488,746, “Air Filter Assembly Having Non-Cylindrical Filter Elements for Filtering Air With Particulate Matter”; Patent No. D499,177, “Filter Element Having Oval Shape”; and Patent No. 7,264,656, “Air Filter Assembly Having Non-Cylindrical Filter Elements for Filtering Air With Particulate Matter,” which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Plaintiff Donaldson, established in 1915, is a worldwide provider of filtration systems and replacement parts. Defendant Action Filtration designs and manufactures replacement filters for dust collection and liquid filtration.

At issue in this Indiana patent lawsuit are three patents, to which Donaldson claims ownership: United States Patent No. 6,488,746 (“the ‘746 patent”), United States Design Patent No. D499,177 (“the ‘177 patent”) and United States Patent No. 7,264,656 (“the ‘656 patent”).

In this Indiana complaint, filed by patent lawyers for Donaldson, the following is alleged:

• Count I: Infringement of the ‘746 Patent
• Count II: Infringement of the ‘177 Patent

• Count III: Infringement of the ‘656 Patent

Donaldson asks the court for injunctive relief; compensatory damages; an award of Action Filtration’s total profits derived from infringement of the ‘177 Patent; and a declaration that the case is exceptional, to include an award to Donaldson of its attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs associated with this patent lawsuit pursuant to such a declaration.

June 5, 2015

Indiana Trademark and Patent Litigation: Simpson Sues Two Indiana Individuals Alleging Patent Infringement and Counterfeiting

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Trademark and patent attorneys for Simpson Performance Products, Inc. of Mooresville, North Carolina (“Simpson”) and SFI Foundation, Inc. of Poway, California (“SFI”) commenced trademark litigation in the Western District of North Carolina alleging that Robert Wagoner of North Judson, Indiana and Derek Randall Cathcart of Valparaiso, Indiana infringed the SIMPSON® family of trademarks, some of which have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office. The case was transferred to the Northern District of Indiana. Among the trademarks at issue are U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4,117,821; 1,243,427; 3,026,333; 3,026,334; and 3,050,920. Also at issue are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,931,669 and 8,272,074.

Plaintiff Simpson is a manufacturer of automotive and motorsports specialty/performance products, including head and neck restraints for competitive racing. The Simpson brand of automotive and motorsports products has existed 1959. Plaintiff SFI was established to develop and administer minimum performance standards for the automotive aftermarket and motorsports industries, including standards for specialty/performance racing equipment.

Simpson offers for sale the SIMPSON® Hybrid PRO Rage™ head and neck restraint. Simpson indicates that this product is one of the few such devices to be certified under a special classification, SFI SPEC 38.1, for use in NASCAR competitions.

Defendants Wagoner and Carthcart have been accused of engaging in the business of providing specialty/performance racing equipment, including head and neck restraints that are counterfeit versions of Simpson products. Plaintiffs contend that Wagoner is offering counterfeit head and neck restraints through ebay.com. Plaintiffs allege that Cathcart offers counterfeit head and neck restraints via the website racingjunk.com.

These restraints, Plaintiffs contend, bear trademarks owned by Simpson, including the SIMPSON® federally registered trademark as well as the HUTCHENS Hybrid PRO™ and Hybrid PRO™ common law trademarks.

The accused products also allegedly bear a label that falsely states, “This product designed & manufactured by Safety Solutions, Inc. PATENT NO.: 6931669; other patents pending.” According to Plaintiffs, the alleged counterfeiting activities of Defendants also constitute patent infringement.

In this lawsuit, filed by patent and trademark lawyers for Plaintiffs, the following causes of action are listed:

• Trademark Infringement
• Unfair Competition under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); False Designation of Origin; False or Misleading Advertising
• Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices under N.C. [North Carolina] Gen. Stat. § 75-1.1
• Patent Infringment [sic]

• Common Law Fraud

Plaintiffs ask for a finding in their favor on each of the counts alleged, including a finding that the conduct was knowing and willful, and entry against each Defendant jointly and severally. Plaintiffs seek costs, attorneys’ fees and damages, including enhanced damages, as well as injunctive relief.

This federal trademark complaint was initially filed in the Western District of North Carolina in February 2015. In May 2015, District Judge Richard Voorhees ordered it to be transferred to the Northern District of Indiana, finding that the North Carolina court lacked personal jurisdiction over Defendants.

June 4, 2015

151 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in May 2015

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 151 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in May 2015 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.	Word Mark	Click To View
4741943	NATIONAL SELECT 7 ON 7 CHAMPIONSHIPS	VIEW
4741942	NATIONAL SELECT 7 ON 7 CHAMPIONSHIPS	VIEW
4745478	POND MAPPING CALCULATOR	VIEW
4743607	CHRISTMAS COAL	VIEW
4743447	EZWRENCH	VIEW
4743127	INFORMED EMPLOYER BRIEFING	VIEW
4743064	LANARK WALLCOVERING	VIEW
4742912	PINWHEEL SCHOOL PORTRAITS	VIEW

June 3, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lippert Components Sued on Allegations of Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Elkhart, Indiana – Indiana patent lawyers for LTI Holdings, Inc. of Modesto, California (“LTI”) filed a patent-infringement complaint in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Lippert Components, Inc. of Elkhart, Indiana (“Lippert”) infringed Patent Nos. 6,966,590 for a “Two-Part Seal for a Slide-Out Room,” 7,614,676 for a “Resilient Seal for Mobile Living Quarters,” and 7,614,677 for a “Seal Assembly for Mobile Living Quarters.” These patents have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Indiana-based Lippert, a subsidiary of Drew Industries, is a large supplier serving the recreational vehicle, manufactured housing, trailer, and bus industries. It offers a line of products dedicated to improving the mobile lifestyle.

Three patents – Patent Nos. 6,966,590 (“the ‘590 patent”), 7,614,676 (“the ‘676 patent”) and 7,614,677 (“the ‘677 patent”) – are at issue in this federal intellectual property lawsuit. Defendant Lippert has been accused of making, offering for sale and/or selling products that infringe upon one or more of these patents. Some of these activities purportedly occurred on two or more recreational vehicles manufactured by facilities in Indiana.

The first accused product is a two-part seal that allegedly infringes one or more claims of the ‘590 patent. The second and third accused products, both “Slide Armor” seals, purportedly infringe as many as all of the patents-in-suit.

A cease-and-desist letter was sent to Jason Lippert, the CEO of Defendant, in March 2015. Plaintiff contends that, despite this letter and the communications that followed, Defendant’s manufacture, offer for sale, and sale of each of the accused products has continued.

In this Indiana complaint, patent attorneys for LTI assert the following claims:

• Count 1: Direct Infringement of the ‘590 Patent
• Count 2: Direct Infringement of the ‘676 Patent
• Count 3: Direct Infringement of the ‘677 Patent
• Count 4: Induced Infringement of the ‘590 Patent

• Count 5: Contributory Infringement of the ‘590 Patent

Plaintiff asks the court to enter a judgment:

a) declaring the ‘590 patent is directly infringed by Defendant;
b) declaring the Defendant induced infringement of the ‘590 patent;
c) declaring the Defendant has contributorily infringed the ‘590 patent;
d) declaring Defendant’s infringement of the ‘590 patent has been willful;
e) declaring Defendant be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from manufacturing, using, selling, and offering to sell the infringing products in the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘590 patent;
f) awarding damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘590 patent including lost profits, but in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty, and that such damages be trebled according to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
g) declaring the ‘676 patent is directly infringed by Defendant;
h) declaring Defendant’s infringement of the ‘676 patent has been willful;
i) declaring Defendant be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from manufacturing, using, selling and offering to sell the infringing products in the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘676 patent;
j) awarding damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘676 patent including lost profits, but in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty, and that such damages be trebled according to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
k) declaring the ‘677 patent is directly infringed by Defendant;
l) declaring Defendant’s infringement of the ‘677 patent has been willful;
m) declaring Defendant be preliminarily and permanently enjoined from manufacturing, using, selling, and offering to sell the infringing products in the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘677 patent;
n) awarding damages adequate to compensate Plaintiff for Defendant’s infringement of the ‘677 patent including lost profits, but in an amount no less than a reasonable royalty, and that such damages be trebled according to 35 U.S.C. § 284; and

o) awarding all costs and expenses of this action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

June 1, 2015

Patent Office Issues 162 Patents To Indiana Citizens in May 2015

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 162 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in May 2015, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

PAT. NO.		Title
D730,410		Spreader output tray
D730,298		Electrical connector
9043840		Method and a system for television display of web feed content
9043061		Methods, systems, and apparatuses for driveline load management
9043060		Methods, systems, and apparatuses for driveline load management
9042964		System and method for fiducial deployment via slotted needle
9041546		System and method for position detection
9041440		Graphene-based frequency tripler
9041260		Cooling system and method for an electronic machine
9040824		Twinaxial cable and twinaxial cable ribbon

May 29, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Starmark Funeral Products Sues Matthews International Alleging Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for Vandor Corporation d/b/a Starmark Funeral Products of Richmond, Indiana filed a patent-infringement complaint in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Matthews International Corporation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and Matthews International – Cremation Division of Apopka, Florida (collectively, “Matthews”) infringed Patent No. 8,104,151, entitled “Lightweight Casket Having Foldable Features,” which has been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff Vandor claims ownership of United States Patent No. 8,104,151 (“the ‘151 Patent”). Vandor indicates in this intellectual property complaint that it has sold a cremation-insert product that embodies claims of the ‘151 Patent since at least 2009.

Defendants are accused of the manufacture, use, offer for sale, and/or sale of the “Matthews Cremation Fold-Down Rental Insert,” which Vandor contends directly infringes at least claim 1 of the ‘151 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.

Plaintiff also claims that Matthews intended to induce patent infringement by others as well as has contributorily infringed the ‘151 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents. Finally, Vandor contends that Matthews been aware that it has been infringing since approximately January 2015. Consequently, Matthews’ alleged infringement has been labeled as “willful and deliberate” by Plaintiff.

The Indiana patent lawyers for Plaintiff ask the Southern District of Indiana to:

• Declare that United States Letters Patent 8,104,151 was duly and legally issued, is valid and is enforceable;
• Enter judgment that Defendants have infringed at least claim 1 of the ‘151 Patent;
• Enter judgment that Defendants have induced infringement of at least claim 1 of the ‘151 Patent;
• Enter judgment that Defendants have contributed to infringement of at least claim 1 of the ‘151 Patent;
• Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Defendants and their agents, from any further sales or use of their infringing products and any other infringement of claims of the ‘151 Patent, whether direct or indirect, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 283;
• Award damages to compensate Vandor for Defendants’ infringement of the claims of the ‘151 Patent pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
• Award enhanced damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284;
• Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs to Vandor in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 284; and

• Deem this to be an “exceptional” case within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, entitling Vandor to an award of its reasonable attorney fees, expenses and costs in this action.

May 28, 2015

New EFF “404” Report Shows How Restrictive Copyright Policies Stifle Online Speech Worldwide

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

San Francisco, California – Overly-broad intellectual property (“IP”) laws in Russia, Colombia, and Pakistan – which U.S. trade regulators say aren’t tough enough – stifle access to innovation and threaten artists, students, and creators around the globe with prison, censorship, and state prosecution, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) said in a new report released recently.

EFF’s “Special 404 Report” is a response to the “Special 301 Report.” The latter report, which EFF called biased and “a deeply flawed annual assessment of international intellectual property rights policies,” was released in April by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”). The Special 301 Report is used to pressure countries to adopt IP laws supported by some powerful business interests.

In a first-of-its-kind analysis countering what EFF called the USTR’s “name and shame” tactics, EFF argues that the Special 301 Report paints a one-sided picture of IP rights and fails to disclose the damaging results of draconian IP policies. Examples include a human rights activist in Russia who was targeted by prosecutors using criminal copyright law, a biologist in Colombia who faces prison for sharing research, and students in Pakistan who struggle to exercise their rights under local law to study academic papers.