May 13, 2008

Santa Ana, CA: Patent Attorneys For Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. Filed A Patent Infringement Lawsuit Asserting Two Utility Patents Against Corona, CA Based Nellie’s Exercise Equipment, Inc. and Octane Fitness, LLC

Santa Ana, CA – Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.’s (“Icon”) patent attorneys filed a patent infringement complaint at the Federal District Court in Santa Ana, accusing Corona, California based Nellie’s Exercise Equipment, Inc. and Octane Fitness, LLC of infringing two of Icon’s patents. Icon states that it is “an award-winning innovator in the field of exercise equipment and provides a variety of consumer products.” Icon is the assignee of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,104,120, titled “Exercise Machine Control System.” Icon is also the owner by assignment of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 6,019,710, titled “Exercising Device With Elliptical Movement.”

patent-attorneys-exercise-equipment-lawsuit.jpgIcon alleges that both defendants infringe on both of the patents through the manufacturing, importing, and/or sale of the Octane Fitness Q47 Series exercise device. “The conduct of [Defendants] as set forth hereinabove gives rise to a claim for infringement of the Asserted Patents, pursuant to at least 35 U.S.C. §§ 271 and 281. Icon also asserts that it “is entitled to injunctive and monetary relief against [defendants], pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 283, 284, and 285. The case is titled Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Octane Fitness, LLC, et al., SACV 08-00437 CJC (C.D. Cal. 2008).

May 8, 2008

Los Angeles Patent Infringement Lawsuit Filed By Attorneys For Real Estate Alliance Regarding Its Internet Patents Covering Locating Available Real Estate Properties

Los Angeles, CA – Patent attorneys for Real Estate Alliance, LLC (“REAL”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit, at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, accusing real estate websites www.loopnet.com and www.cityfeet.com of infringing on U.S. Patent No. 4,870,576 and U.S. Patent No. 5,032,989. “The Patents describe methods for locating available real estate properties for sale, lease, or rental using a database of available properties, and displaying the approximate location of such properties on a map of an area of interest. The Patents describe zooming in on an area of interest, displaying the approximate locations of available properties within the zoomed area, and, among other things, identifying information about the available properties in that area.”

Although this concept seems commonplace today, the complaint alleges that when the inventions were made in 1986, “personal computers were in their infancy; the Internet was virtually unheard of.” The Complaint asserts that “LoopNet has infringed, and continues to infringe, the Patents by using the patented methods to display on zoom-enabled maps on its website the locations of millions of available commercial real estate property listings. LoopNet enables property owners and commercial real estate agents – on behalf of property owners and landlords – to list properties for sale or for lease and submit detailed information on property listings, such as qualitative descriptions, financial and tenant information, photographs, and key property characteristics, in order to find a buyer or tenant. Commercial real estate agents, buyers, and tenants use the LoopNet online marketplace to search for available property listings.” In addition to preliminary and permanent injunctions, the complaint seeks monetary judgments against both defendants. The case is titled Real Estate Alliance, Ltd., v. Loopnet, Inc., CV 08-02321 CAS (PLAx) (C.D. Cal. 2008).

May 6, 2008

Los Angeles Patent Attorneys For Nike Filed Design Patent Infringement, Trade Dress Infringement, and Lanham Act 43(a) Unfair Competition Lawsuit Over Sales Of Allegedly Copycat Air Jordans – 15 U.S.C. 1125

Los Angeles, CA – Nike’s patent attorneys filed a patent infringement, trade dress infringement, and Lanham Act § 43(a) unfair competition (15 U.S.C. § 1125) complaint at the Federal District Court in Los Angeles. Nike’s complaint recounts the beginning of Nike’s relationship with Michael Jordan and his endorsement deal, which resulted in the creation of the most famous signature shoe of all time – the Air Jordan®. When the shoes first debuted in 1985, they were initially banned by the NBA for the bold styling and color, but Michael Jordan incurred fines of $5,000 per game and wore his famous shoes. Every year thereafter, Nike unveiled a new Air Jordan model, which models have become collectors’ items and fans often line up to purchase new designs and limited re-releases of previous styles. Nike has protected the new designs of the shoes by obtaining design patents, trademarks, and trade dress rights.

The Air Jordan® VII shoe, which Jordan wore during the 1992 Olympics, was awarded U.S. Patent No. Design 325,291. The Air Jordan® XI shoe, considered one of the most popular shoes of all-time, was awarded U.S. Patent No. Design 371,898. The Air Jordan® XII shoe, which Jordan wore against the Jazz when he was ill with the flu, was awarded U.S. Patent No. Design 380,082. The Air Jordan® XIII shoe, which has sold more than 2 million pairs in the U.S., was awarded U.S. Patent No. Design 387,591 and U.S. Patent No. Design 387,850. Nike alleges that the Defendant “has sought to make a name for itself not through its own innovation, strategic investment, and design, but by explicitly appropriating the patented design and trade dress of not one, but four separate models of Air Jordan® shoes.” The complaint asserts that the Defendant “has copied the design and trade dress of the entire “upper” of each of these shoes, including the unique shape of the leather on the inside and outside of the shoe . . . the iconic lacing with exterior webbing on the shoe upper . . . the sunburst design . . . and the unique shape of the leather on the inside and outside of the shoe upper…”
Shoe-design-patent-trade-dress-Air-Jordan-XI.jpg
The case is titled Nike, Inc. v. Not For Noth’N LLC, aka Gourment, CV 08-1894 RGK (C.D. Cal. 2008).

PRACTICE NOTE: Nike has used both design patents and trade dress rights to protect its shoes’ designs. Trade dress protection continues in the design so long as the trade dress is being used by the owner; whereas, design patents expire after fourteen years. Thus, although one of Nike’s design patents has actually expired and is unenforceable, Nike can still prevent the copying of the Air Jordan® VII design by asserting its trade dress rights therein.

May 1, 2008

Los Angeles, CA: Patent Declaratory Judgment Of Invalidity, Non-Infringement, and Unenforceability Filed By Patent Attorneys For Branan Medical Against Sun Biomedical Laboratories Over Screening Tests

Los Angeles, CA – Patent attorneys for Branan Medical filed a declaratory judgment of invalidity, non-infringement, and unenforceability lawsuit, under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, in Federal District Court in Los Angeles, against Sun Biomedical Laboratories. Sun Biomedical sent a cease and desist letter to Branan Medical accusing its Oratect III Oral Fluid Drug Screen Device, OratectPlus Oral Fluid Drug & Alcohol Screen Device, and Fastect II Drug Screen Dipstick of infringing on US Patent Nos. 6,046,058 and 6,372,516. Branan Medical, fearing that it would be sued for patent infringement, filed the instant declaratory relief action seeking the Court's ruling on the patents at issue. The case is titled Branan Medical Corporation v. Sun Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., CV 08-01944 MMM (C.D. Cal. 2008)

April 29, 2008

Glendale Patent Attorneys File Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against DirecTV and Dish Network Asserting Datasec’s 6,075,969 Patent

Glendale patent attorneys for Datasec filed a patent infringement lawsuit in Federal District Court in Los Angeles, against DirecTV and Dish Network for allegedly infringing on one or more claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,075,969 (“the ‘969 Patent”). The USPTO issued the ‘969 Patent on June 13, 2000, and is titled “Method for Receiving Signals from a Constellation of Satellites in Close Geosynchronous Orbit.” The patent generally relates to a design for a receiving antenna with nulls in orbital locations where potentially interfering satellites would be located, whereby the small antenna avoids any interference. The complaint alleges that defendants DirecTV and Dish have “infringed the ‘969 patent by practicing the methods claimed in the ‘969 patent in this judicial district and elsewhere in the United States. On information and belief, this infringement will continue unless enjoined by this court.” In addition to the preliminary and permanent injunctions under 35 U.S.C. § 283, the complaint seeks monetary damages and attorneys’ fees.

glendale-patent-attorney-pic-glendale-patent-lawyer.jpg

The case is titled Datasec Corporation v. DirecTV Corporation, et al., CV 08-02345 CAS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

April 21, 2008

Irvine Patent Attorneys File Software Patent Litigation Against Macrovision’s Installshield Product For Infringing On Uniloc’s Patent On System For Software Registration

Irvine, CA – Patent attorneys file patent infringement lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal District Court (Santa Ana Division) to protect Uniloc USA and Singapore’s patent titled “System For Software Registration.” “Uniloc researches, develops, manufactures and sells technology security solutions, including solutions for securing software and other forms of media such as DVD and audio files.” The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office issued U.S. Patent No. 5,490,216 to Uniloc Singapore. “The ‘216 Patent is generally directed to novel systems and methods for securely registering software and other digital media to prevent software piracy.”

The complaint alleges that defendant “Macrovision, without license or permission from Uniloc, makes, uses, offers to sell and/or sells software security products and services that infringe one or more claims of the ‘216 Patent. These products and services include, but are not limited to, certain versions of InstallShield and InstallShield Activation Service.” Uniloc alleges that it placed Macrovision on Notice of the ‘216 Patent by correspondence commencing in June of 2004. The case is titled Uniloc USA, Inc., v. Macrovision Corporation, SACV08-00203 DOC (Central District of California).

April 7, 2008

Los Angeles: Patent Attorneys File Patent And Trademark Infringement Lawsuit Over Dental Implant Patents, Also Assert Lanham Act Unfair Competition Claims

Los Angeles, CA – Patent attorneys file patent infringement, trademark infringement and Lanham Act 43(a) unfair competition lawsuit in Los Angeles Federal District Court on behalf of Nobel Biocare USA, LLC, to protect dentistry patents and trademarks covering dental implant products. Nobel provides dentistry products, services, and training in the field of implant dentistry, including dental implants, abutments, individualized dental prosthetics, and surgical kits. Nobel is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 5,795,160 and U.S. Patent No. D443,361. Nobel is also the owner of several USPTO registered trademarks which are used on its dental implant products and services.

Nobel-Dental-Patent.jpgThe complaint alleges that defendant “Blue Sky first began using the Nobel, Nobel Biocare, Replace, Nobelreplace, and Nobelguide marks in connection with the sale and promotion of its [dental] goods in February of 200, long after [Plaintiff] Nobel had commenced its substantial use and promotion of its” Nobel trademarks and long after it had registered the trademarks with the USPTO. The complaint alleges infringement of the ‘160 patent and the '361 patent. It also alleges infringement of registered trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1114. False designation of origin is asserted under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a) and dilution of trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1). California causes of action are asserted for unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 and common law trademark infringement. The case is titled Nobel Biocare USA, LLC v. Blue Sky Bio, LLC, CV08-01407 ODW (C.D. California).

PRACTICE NOTE: Nobel’s case provides an example of the use of various forms of intellectual property to provide a wide range of protection for its dental implant products. The design patents protect the aesthetic design of the product, utility patents protect the functional aspect of the product, and trademarks inform consumers about the source of the products.

April 3, 2008

Los Angeles, CA: Lawyers File Patent Infringement Lawsuit Over Tuna And Food Processing Patents In The Central District Of California

Los Angeles, CA –Lawyers file patent infringement lawsuit, on behalf of food processor Tuna Processors, Inc., in Los Angeles Federal District Court, alleging infringement of USPTO issued Patent No. 5,484,619. The patent is titled Method For Curing Fish And Meat By Extra-Low Temperature Smoking. The patent claims a method of smoking raw fish and meat to sterilize and prvent decomposition and discoloration without losing their freshness. The complaint alleges that Hilo Fish Company, Inc., located in Hawaii, “imports and/or sells, or induces or contributes to others importing and/or selling, tuna which has been treated by extra-low temperature smoking which infringes, induces infringement of, and/or contributes to the infringement of the ‘619 patent.” Specifically, the complaint alleges that Hilo Fish has labeled its products as produced under the ‘619 patent. In addition to preliminary and permanent injunctions, the suit seeks monetary damages. Also, it alleges that the infringement has been willful and asserts that this is an exceptional case, entitling the plaintiff to treble damages and attorneys’ fees. The case is titled Tuna Processors, Inc. v. Hilo Fish Company, Inc., CV08-01236 R (C.D. California).

March 27, 2008

Los Angeles, CA – Patent Attorneys Filed A Patent Lawsuit Over Micro-dermabrasion Cosmetic Procedure Formula On Behalf Of Bella Bella, Inc.

Los Angeles, CA - Patent attorneys filed a patent infringement lawsuit, in Los Angeles Federal District Court, on behalf of Bella Bella, Inc. against numerous cosmetic products manufacturers for allegedly infringing a patent covering a cosmetic composition used in micro-dermabrasion procedures. Bella is the assignee of U.S. Patent No. 6,290,976 titled “Facial skin dermabrasion cleansing and conditioning composition.” The complaint alleges that each of the laundry list of defendants “has infringed and continues to infringe the ‘976 patent by making, using, providing, offering to sell, and selling … microdermabrasion products containing alumina.” Bella alleges that some of the defendants were aware of the ‘976 patents because it had been cited as prior art in the defendants’ own patent application. Also, as to some of the other defendants, Bella alleges that they were aware of the ‘976 patent because Bella had contacted them to offer a license to practice the invention. Bella seeks a permanent injunction in addition to monetary damages for patent infringement. The case is titled Bella Bella, Inc. v. Neutrogena Corporation, et al., CV08-01270 GAF (C.D. California).

Here’s the list of the “et al.” defendants, if you're interested: Johnson & Johnson, DermAnew, Inc., Sharper Image, Physicians Formula Holdings, Inc., Physicians Formula Cosmetics, Inc., American International Industries, Guthy-Renker Corporation, Stearn’s Products, Inc., Derma E, L’Oreal S.A., L’Oreal USA, Inc., Laboratories Garnier Paris, Garnier LLC, Lancome Perfumes et Beaute, Avon Products, Inc., Mary Kay, Inc., Graf Skin Care, Inc., Homedics-U.S.A., Inc., Borghese, Inc., Photomedex, Inc., Procyte Corporation, Kao Brands, Beauticontrol, Inc., ABBE Laboratories, Inc., Guinot, Lachman Imports, Inc., Estee Lauder Companies, Inc., Prescriptives, Inc., Peter Thomas Roth, Inc., Platinum Skin Care, and, LAST BUT NOT LEAST, Cosmesis Skincare, Inc.

March 26, 2008

Los Angeles Patent Attorney Files Declaratory Judgment Lawsuit That The Guitar Hero Video Game Doesn’t Infringe Gibson Guitar’s Patent

Los Angeles, CA - Patent attorneys file a declaratory judgment complaint on behalf of Activision, the maker of the popular video game “Guitar Hero,” asking the Court to rule that the video game does not infringe on Gibson Guitar’s patent. Gibson is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 5,990,405 (“the ‘405 Patent”), titled “System and Method For Generating and Controlling a Simulated Musical Experience.” In January of 2008, patent attorneys for Gibson informed Activision that the Guitar Hero video-game infringed the ‘405 Patent and offered a license. Apparently Activision was already licensing trademarks owned by Gibson and the parties had a continuing business relationship for several years.

guitar-hero-patent.jpgLicensing negotiations hit a sour note and Activision filed the instant complaint asking the District Court in Los Angeles to rule that the ‘405 Patent is invalid and/or not infringed by the Guitar Hero video-game. Activision also alleges that because Gibson has been aware of the Guitar Hero video-game for many years and has encouraged its sale, that Gibson should be estopped from asserting the patent. Also, because Gibson has encouraged the sale of the games, Activision argues that it has an implied license under the ‘405 patent. Further, Activision alleges that because Gibson has been fully aware of the Guitar Hero video-game for several years, it should not be able to enforce the patent under the doctrine of laches. The case is titled Activision Publishing, Inc. v. Gibson Guitar Corporation, CV08-01653 PSG (C.D. California).