Articles Posted in Patent Litigation

Los Angeles, CA – A patent infringement lawsuit was filed by Neurographix, an exclusive licensee of the patent at issue, in the Federal District Court in Los Angeles, accusing Pasadena based Oak Tree Medical Corporation of infringing on the licensed patent. The University of Washington is the owner by assignment of the invention covered by U.S. Patent No. 5,560,360, entitled “Image Neurography and Diffusion Anisotropy Imaging.” Pursuant to a first licensing agreement, the University of Washington granted an exclusive license to the ‘360 patent to the Washington Research Foundation. The foundation, in turn, granted an exclusive license to the ‘360 patent to Neurografix.

The complaint alleges that defendants Oak Tree Medical and Dr. Jay Tsuruda are infringing the ‘360 patent by making, using, importing, offering for sale, and/or selling products and services which provide peripheral nerve MRI imaging services. It is alleged that “Defendants knowingly, willfully, and deliberately infringed and, on information and belief, continue to infringe the ‘360 Patent in conscious disregard of [Neurografix’s] and [Washington Research Foundation’s] rights, making this case exceptional within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. §285 and justifying treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §284.” Plaintiffs also seek both preliminary and permanent injunctions against further alleged infringement. The case is titled Neurografix et al. v. Oak Tree Medical Corporation et al., CV 08-02923 CAS (C.D. Cal. 2008).

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.”

Icon 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).

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).

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)

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.

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

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).

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.

The 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.

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).

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.