Best Medical International Inc., a Virginia corporation, filed suit for patent infringement in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Accuray Inc. and several defendants as individuals on August 6, 2010. The patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,596,619 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Conformal Radiation Therapy” is related to a method and apparatus for conformal radiation therapy with a specialized radiation beam.
The complaint alleges that Accuray has manufactured and sold a product that infringes the ‘619 patent. The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants have aided and abetted Accuray’s infringement of plaintiff’s patent and have divulged plaintiff’s trade secrets and intellectual property to defendant Accuray.
An answer has not yet been filed.
R.E. Whittaker Co., a Pennsylvania corporation based in New Castle, PA, filed a trademark infringement suit against Misco Products Corporation, a Pennsylvania corporation based in Reading, PA on July 9, 2010 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Whittaker has been in the business of manufacturing and selling commercial carpet cleaning products for over twenty-five years. In 1992 Whittaker introduced a carpet cleaning product under the brand name Crystal Dry®. The Complaint alleges that Misco recently started promoting, advertising, and selling a carpet cleaning product identified by the mark “Crystal Clear.”
The causes of action in the Complaint are: trademark infringement under federal trademark law, false designation of origin and unfair competition, dilution of famous marks, and trademark infringement and unfair competition under Pennsylvania common law.
On June 24, 2010 Jones Performance Products, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Bad Ass Custom Truck Parts Inc., a Kentucky corporation, asserting patent infringement.
U.S. Patent No. D549,624 was issued to Jones Performance for a “Truck Fender.” The ‘624 Patent discloses and claims an ornamental design for a truck fender.
The Complaint alleges that Bad Ass Custom Truck Parts has been making, offering for sale, selling, making use of, and applying the design shown in the ‘624 Patent to its own custom truck fenders. Jones Performance Products also allege that Bad Ass Custom Truck Parts created at least one mold for the creation of the infringing product.
An Answer has not yet been filed.
TDY Industries, a California corporation with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, PA filed suit against Ingersoll Cutting Tool Company in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on June 10, 2010.
TDY’s Complaint alleges that Ingersoll Cutting Tool Company willfully infringed TDY’s U.S. Patent No. 7,244,519 entitled “PVD Coated Ruthenium Featured Cutting Tools.”
The invention relates to cutting inserts for machining mold and die materials.
- Katie Cooper
Alchemy Asset Services, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation, filed a false patent marking suit against Procter & Gamble in the Western District of Pennsylvania on May 12, 2010. The complaint alleges that Procter & Gamble marked, advertised, and marketed various products with expired patent numbers and/or marked, advertised, and marketed such products as patent-protected in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 292 with intent to deceive the public.
Alchemy Asset Services requests damages against Procter & Gamble equal to a fine in the amount of $500 for each instance of false marking. One-half of the damage award would be paid to the United States and the other half would be paid to plaintiff. The specific products named in the complaint include:
1. “Ultra Downy” fabric softener;
2. “Fixodent”;
3. “Always Maxi”; and
4. “Puffs” facial tissues.
An answer has not yet been filed.
The USPTO announced in an April 6, 2010 Federal Register Notice that it is launching the Patents Ombudsman Pilot Program for a period of one year.
The Program is intended to provide patent applicants, attorneys and agents with assistance with application-processing issues regarding concerns with advancement of prosecution. Applicants, attorneys or agents who have application-processing concerns, and haven’t been able to get the assistance they need through normal channels in the Technology Center (TC), can contact the ombudsman representative for the TC through the USPTO website (www.uspto.gov). The applicant is expected tol receive a phone call within one business day for a discussion of the specifics of the issue. From there, the ombudsman representative will work with TC staff to address the concerns expressed by the applicant and try to get the application back on track.
“This program is a direct response to feedback we’ve received from members of the patent community who have told us that they need a dedicated resource they can turn to when they have concerns about the prosecution of their application,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos. “We are always striving for ways to improve the quality and efficiency of patent examinations, and we believe this initiative is an important step forward on both these fronts.”
After the one-year period the USPTO may extend the pilot program with appropriate modifications based on the feedback from participants, the effectiveness of the pilot program, and the availability of resources.
- Katie Cooper
N.A. Water Systems, LLC (“NAWS”) filed suit for patent infringement in the Western District Court of Pennsylvania on April 14, 2010.
The complaint alleges that Aquatech International Corporation and Debasish Mukhopadhyay infringe NAWS’s rights as an exclusive licensee of U.S. Patent No. 5,250,185 entitled “Reducing Aqueous Boron Concentrations with Reverse Osmosis Membranes Operating at a High pH.” NAWS seeks various declarations that:
1. NAWS’s process known as OPUS does not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,925,255 and 6,537,456 owned by Mukhopadhyay;
2. Any actions by NAWS relating to promoting the OPUS process do not contribute to or induce infringement of Mukhopadhyay’s above-referenced patents; and
3. Mukhopadhyay’s above-referenced patents are invalid and unenforceable.
An answer has not yet been filed.
- Katie Cooper
In an April 2, 2010 Press Release, the USPTO proposed a change that would effectively provide a 12-month extension to the provisional patent application period. The proposed change would “give applicants greater flexibility, reduce costs, and conserve agency resources.”
The change would be implemented through the missing parts practice in nonprovisional applications. The proposed change is expected to benefit the USPTO and the public by adding publications to the body of prior art and by removing nonprovisional applications for which applicants have decided not to pursue examination from the USPTO’s workload.
The proposed change would provide applicants with more time to reply to a missing parts notice in a nonprovisional application that claims the benefit of a provisional application. Applicants would be permitted to file a nonprovisional application with at least one claim within the 12-month statutory period after the provisional application is filed, pay the basic filing fee, and submit an executed oath or declaration. The nonprovisional would need to be in a condition for publication and the applicant would not be able to file a nonpublication request.
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO David Kappos said he learned at roundtables that were held with inventors across the country that additional time flexibility during the provisional period would greatly benefit them “because the existing 12-month provisional period may provide too little time for inventors to test the marketplace.”
The USPTO is seeking public comment on the proposed change.
- Katie Cooper
A California company and a Nevada limited liability company filed suit in the Western District Court against Pittsburgh company QuestMark LLC for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false advertising, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and unfair competition.
The Amended Complaint filed February 11, 2010 alleges the following claims of trademark infringement under the Lanham Act:
1. Defendants’ use of the mark CREATING AN ACCOUNTABLE CULTURE constitutes infringement of Plaintiffs’ federally registered CREATING A CULTURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY;
2. Defendants’ use of the mark ACCOUNTABLE CULTURE constitutes infringement of Plaintiffs’ federally registered CULTURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY;
3. Defendants’ use of the mark KEYS TO ACCOUNTABILITY constitutes infringement of Plaintiffs’ federally registered STEPS TO ACCOUNTABILITY; and
4. Defendants’ use of the mark ACCOUNTABILITY WORKSHOP constitutes infringement of Plaintiffs’ federally registered ACCOUNTABILITY TRAINING.
The Amended Complaint also alleges copyright infringement of a customer proposal brochure and a document that lists training modules used by the California company in its leadership-training and management-consulting services. The document also outlines the key “take away” points from the various modules.
An Answer has not yet been filed.
Posted in Copyright, Copyright Law, False Advertising, Intellectual Property Law, Litigation, Trade Secret, Trade Secret Law, Trademark, Trademark Law, Unfair Competition
Tagged Pittsburgh Trademark Litigation, Pittsburgh Copyright Litigation
On February 1, 2010, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) David Kappos announced President Obama’s $2.322 billion fiscal year 2011 budget request for the USPTO. The President’s budget request will support a five-year plan designed to significantly reduce the patent pendency periods, improve patent quality, and enhance intellectual property protection and enforcement. To achieve these goals, the USPTO will:
(1) achieve 3% annual efficiency gains in patents processing through the re-engineering of management and workflow processes; and (2) initiate a targeted hiring surge and hire 1,000 patent examiners annually during FY 2011 and FY 2012, targeting former patent examiners and IP professionals who will require minimum training and can be productive virtually from the start of their employment.
The FY 2011 budget request projects fee collections of $2.098 billion and the administration is proposing an interim fee increase on certain patent fees which is estimated to generate $224 million.
- Katie Cooper
Best Medical International Inc., a Virginia corporation, filed suit for patent infringement in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Accuray Inc. and several defendants as individuals on August 6, 2010. The patent in suit, U.S. Patent No. 5,596,619 entitled “Method and Apparatus for Conformal Radiation Therapy” is related to a method and apparatus for conformal radiation therapy with a specialized radiation beam.
