Tag Archives: Pittsburgh patent lawsuit

Patent Pilot Program in Certain U.S. District Courts

On December 17, 2010, Congress approved H.R. 628, a bill for a decade-long pilot program in which certain U.S. district courts will encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges. During the Pittsburgh Intellectual Property Law Association Federal Judges Appreciation Luncheon & CLE Program’s Federal Judges Roundtable Discussion on March 16, 2011, Chief Judge Lancaster stated that he put in a request for the Western District of Pennsylvania to be one of at least six district courts that will be selected for the program.

The pilot program will allow district judges to request to hear patent cases. Those district judges who request to hear patent cases are then designated by the chief judge to hear them. In a participating district, a patent case will be able to be removed from a non-designated judge’s case load and then randomly re-assigned to a district judge designated to hear patent cases. The program is intended to “create a cadre of judges who gain advanced knowledge of patent and plant variety protection through more intensified experience in handling the cases, along with special education and career development opportunities” co-sponsor Hank Johnson, Jr. (D-GA) remarked.

The courts that are eligible to participate in the program are either: (1) the 15 district courts with the largest number of patent and plant variety protection cases filed in calendar year 2010; or (2) district courts that have adopted or certified the intention to adopt local rules for patent and plant variety protection cases. The Director of the Administrative Office will select at least: (1) three district courts with at least ten authorized district judgeships in which at least three judges have made a request to hear patent cases; and (2) three district courts with less than ten authorized district judgeships in which at least two judges have made a request to hear patent cases. During the ten year pilot program, periodic reports to the House and Senate will be made including comparison data between designated and non-designated judges on issues such as their reversal rates by the CAFC.

- Katie Cooper

Patent Infringement Suit in the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania

Ames True Temper, Inc. filed suit in the Western District of Pennsylvania against Southern Sales & Marketing Group, Inc. claiming patent infringement. Ames’ principal place of business is located in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that Southern Sales is infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,360,484, entitled “Planter and method of manufacturing same”. The abstract for the invention reads as follows:

A decorative planter includes a base having upper and lower portions and a flange disposed about the outer periphery of the upper portion. The planter also includes a collar dimensioned to encompass the upper portion of the base. The collar has a mechanical interface which engages the flange such that the collar and the flange form a decorative rim about the upper portion of the planter. The present disclosure also relates to a method of forming a decorative planter which includes the steps of: a) forming a base having upper and lower portions and a flange disposed about the outer periphery of the upper portion; b) forming a collar dimensioned to encompass the upper portion of the base, the collar having a mechanical interface dimensioned to mechanically engage the flange; and c) engaging the collar and the flange to form a decorative rim about the upper portion of the base.

An answer has not yet been filed.

Pennsylvania Company Files Patent Infringement Suit

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

Kennametal Files Patent Infringement Suit

patKennametal Inc. filed a patent infringement suit against Sandvik, Inc., Seco Tools Inc., and Walter USA, Inc. on June 29, 2009 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The complaint alleges that defendants infringed U.S. Patent No. 5,722,803 (“Cutting Tool and Method of Making the Cutting Tool”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,530,772 B2 (“Drill, Such as a Twist Drill”) through their manufacture, use, sale, offer for sale, and/or importation of coated cutting tools and drills.  The defendants’ Answers are due September 8, 2009. 

Kennametal is a company located just outside of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in Latrobe. According to Kennametal’s website, Kennametal is a leading global supplier of tooling, engineered components, and advanced materials that are consumed in production processes. Kennametal applies powder metallurgy, materials science and mechanical engineering technologies to cemented tungsten carbides, high-speed steels, ceramics, industrial diamonds, and other material compositions to produce products that have resistance to heat, impact, corrosion, pressure and wear. Kennametal’s annual sales are approximately $2 billion, with 12,000 employees worldwide and operations in over 60 countries.

- Katie Cooper