• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Category Archives: Indiana

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Norwood Promotional Products v. KustomKoozies

11 Wednesday Nov 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

Breach of Contract, Corrective Advertising Damages, Jane Magnus-Stinson, Larry J. McKinney, Trademark Dilution, Trademark Infringement, Unfair Competition

Norwood Promotional Products v. KustomKoozies, LLC

Court Case Number: 1:09-cv-01378-LJM-JMS

File Date: Tuesday, November 03, 2009

Plaintiff: Norwood Promotional Products, LLC

Plaintiff Counsel: Jonathan G. Polak, Keirian A. Brown of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP

Defendant: KustomKoozies, LLC, Steve Liddle

Cause: Trademark Infringement, Federal Trademark Dilution, Unfair Competition, Breach of Contract and Corrective Advertising Damages

Court: Southern District of Indiana

Judge: Judge Larry J. McKinney

Referred To: Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson

View this document on Scribd

Indiana Patent Income Tax Exemption – IC 6-2-3-21.7

04 Wednesday Nov 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Legislation, Patent, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Tax

Inventors, patent owners, and their lawyers and accountants should be aware of the Indiana Patent Income Exemption, Indiana Code 6-3-2-21.7.

The exemption aims to encourage innovation by giving entrepreneurs and small businesses a break on Indiana state income taxes. Indiana was the first state to offer this type of incentive.  In an effort to strengthen the state’s existing focus on biotech, pharmaceutical, medical device and equipment companies, the law strives to encourage new patents from Indiana companies and to make the state more attractive to new companies looking for a profitable marketplace.

The law grants a tax exemption on patent income, which includes licensing fees, royalties, patent sale or patent-covered- product sales. Note that the exemption is available only to businesses with less than 500 employees and only covers utility and plant patents, since design patents focus on ornamental features and exclude functional innovations.

IC 6-3-2-21.7
Exemption for certain income derived from patents
Sec. 21.7. (a) This section applies to a qualified patent issued to a taxpayer after December 31, 2007.
(b) As used in this section, “invention” has the meaning set forth in 35 U.S.C. 100(a).
(c) As used in this section, “qualified patent” means:
(1) a utility patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 101; or
(2) a plant patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 161;
after December 31, 2007, for an invention resulting from a development process conducted in Indiana. The term does not include a design patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 171.
(d) As used in this section, “qualified taxpayer” means a taxpayer that on the effective filing date of the claimed invention:
(1) is either:
(A) an individual or corporation, if the number of employees of the individual or corporation, including affiliates as specified in 13 CFR 121.103, does not exceed five hundred (500) persons; or
(B) a nonprofit organization or nonprofit corporation as

specified in:
(i) 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3)(ii)(A) or 37 CFR 1.27(a)(3)(ii)(B); or
(ii) IC 23-17; and
(2) is domiciled in Indiana.
(e) Subject to subsections (g) and (h), in determining adjusted gross income or taxable income under IC 6-3-1-3.5 or IC 6-5.5-1-2, a qualified taxpayer is entitled to an exemption from taxation under IC 6-3-1 through IC 6-3-7 for the following:
(1) Licensing fees or other income received for the use of a qualified patent.
(2) Royalties received for the infringement of a qualified patent.
(3) Receipts from the sale of a qualified patent.
(4) Subject to subsection (f), income from the taxpayer’s own use of the taxpayer’s qualified patent to produce the claimed invention.
(f) The exemption provided by subsection (e)(4) may not exceed the fair market value of the licensing fees or other income that would be received by allowing use of the qualified taxpayer’s qualified patent by someone other than the taxpayer. The fair market value referred to in this subsection must be determined in each taxable year in which the qualified taxpayer claims an exemption under subsection (e)(4).
(g) The total amount of exemptions claimed under this section by a qualified taxpayer in a taxable year may not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000).
(h) A taxpayer may not claim an exemption under this section with respect to a particular qualified patent for more than ten (10) taxable years. Subject to the provisions of this section, the following amount of the income, royalties, or receipts described in subsection (e) from a particular qualified patent is exempt:
(1) Fifty percent (50%) for each of the first five (5) taxable years in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(2) Forty percent (40%) for the sixth taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(3) Thirty percent (30%) for the seventh taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(4) Twenty percent (20%) for the eighth taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(5) Ten percent (10%) each year for the ninth and tenth taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(6) No exemption under this section for the particular qualified patent after the eleventh taxable year in which the exemption is claimed for the qualified patent.
(i) To receive the exemption provided by this section, a qualified taxpayer must claim the exemption on the qualified taxpayer’s annual state tax return or returns in the manner prescribed by the department. The qualified taxpayer shall submit to the department all information that the department determines is necessary for the determination of the exemption provided by this section.

(j) On or before December 1 of each year, the department shall provide an evaluation report to the legislative council, the budget committee, and the Indiana economic development corporation. The evaluation report must contain the following:
(1) The number of taxpayers claiming an exemption under this section.
(2) The sum of all the exemptions claimed under this section.
(3) The North American Industry Classification System code for each taxpayer claiming an exemption under this section.
(4) Any other information the department considers appropriate, including the number of qualified patents for which an exemption was claimed under this section.
The report required under this subsection must be in an electronic format under IC 5-14-6.

For a full breakdown of the law,  see IP Today.

indianaflag

Indiana University to utilize “Facebook for Scientists”

26 Monday Oct 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Federal Initiatives, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – Indiana University has received more than $1.8 million from the National Institutes of Health to collaborate on a $12.2 million, seven-university project designed to network researchers around the country.

samplegateWhile the proposed new networking system will contain authentication mechanisms to protect sensitive data and intellectual property, it is being described as a Facebook for scientists.

IU will be implementing VIVO, a networking template currently in place at Cornell University that brings together publicly available information on the people, departments, graduate fields, facilities and other resources that collectively make up the research and scholarship environment in all disciplines at Cornell.

“This could gather all the related information for one researcher into one place and further links to any other related semantic datasets. Linking and formal representation generate great power to realize more intelligent knowledge discovery.”

Click here for full story.

Indiana’s Favorite Blog? Please Vote!

20 Tuesday Oct 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Bloggers, Indiana, Intellectual Property, KLF Legal

≈ 1 Comment

The Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Blog has been nominated for Indiana’s Favorite Blog. Please vote!

Note: You must be a registered member of Linking Indiana to vote in this contest.  Registration is quick and easy though…I just did it in 20 seconds.

Voting ends November 3, 2009.  Tell your friends!

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Peeps Maker Sues Greeting Card Company

07 Wednesday Oct 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Source: Tom Spalding of Indy Star

simpsonspeeps

The maker of Peeps — those marshmallow candies that are shaped into chicks, bunnies, and other animals — has filed a lawsuit in Indianapolis, accusing a card company of trademark infringement.

Just Born, a candy manufacturer based in Bethlehem, Pa., claims in a federal court filing that American Greetings Corp.’s recycled paper greetings unit used the likeness without authorization.
Advertisement

Peeps were introduced nationally in 1958, the company says on its Web site, and are an Easter addiction for many candy lovers because of the sugar-coated yellow chicks.

The company says Peeps are the No. 1-selling non-chocolate candy.

One card introduced as evidence features two live chicks staring at what looks like a peep. “She’s had waaaay too much Botox,” one of the chicks jokes.

“Happy Easter,” says a copy of another card contained in the lawsuit, “From me and my peeps.”

“Defendant has not received permission from JBI, or anyone acting on JBI’s behalf, to manufacture, produce, advertise or sell any item bearing the PEEPS trademarks or trade dress,” the suit reads.

The lawsuit was originally filed in Hamilton Superior Court but was moved to U.S. District Court.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (328)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (605)
  • Indianapolis (52)
  • Intellectual Property (664)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (597)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (216)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (370)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (365)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 81 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
Loading Comments...