26 Thursday Feb 2009
Posted in Indiana, Litigation, Patent, Southern District of Indiana
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2009)
On Feb. 24, 2009, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision by the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to extend the statutory 30-month stay under 21 U.S.C. § 355(j)(5)(B)(iii), thereby preventing the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from approving the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) filed by Defendant-Appellant Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
See Patent Docs for the full case history and analysis.
11 Wednesday Feb 2009
Posted in Indiana, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trademark
Tags
Boss Products, Inc. v. Port-A-Pit Bar-B-Que of Edgerton, Inc.
No: 3:05-CV-293 RM (February 4, 2009)
U.S. District Court, N.D. of Indiana
Before: Chief Judge Miller
For full opinion:
2009 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 8192
TRADEMARKS; LACHES
Opinion (Miller): Plaintiff Boss Products sued defendant Port-A-Pit Bar-B-Que of Edgerton, Ohio (Edgerton) for infringement of registered trademark (PORT-A-PIT) after Edgerton conducted business under PORT-A-PIT for 30 years. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Boss Products inexcusably delayed enforcement of its trademark rights and therefore its recovery should be barred under laches or acquiescence. The record indicated that Boss Products had knowledge of Edgerton’s use of the mark from the beginning and the 30 years of extreme delay would cause substantial prejudice if Edgerton was forced to rebuild its business under a new name. Edgerton’s motion for summary judgment was granted.
KLF Legal: Note that the PORT-A-PIT registration (abstract below) was assigned to Boss Products back in December ’04. Apparently, Boss continued to be unhappy about Edgerton’s use of the mark. Edgerton relied on the doctrine of “laches,” an equitable defense. This means that while Edgerton is legally infringing Boss’s trademark, it would be unfair to enforce the law against them. The person invoking laches (Edgerton) is asserting that the opposing party (Boss) has “slept on its rights”, and that, as a result of this delay, that other party is no longer entitled to its original claim. 3 years might be too long to wait and try to enforce your trademark rights…30 years is definitely too long.
Courtesy of Willamette Law Online
09 Monday Feb 2009
Posted in Litigation, Patent
Alcon Research, Ltd. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al.
1:09-cv-00102; filed February 2, 2009 in the Southern District of Indiana
Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,641,805 (“Topical Ophthalmic Formulations for Treating Allergic Eye Diseases,” issued June 24, 1997), 6,995,186 (“Olopatadine Formulations for Topical Administration,” issued on February 7, 2006), and 7,402,609 (same title, issued July 22, 2008 ) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Apotex’s filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Alcon’s Pataday® (olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, used to treat ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis). View the complaint here.
Alcon Research, Ltd. et al. v. Sandoz Inc.
1:09-cv-00103; filed February 2, 2009 in the Southern District of Indiana
Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,641,805 (“Topical Ophthalmic Formulations for Treating Allergic Eye Diseases,” issued June 24, 1997) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Sandoz’s filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Alcon’s Patanol® (olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, used to treat ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis). View the complaint here.
Courtesy of Patent Docs.
07 Saturday Feb 2009
Posted in Litigation, Trademark
The Indiana Law Blog has a post up on a trademark decision in the Southern District of Indiana. Click here for their full analysis.
“A federal judge has ruled that a New Albany strip club’s use of the name II Horseshoes and a golden horseshoe logo amounts to trademark infringement on nearby Horseshoe Casino.
U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker signed a consent judgment and issued a permanent injunction this week ordering John Mattingly, the owner of II Horseshoes Gentleman’s Club on Old River Road, to stop any use of the Horseshoe name or its trademarked golden horseshoe.
The court also ordered Mattingly to remove the image from any advertising and promotional material, including signs, banners, cocktail napkins, clothing, business cards and receipts.”
The Horseshoe Casino/Hotel trademarks (Reg. Nos. 1839688, 2370824; App. No. 77/657,333) are owned and managed by Harrah’s License Company.
For those not familiar with Indiana gaming law, apparently casinos can’t be on dry land, hence the silliness (pictured below) of putting the casino in a puddle of water and calling it a riverboat.
The Horseshoe Casino, by the way, is hosting a satellite tournament on Feb. 29 that could earn you a seat at the 2009 World Series of Poker Main Event in Las Vegas. Good luck!
05 Thursday Feb 2009
Posted in Litigation, Patent
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Invagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
1:09-cv-00087; filed January 28, 2009 in the Southern District of Indiana
Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,458,811 (“Benzothiophenes Formulations Containing Same and Methods,” issued October 1, 2002), 6,797,719 (same title, issued September 28, 2004), and 6,894,064 (same title, issued May 17, 2005) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Invagen’s filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Lilly’s Evista® (raloxifene, used for the prevention and treatment of osteoporosis in postmenopausal women and for the reduction in risk of invasive breast cancer in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis and in postmenopausal women at high risk of invasive breast cancer). View the complaint here.
Courtesy of Patent Docs
Indiana Intellectual Property Blog 