Carmel-based Heartland Sweeteners Receives Favorable Patent Ruling

23 Thursday Apr 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Patent

The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has unanimously upheld an initial ITC ruling that found Heartland Sweeteners, LLC did not infringe Tate & Lyle patents for sucralose. In an initial determination announced in September 2008, ITC Judge Charles Bullock decisively rejected Tate & Lyle’s infringement allegations against Heartland Sweeteners, LLC.

As a result of this recent decision, which came down on April 6, 2009, Heartland is now the only manufacturer of table top sweeteners to have received an official and unanimous ITC ruling that it does not infringe patents for the manufacture of sucralose.

Carmel, Indiana-based Heartland is the first and largest alternative global manufacturer of high quality table top sucralose sweeteners. The company produces its own Nevella brand and private label products. In 2008, Heartland introduced a natural sweetener under the Ideal brand.

Heartland products are shipped to customers in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, South and Central America and throughout Europe.

The ITC is issuing limited exclusion orders against 11 sweetener companies that defaulted, admitted infringement, or did not participate in the investigation. Heartland is specifically excluded from that order, because the company responded early in the suit when other companies defaulted or failed to respond.

“The decision to incur the fees and costs necessary to fight this complex litigation has turned out to be the right course of action for Heartland. However, we fully expect that Tate & Lyle will continue its efforts which quash competition to their Splenda brand,” said Gelov.

Heartland was represented by attorney Bill O’Connor from the Indianapolis law firm of Dann Pecar Newman & Kleiman.

Source: Inside Indiana Business

Indiana RV Manufacturers in Trademark Battle

22 Wednesday Apr 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

7jayco_eagle

Jayco, Inc., headquartered in Middlebury, IN (“Jayco”), is suing Heartland Recreational Vehicles, LLC, of Elkhart, IN (“Heartland”), for trademark infringement and unfair competitive practices. The case was brought in the Northern District of Indiana, Case No. 3:2009-cv-00171.

The suit alleges Heartland has violated federal trademark law by adopting the Eagle Ridge name for a line of vehicles. Jayco claims to hold trademark rights in the EAGLE trademark since at least 1991. Note that the suit is based on common-law trademark rights, as a federal trademark application was only filed by Jayco on March 9, 2009 (see abstract below).

eagle

Heartland filed an intent-to-use federal trademark application for EAGLE RIDGE on September 26, 2008. It was published for opposition on February 17, 2009, which was probably the catalyst that brought Heartland’s intentions to the attention of Jayco (or Jayco’s attorney).

eagleridge

Jayco’s complaint demands that Heartland pay them all profits from Eagle Ridge products and stop using the EAGLE RIDGE name immediately. I didn’t see any Eagle Ridge products on Heartland’s website (please correct me if I’ve missed anything), so the product line was either never initiated or it has already been pulled.

As we learned from Octomom (TM), the first to use a mark in commerce is generally the owner of that mark. The primary exception is when an ITU application for a similar mark is filed prior to the adoption and use of the mark by another. However, since Jayco has used the EAGLE mark since 1991, they almost certainly can claim priority rights. Whether EAGLE RIDGE causes a likelihood of confusion with Jayco’s EAGLE mark will be determined by the court. The goods (recreational vehicles) are very similar, so my suspicion is that the court would lean toward a conclusion that confusion exists.

I’ll keep you updated as developments occur, although this case feels like a settlement opportunity, particularly since Heartland doesn’t appear to have too much invested in their EAGLE RIDGE product line.

Source: WNDU

Judge David Hamilton selected to 7th Circuit Court of Appeals

17 Tuesday Mar 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Federal Initiatives, Litigation

≈ Leave a comment

Judge David F. Hamilton has been selected by President Obama to fill the vacancy on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hamilton, formerly of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, is the first appellate court appointment made by President Obama. The White House is planning to announce a several additional candidates over the next few weeks to fill some of the 17 vacancies on the appeals courts, which are just below the level of the Supreme Court.

Of course, we’ll be looking forward to reporting on his treatment of intellectual property cases.

Judge Hamilton took over as Chief Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on Jan. 1, 2008. Which means there is now an opening in that court for Chief Judge…I’ll update as I learn more.

Indiana Patent Litigation Update

26 Thursday Feb 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Litigation, Patent, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

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.

Indiana Trademark Litigation Update – Boss Products v. Port-A-Pit Bar-B-Que of Edgerton

11 Wednesday Feb 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Indiana, Litigation, Northern District of Indiana, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Robert L. Miller

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.

port-a-pit3