12 Tuesday May 2009
Posted in Litigation, Patent
NEW Patent Ligitation Alert:
Plaintiff: Echo Engineering & Production Supplies, Inc.
Defendant: Engineered Products & Services, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2009cv00582
Filed: May 8, 2009
Court: Indiana Southern District Court
Presiding Judge: Judge Sarah Evans Barker
Referring Judge: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch
Nature of Suit: Intellectual Property – Patent Infringement
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Stay tuned for updates.
23 Thursday Apr 2009
Posted 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
13 Friday Mar 2009
Posted in Copyright, Patent, What I'm Reading
Are patent and copyright laws hurting our economy? Two economists at Washington University in St. Louis certainly think so. Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine, in Against Intellectual Monopoly, argue that the current patent/copyright system discourages and prevents inventions from entering the marketplace. They call for abolishing the current patent and copyright system in order to unleash innovations necessary to reverse the current recession and rescue the economy.
It’s an interesting idea and worth thinking about. After all, most any system can be tweaked for better results. AND, sometimes a complete overhaul is needed. The patent and copyright laws aren’t sacred cows…why should we be afraid to reevaluate their usefulness from time to time?
But are they asking the right questions? After all, patent and copyright laws are meant “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.” U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8. New innovations are often responsible for salvaging our economy, but the Constitution doesn’t say “to boost the economy by securing for limited times to authors and inventors…” Patent and copyright laws may need to be revisited, but the emphasis should be on the progress of science and useful arts, not on saving the economy. Sometimes these go hand in hand, but it’s important not to be too quick to blame the current patent and copyright laws for all the woes of the economy.
Thanks to Slashdot for the book recommendation. Go here for a full review of the book.
09 Monday Mar 2009
Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent
Word on the street is that Mark Janis, one of the most highly cited patent law professors of all time, is leaving his longtime post at the University of Iowa to take up teaching at IU-Bloomington.
Professor Janis has taught courses in patents, trademarks and unfair competition, as well as seminars on advanced problems in intellectual property. His scholarly research focuses on patent and trademark law, the intellectual property/antitrust interface, and intellectual property protection in the agricultural biotechnology industry. Professor Janis is a member of the Indiana bar and is registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He formerly practiced with Barnes & Thornburg in Indianapolis, Indiana, where he specialized in patent prosecution and litigation.
Prof. Janis is certainly a welcome return to the Indiana intellectual property community.
05 Thursday Mar 2009
Posted in Legislation, Patent
Tags
Patent reform legislation was introduced in Congress this week. The current legislation is similar to the Patent Reform Act of 2007, which died on the Senate floor last year. If passed, the 2009 version would change the way the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office works, bring U.S. patent law more in line with global laws, and introduce “reasonable royalty” provisions, which would change how damages are calculated and reduce the likelihood of massive payouts for some patent holders.
The Indiana Intellectual Property & Technology Blog will keep you updated as the legislation proceeds.
Indiana Intellectual Property Blog 