District of Massachusetts IP Blog

Patents Asserted Against Chinese Plasma Cutting Systems

Hypertherm, Inc. (Hanover, NH) has sued Shenzen River Trading Co., Ltd. (Guangzhou, China) for infringement of Patent Nos. 8,115,136, 7,989,727 and 6,207,923 directed to plasma cutting systems.

Hypertherm, Inc. v. Shenzen River Trading Co., Ltd., 12-10798-GAO (D. Mass. May 3, 2012)

Holding Company Denied Lost Profits

Following claim construction, Judge O’Toole entertained motions for summary judgment by defendants in a patent case involving moveable beds.  Judge O’Toole denied summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity, but granted summary judgment of no lost profits because the patentee had assigned the patent to a holding company that had no profits, a common rookie assignment mistake.  

Ascion, LLC v. Ruoey Lung Enterprise Corp., 09-10293-GAO (Sep. 28, 2011)

Ruoey Lung Enterprise Corp. v. Tempur-Pedic Int’l, Inc., 09-11550-GAO

Breast Cancer Drug Makers Sued

Cephalon, Inc. (Frazer, PA) has sued Celgen Corp. (Summit, NJ) and others for infringement of Patent No. RE40,493 directed to porous paclitaxel matrices.  Defendants’ Abraxane drug is specifically accused of infringing.  Cephalon’s licensor is also named as a plaintiff. 

Cephalon, Inc. v. Celgene Corp., 11-12226-GAO (D. Mass. Dec. 14, 2011)

MR. CLEAN Wipes Up

Butler Home Prods., LLC (Marlborough, MA) has sued Polymer Group, Inc. (Charlotte, NC) for declaratory judgment of non-infringement and cancellation of a trademark registration for a diamond pattern for textile wipes and fabrics.  The defendant had trouble originally registering the pattern in the face of ornamental objections and ended up opting for the supplemental register.  The defendant then accused plaintiff’s MR. CLEAN brand wipes of infringement.  Plaintiff asserted that the accused pattern was in use prior to the registered pattern and brought this action seeking the DJ and cancellation. 

Butler Home Prods., LLC v. Polymer Group, Inc., 11-12176-GAO (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2011)

Fluorescent Lamp Seller Sued

Philips Electronics North America Corp. (Andover, MA) has sued Lux Electronics Prods. (Brookline, MA) and its president for infringement of Patent Nos. 5,552,665 and 6,222,312 directed to fluorescent lamps. 

Philips Electronics North America Corp. v. Lux Electronics Prods., Inc., 11-11930-GAO (D. Mass. Oct. 31, 2011)

EFF Serves Rule 11 Motion In Borderline Copyright Case

In late September Astrolabe sued two researchers claiming that their use of time zone data infringed Astrolabe’s copyright in its atlas software.  This blog pondered whether such a use was really infringing.  It appears the folks at the EFF have pondered the same thing and have teamed up with Fish & Richardson to serve a potential Rule 11 motion against Astrolabe.  The suit apparently scared one of the rearchers into disabling his database (it has since been restored by ICANN).  As of the date of the Rule 11 letter the complaint had not yet been served, but the gauntlet has certainly been thrown. 

Astrolabe, Inc. v. Olson, 11-11725-GAO (D. Mass.), letter served on Jan. 12, 2012 

Infringement of Software Or Permitted Use of Data?

Astrolabe, Inc. (Brewster, MA) has sued two individuals (Takoma Park, MD and Los Angeles, CA) for copyright infringement related to time zone atlas software.  The complaint alleges that the two individuals (one employed by the NIH, the other by UCLA) have made unauthorized reproductions of the copyrighted software available over the Internet.  The complaint alleges that the individuals have asserted that the data taken from the software is in the public domain.  The complaint does not allege that the software is registered. 

[UPDATE:  The EFF and Fish & Richardson represent the defendants and have served a potential Rule 11 motion.]

Astrolabe, Inc. v. Olson, 11-11725-GAO (D. Mass. Sep. 30, 2011)

Web Developer Sued For Copying Former Client’s Website

Franklin Sports, Inc. (Stoughton, MA) has sued an individual (also from Stoughton) for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and a variety of other claims.  In a set of facts that’s new to this blog, the complaint alleges that the defendant formerly worked for a web designer that the plaintiff hired to design <nfluniformset.com>, a website dedicated to selling plaintiff’s sporting goods.  The complaint alleges that the defendant turned around and created <nflfootballuniformsets.com>, which was a direct copy of the plaintiff’s site.  The complaint alleges that the defendant now uses his site to sell plaintiff’s goods which are obtained on-line or through third party distributors. 

Franklin Sports, Inc. v. MacFaden, 11-11722-JLT (D. Mass. Sep. 29, 2011)

Litigation Consulting Firms Become Their Own Clients

Evidox Corp. (Boston, MA) has sued Scarab Acquisitions LLC (Houston, TX) for trademark infringement.  Plaintiff has a federal registration in the mark EVIDOX for litigation consulting and support services.  Scarab, who offers similar services, announced in a press release that it was changing its name to EVIDEX.  The day of the press release the plaintiff called the defendant to notify it of the conflict in marks.  The next day, the plaintiff filed suit. 

Evidox Corp. v. Scarab Acquisitions LLC, 11-11702-GAO (D. Mass. Sep. 27, 2011)

Clock Design Patent Warped

In September Kirch Industrial Co. (USA) Ltd. (Farmingdale, NY) sued Westminster, Inc. (Atlanta, GA) for infringement of Design Patent No. D621,725.  A couple of weeks later Kirch filed a new complaint adding a new defendant distributor, Arber Co. (Waltham, MA).  Westiminster’s “Time Warp Clock” is specifically accused. 

 

Kirch Industrial Co. (USA) Ltd. v. Westminster, Inc., 11-11696-WGY (D. Mass. Sep. 26, 2011)

Kirch Industrial Co. (USA) Ltd. v. Westminster, Inc., 11-11967-GAO (D. Mass. Nov. 7, 2011)