District of Massachusetts IP Blog

Euro-Pro Slices At CVS

Euro-Pro Operating LLC (Newton, MA) has sued CVS Caremark Corp. (Woonsocket, RI) and related CVS entities for patent, design patent, and trade dress infringement relating to products similar to Euro-Pro’s Ninja Master Prep blender.  Patent Nos. 7,677,485 and D623,890 are asserted.  CVS’ PROlectrix 2-in-1 Blender is accused. 

Euro-Pro Operating LLC v. CVS Caremark Corp., 11-12221-JCB (D. Mass. Dec. 14, 2011)

Where To Go For A Trademark Dispute

Morris Visitor Publications, LLC (Atlanta, GA) has sued Where, Inc. (Boston, MA) for trademark infringement relating to plaintiff’s mark WHERE for publication of location-specific content.  Plaintiff asserts use of the mark in a series of WHERE branded publications including quick guides, a magazine, guestbooks, and maps.  Defendant began writing location-based software for companies like MapQuest, but later moved to independently branded software such as phone apps, a website <where.com> (plaintiff snoozed on that one), and similar electronic guides. 

Morris Visitor Publications, LLC v. Where, Inc., 11-12175-JCB (D. Mass. Dec. 8, 2011)

Patentee Files DJ Over Threatened Suit

Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. (Dublin, CA) has sued Optovue, Inc. (Fremont, CA) and MIT for declaratory judgment that it does not infringe Patent No. 7,884,945 (directed to optical coherence tomography scanning) and that the patent is invalid.  MIT is the assignee of the patent and Optovue is the exclusive licensee.  Carl Zeiss and Optovue are engaged in litigation on Carl Zeiss’s patents in Delaware.  The complaint alleges that Optovue threatened Carl Zeiss with suit under the ‘945 patent if the Delaware case didn’t settle.  Carl Zeiss acted first on that threat, and brought this DJ claim. 

Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc. v. Optovue, Inc., 11-11990-JCB (D. Mass. Nov. 9, 2011)

Testing Equipment Spat Over Marketplace Comparisons

Molecular Devices, LLC (Sunnyvale, CA) has sued BioTek Instruments, Inc. (Winooski, VT) for unfair competition, product disparagement, and tortious interference related to statements made by BioTek about certain features of Molecular Devices’ VersaMax and SpectraMax microplate reader products.  Cease and desist letters were ineffective, so this suit was filed. 

Molecular Devices, LLC v. BioTek Instruments, Inc., 11-11133-JCB (D. Mass. June 24, 2011)

Will DuPont’s Latest Trademark Claims Stick?

In a case caption harkening back days of yore, DuPont (Wilmington, DE) has sued A. W. Chesterton (Woburn, MA) and 100 John Does for trademark infringement and related claims over a dispute involving DuPont’s TEFLON® trademark.  DuPont alleges that Chesterton is selling products marked with the TEFLON® mark without authorization.  The role of the John Does is unclear.  The complaint vaguely alleges that they are “in some manner” responsible for the alleged acts of infringement. 

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. A. W. Chesterton Co., 11-10389-JCB (D. Mass. Mar. 8, 2011)

Tissue Augmentation Products Accused

Genzyme Corp. (Cambridge, MA) has filed patent infringement claims against Medicis Pharm. Corp. (Scottsdale, AZ) for infringement of Patent No. 5,399,351 relating to biocompatible viscoelastic gel slurries.  The complaint alleges inducement / contributory infringement by virtue of Medicis’ sales of four tissue augmentation products along with instructions that purportedly direct infringement.  Of the four products, one has allegedly been on sale since January 4, 2004, possibly triggering a presumption of laches. 

Genzyme Corp. v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 10-11763-JCB (D. Mass. Oct. 15, 2010)

Grab A Tissue; But Not From That Box

An individual residing in Illies, France has sued Vantiss Creations (Aliso Viejo, CA), its Dutch parent, and various affiliates for infringement of Design Patent Nos. D376,501, D378,330 for tissue box designs.  Defendants’ HANKEEZ, HANG YOUR HANKEEZ, and DOUBLE CUBE are specifically named.

So do you like these tissue box designs?

 

 

Violetta Spaseska v. Vantiss Creations, LLC, 10-11569-JCB (D. Mass. Sep. 15, 2010)

Blowfish Restaurant in Mass. Angers Pacific Coast Predecessor

Blowfish, LLC (CA) has sued G.A. Restaurant, Inc. (Roslindale, MA) for trademark related claims stemming from a restaurant name.  Blowfish owns two Blowfish sushi restaurants in San Jose and San Francisco and has a trademark registration in BLOWFISH®.  Around 2008 G.A. opened a restaurant called Blowfish in Roslindale.  Cease and desist letters were ineffective and this complaint followed.   The complaint includes federal and Massachusetts state trademark claims, but there is no assertion in the complaint that the plaintiff ever used its mark in Mass.

 

Blowfish, LLC v. G.A. Restaurant, Inc., 10-11444-JCB (D. Mass. Aug. 20, 2010)