SAES Getters, SpA v. Materion Corp. et al. (17-cv-12113).

Italian company SAES Getters sued Ohio company Materion Corp. and Massachusetts corporation Materion Precision Optics and Thin Film Coatings, alleging infringement of a pair of patents relating to contaminant-removing materials referred to as “getters.” SAES asserts that the Materion defendants acquired infringing getter technology from Integrated Sensing Systems, with whom SAES had been discussing the asserted patents.  SAES seeks a finding of willful infringement and injunctive and monetary relief.

GN Netcom, Inc. v. Online King LLC d/b/a Amazon Reseller Online King (17-cv-12097).

Headset manufacturer GN Netcom accuses electronics reseller Online King of infringing its JABRA and VXI trademarks. GN’s factual allegations are similar to those of its September lawsuit against TelQuest International; here, GN alleges that Online King buys actual GN products manufactured and sold to the international market that were not intended for sale in the United States and that are materially different than GN products intended to be sold in this country.  As a general rule, the resale of genuine trademarked goods is not infringement, under an “exhaustion” theory; this does not apply, however, when the accused party is selling goods that materially differ from those sold by the trademark owner.  The importation of “gray-market” goods, foreign manufactured goods that bear a valid U.S. trademark but that are imported into the country without the trademark owner’s consent, fall within this exception; it is not immediately clear whether goods actually manufactured in America, and GN’s complaint does not make clear where its goods intended for foreign sale are actually made.

In re: NeuroGrafix (‘360) Patent Litigation (13-md-02432).

Judge Stearns denied plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint to add a principal-agent theory of direct infringement in a long-running multi-district litigation originally filed in 2012. Discovery in the matter was extended to August 2017, with the judge admonishing the parties that remaining discovery was to focus on new issues; Judge Stearns granted a motion to quash subpoenas directed to defendant BrainLab’s customers in September, noting that NeuroGrafix had been aware of its inducement theory of infringement for years and had no justification for waiting until the close of discovery to pursue that theory.  NeuroGrafix subsequently moved for leave to file an amended complaint, citing newly discovered evidence that BrainLab provided compensation in the form of dinners, drinks and paid consulting opportunities to neurosurgeons.  NeuroGrafix asserts that, as a result of these payments (which range from one hundred to several thousand dollars), a principal-agent relationship was formed whereby BrainLab directed  or controlled the doctors’ performance and the doctors’ actions could thus be imputed to BrainLab pursuant to Akamai Techs. V. Limelight Networks, 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015).  Judge Stearns found that the proposed complaint, which asserted that “BrainLab intends for Neurosurgeons to carry out each step” of the asserted claim was asserting induced, not direct, infringement, and NeuroGrafix had already been denied the opportunity to belatedly pursue such a theory.

Teva Pharmaceuticals Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co. (17-cv-12087).

Teva sued Eli Lilly, accusing it of infringing five Teva patents covering humanized monoclonal antibodies that can be used to treat migrane sufferers. This month, Teva submitted a Biologics License Application (“BLA”) to the FDA seeking approval to market their product, known as “fremanezumab.”  Eli Lilly recently stated that it had filed its own BLA for a monoclonal antibody, to be called “Galcanezumab,” that targets the same peptide that Teva’s product targets.  Based on Eli Lilly’s completion of Phase III clinical trial, its filing of the BLA, and its extensive press statements that it intends to make and sell the product upon receiving approval, Teva asserts that its cause of action is ripe for consideration by the courts.  Regarding venue (Eli Lilly is not alleged to be a Massachusetts corporation), Teva asserts that Eli Lilly is registered to do business in the Commonwealth, has a registered agent and a Foreign Corporation Certificate of Registration in the Commonwealth, described its business in Massachusetts as “pharmaceutical manufacturing and sales” in 2017 Annual Report filed with the state, and employs consultants and sales people in Massachusetts to work with Massachusetts health care providers.  Moreover, Eli Lilly is asserted to have a facility in Cambridge (in a building, coincidentally, that resides directly behind my firm’s office in Kendall Square) at which it does research and development work, including work on delivery of biologics and pain treatment, which Teva suggests meets the “committed acts of infringement” part of the patent venue statute.

RW IP Holdings, LLC v. Standard Innovation Corp. (17-cv-12060).

RW IP Holdings sued Standard Innovation Corp. for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,028,531, “Terminal Units for a Mobile Communications System” by its sales of We-Vibe® adult toys that can be controlled remotely through a smartphone or the like. Direct, contributory and induced infringement are alleged, and damages, enhancement for willfulness, and attorneys’ fees are sought; no injunction is being sought however, as it appears the patent (which has a priority date of October 12, 1996) has expired.

Potentially of interest, Standard Innovation is alleged to be a Canadian corporation located in Ontario. While the complaint alleges advertising and sales into Massachusetts, there are no allegations that Standard Innovation has a regular and established place of business in the state.  At present, it is unclear whether the venue requirements of TC Heartland will apply to foreign corporations, which previously could be sued in any venue in which personal jurisdiction could be established – the TC Heartland decision notes that the Court was not expressing an opinion on the subject.  It will be interesting to see whether a venue challenge is made in this case.

Microsoft Corp. v. Teratech Corp. d/b/a Terason et al. (17-cv-12038).

Microsoft sued Terason and its president, Alice Chiang, for copyright and trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and unfair competition related to allegedly pirated versions of Microsoft software being advertised and distributed by Terason. Microsoft alleges that Terason customers purchase the software without being aware that it is not legally licensed by Microsoft.  Terason manufactures color portable ultrasound equipment, and (according to the complaint) thousands of activations and attempted activations of Windows 10 and Windows 7 software occurred over the past six years from an IP address assigned to Terason.  The product keys for these activations were either used more times than authorized by the applicable license or were used to activate software outside of the region for which they were authorized.  Microsoft alleges that Chiang personally participated in or had the right to direct and control these activities and received a direct financial benefit from these activities, justifying personal liability either directly or under principles of secondary liability such as respondeat superior, vicarious liability and contributory infringement. The case is before Judge Gorton.

True Value Company v. TrueValue POS, Inc. (17-cv-40135).

Hardware giant True Value Company (“TVC”) sued TrueValue POS (“TV POS”) for federal and common law trademark infringement, dilution and unfair competition. TVC is a member-owned cooperative made up of 4500 independently-owned and operated retail stores, thousands of which are known as TRUE VALUE stores.  TVC has registered TRUE VALUE for a variety of goods and services, including certain retail store services, indicia of membership in an association of retail hardware stores, provision of advertising services, wholesale purchasing services, and credit card services.  They have been using the TRUE VALUE mark since 1954, and assert that the mark is famous.  TVC asserts that TV POS began using the mark in 2013 or 2014 in its domain name (www.truevaluepos.com) in connection with Point Of Sale software and systems for restaurant, retail and credit card services.  TVC seeks injunctive, monetary damages and attorneys’ fees, as well as a finding that the case is exceptional pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117, which allows for statutory and treble damages.