Purdue Pharma LP et al. v. Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. (17-cv-11814).

Purdue asserts that Collegium infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,693,961, which covers improved oxycodone hydrochloride compositions, both by filing an NDA and by making and selling the now-approved Xtampza® ER oxycodone extended release capsules.  This marks the latest in a series of lawsuits filed by Purdue alleging Xtampza® infringes Purdue patents.

LovePop, Inc. v. PaperPopCards Inc. (17-cv-11017).

LovePop amended its complaint against PaperPop Cards, adding some new card designs to the allegations. LovePop originally filed suit in June, alleging copyright and trademark infringement relating to 3-D pop-up cards and videos promoting the cards.  PaperPop moved to dismiss the copyright claims, on the basis that the complaint did not identify any allegedly protectable expression that is found in PaperPop’s cards, and fails to separate out the public domain elements that are not protectable under copyright law.  Here is an exemplary comparison of each companies’ Hanukah card found in PaperPop’s motion to dismiss, with LovePop’s on the left and PaperPop’s on the right:

The motion to dismiss was denied as to certain card designs and otherwise taken under advisement.

LovePop was launched out of the Harvard Innovation Lab in 2014. The cards are beautiful – you can see one of the allegedly copied videos of a Christmas sleigh card being opened at LovePop’s website here.

Blackout Merch, LLC v. John Does 1-5 et al. (17-cv-11799).

Judge Zobel is presiding over another pre-emptive concert merchandise case, this one involving the performer Katy Perry. Blackout Merch claims the exclusive right to utilize Ms. Perry’s registered trademarks in connection with concert merchandise in North America, and seeks to prevent the sale of infringing merchandise at or around Boston’s TD Garden when Ms. Perry performs there on the 29th and 30th of September.

Polyzen, Inc. v. Dielectrics, Inc. (17-cv-30128).

Polyzen sued Chicopee, Massachusetts company Dielectrics, Inc., alleging that various Dielectrics’ multi-layer film welded medical balloons infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,737,694. The patent, which issued just last month, claims methods of manufacturing medical balloons.  The case is before Judge Mark Mastroianni in the Springfield division of the District of Massachusetts.

Judge Mastroianni, a Springfield native, received his commission as a judge in June, 2014. Of the five patent cases he has thus far presided over, this is the second involving Polyzen and Dielectrics.  Polyzen previously sued Dielectrics on August 19, 2015, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,976,497 and 8,740,845, which are also directed to medical balloons.  The dispute centers around Polyzen’s distributor RadiaDyne, who has the exclusive right to use and sell covered medical balloons manufactured by Polyzen.  According to the earlier complaint, RadiaDyne provided confidential and proprietary information of Polyzen to Dielectrics, who used the information to manufacture lower-cost (but infringing) balloons for RadiaDyne to sell. Polyzen sued both companies in North Carolina, but the suit against Dielectrics was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, leading to the Massachusetts suit.  This first case remains stayed pending the outcome of the North Carolina suit, which is currently under appeal.

Leary v. Berkshire Group LLC (17-cv-11723).

Silvia Leary is the owner of a trademark registration on the stylized mark “VIA,” in which the “A” lacks the horizontal line, looking like an upside-down “V.” The identified goods and services are “fashion modelling for entertainment purposes.”  Ms. Leary alleges that she has a pending copyright application on the mark.  She uses the mark at her “Viasworld” website, where (among other things) she sells socks, t-shirts, and other merchandise.  Berkshire developed the “Via Seaport Residences” on Fan Pier in Boston, and apparently created some “VIA” merchandising in connection with the development.  Berkshire’s use has a similar “A” that lacks the horizontal line.  Ms. Leary alleges that Berkshire is using the same VIA mark on hats, glasses, t-shirts and other types of items, causing customer confusion.  She claims trademark and copyright infringement and unfair competition.  The case is before Judge Saris.

Rothschild Digital Confirmation LLC v. Repsly, Inc. (17-cv-11706).

Rothschild accused Repsly of direct and indirect infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,456,872, “Devise and Method for Embedding and Retrieving Information in Digital Images.” The plaintiff is a Texas entity with a place of business in Plano, Texas, home to many non-practicing entities, and appears to be exlcusively in the patent infringement business.  Rothschild was registered as a limited liability company in August of 2016 by Leigh Rothschild, the sole named inventor on the patent, however, making this case at least somewhat different than many of the non-practicing entity suits we see.

GN Netcom, Inc. v. TelQuest International Corp. d/b/a American Telecom HQ and Amazon Reseller American Telecom Headquarters (17-cv-11671).

In an interesting trademark infringement lawsuit, a manufacturer seeks to prevent a reseller from using its trademarks to identify products the manufacturer actually made, but made for use and sale only outside of the United States. GN Netcom is a headset manufacturer based in Lowell, MA.  It sells headsets under the brand names “Jabra,” “VXi,” and “GN Netcom.”  GN alleges that the Defendant is a reseller of phone systems and headsets, both through its own website and through Amazon, eBay, and other online platforms.  Defendants are said to sell, without authorization, GN headsets that it purchased from international resellers, and to use GN’s trademarks (and some GN copyrighted images) in the process. These products were designed and manufactured differently than GN products intended for sale in the U.S., are said to contain “material differences” (such as language differences in the interface, battery and voltage differences) from the U.S. products, and are not subject to GN’s U.S. warranty.  GN further alleges that Defendant advertise U.S. versions of the GN products it sells, but then ships the international versions.  GN brings counts for trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin.  The case has been assigned to Judge Sorokin.