Elvan Confectionary Corp. et al. v. Yalim et al. (19-cv-11089).

Elvan, a Turkish candy maker, utilized Turkana Food to import and distribute its products in the United States.  High-Quality-Today-Hazelnut-Wafer.jpeg_350x350In 2017, Elvan formed a U.S. entity, based in Massachusetts, to import and distribute its products through grocery stores, which Turkana did not do. Turkana in response terminated their agreement, claiming that Elvan’s actions were in violation of “exclusive rights” of Turkana under the agreement. Elvan accuses that Turkana, its affiliate Spirit Food Group, and their agent Cengiz Yalim of breaching their distribution agreement and selling Elvan products without authorization. Elvan further asserts that the defendants fraudulently attempted to register Elvan’s trademarks, including JELAXY, COFFEX, TOFFEX and TODAY, with the PTO and asserted the marks against customers who were buying directly from Elvan. Finally, Elvan asserts that the Defendants are obtaining and selling counterfeit Elvan products bearing Elvan’s trademarks. In addition to this complaint, Elvan and Turkana have several cancellation proceedings before the USPTO as each tries to register the same marks.

SiOnyx, LLC et al. v. Hamamatsu Photonics K.K. et al. (15-cv-13488).

The jury returned a verdict in this long-running saga over black silicon technology that SiOnyx disclosed to Hamamtsu under a nondisclosure agreement, finding that Hamamatsu breached the NDA and was unjustly enriched and awarding $1,377,109 in damages for these claims. They rejected Hamamatsu’s statute of limitations and equitable estoppel defenses. They further determined that SiOnyx employee Dr. Carey should be named as a co-inventor on the Hamamatsu patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. § 256. Finally, they determined that Hamamatsu willfully infringed SiOnyx’s patent and that the patent is valid, but awarded no damages for the infringement.

Scanning Technologies Innovations, LLC v. Scandir Inc. (19-cv-10999) and Skycore LLC (19-cv-11000).

Scanning Technologies accuses Scandir and Skycore of infringing U.S. Patent No. 9,053,498 through sales of apps that permit scanning of barcodes using a smartphone or other mobile device and obtaining further information about the item containing the barcode. Scanning Technologies seeks damages and injunctive relief.

Pinek IP LLC v. Visonic Inc. (19-cv-10990).

Plano Texas entity Pinek, a patent holding company, sued Westford’s Visonic of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,233,256, which is directed to systems and methods for receiving a signal to trigger a pyroelectric activation system. Pinek asserts that Visonic’s Long Range Pet Immune PIR Motion Detector infringes at least claim 1 of the ‘256 patent, and seeks monetary, but not injunctive, relief. Pinek filed eight additional cases alleging infringement of the ‘256 patent in the last three months, one of which appears to have settled. Judge Talwani has been assigned to the matter.

JW Reilly LLC v. Bally Americas Inc. et al. (19-cv-11007).

JW Reilly, a business run by Judith Reilly to sell her sterling silver products, sued Swiss shoemaker Bally, accusing Bally of infringing a design patent on a shoe buckle. The design, set forth in U.S. D667,212, appears to be a clip-on accessory, as opposed to a true buckle, that has a rectangular face and that clips over the front, toe portion of a shoe. JW Reilly sells buckles asserted to be embodiments of the design patent in which the buckle can be engraved with wording, initials or a design. shoebuckles1

Ms. Reilly asserts that she approached the manager of Bally’s Copley Place store in 2013 to discuss hosting a fund-raising event to support the Boston One Fund, a charity to assist families of those killed or injured in the Marathon bombing. In connection with her proposal, she asserts that she provided a description and photograph of her buckles that specifically indicated that they were protected by the ‘212 patent. Bally’s declined to participate in the proposed fund-raiser. bally-pink-purple-heline-pumps-pink-product-0-957859960-normal

Ms. Reilly indicates that she subsequently became aware that Bally was offering three shoe designs that included buckles that she believes to be infringements of her patent. She asserts that Bally copied her design. The case has been assigned to Judge Saris.

Harbor Sweets, Inc. v. Village Harbor Sweets LLC et al. (19-cv-10986).

Salem’s Harbor Sweets has been using the HARBOR SWEETS mark for candy since 1973, and has held registrations of the name for candy and mail order services in the field of candy since 1978 and 1979, respectively. Recently, Marissa Maccusso opened Village Harbor Sweets in the beautiful Padanarum neighborhood of South Dartmouth, selling gelato, bubble tea, and chocolates. Harbor Sweets accuses Village Harbor of federal and common law trademark infringement, state and federal trademark dilution, unfair competition, and violation of Ch. 93A.

Canon, Inc. v. Avigilon USA Corp., Inc. et al. (19-cv-10931).

Canon accuses Avigilon of infringing its 10,135,952 patent relating to surveillance video streaming. The two parties have already engaged in litigation, when Canon sued Avigilon in New York on a number of prior patents. Canon dismissed when Avigilon indicated its intent to move to transfer to Massachusetts, at which point Avigilon filed a declaratory judgment action in Massachusetts. Canon then moved to transfer to the Northern District of Texas, which was granted. At that point, Aviligon voluntarily dismissed the DJ action, with the Texas court refusing to award Canon its attorneys’ fees. Canon now bases jurisdiction in Massachusetts based in part on Avigilon’s having availed itself of the Massachusetts court based on its DJ filing.