IP Law Daily, PATENT NEWS: Scholastic is accused of infringing invisible ink writing system patent, (Aug 15, 2016)
Law Firms Mentioned:Brooks Cushman P.C.
Organizations Mentioned:Scholastic, Inc. | Zen Design Group Limited
By Peter Reap, J.D., LL.M.
Zen Design Group Limited has filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Detroit, accusing Scholastic of infringing Zen’s patent for an invisible ink writing system.
According to the complaint, Zen Design is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 6,860,616 (“the ’616 patent”) entitled “Ultraviolet Light Writing System.” The USPTO issued the ’616 patent on March 25, 2005. Upon information and belief, Scholastic has offered for sale and/or sold a product called “TopSecret UV Pen”, as well as numerous other products that include a similar pen (the “Accused Products”).
The Accused Products infringe, directly and indirectly, at least claims 1 and 7 of the ’616 patent, literally and/or under the Doctrine of Equivalents, Zen contends. The Accused Products are pen-lights which includes a battery holder having both a distal terminus and a proximal terminus. The Accused Products include a switch which can be used to turn a UV light-emitting diode (“LED”) on and off. The LED emits a wavelength of less than 420 nanometers.
The Accused Products include a translucent pen assembly that has both a cap end and a pen tip end and is mateably attachable to the battery holder on either end. The Accused Products include an ink refill in fluid communication with a pen tip that extends from the pen tip end. The ink fluoresces in the visible portion of the light spectrum when exposed to a light having a wavelength less than 420 nanometers, the complaint details.
Zen alleges that Scholastic had actual notice of the ’616 patent and its infringement since at least May 2015, when Zen mailed the ’616 patent to it. The complaint includes one claim for patent infringement. Zen seeks injunctive relief, and an award damages adequate to compensate for Scholastic’s infringement, and increased damages of three times the amount assessed pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284. Zen also requests its reasonable attorney fees, costs, and disbursements because this is an exceptional case, it argues.
The complaint in Zen Design Group Limited v. Scholastic, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-12936-RHC-EAS, was filed August 11, 2016.
Attorneys: Thomas W. Cunningham (Brooks Cushman P.C.) for Zen Design Group Limited.
Companies: Zen Design Group Limited; Scholastic, Inc.
News: Patent MichiganNews