February 7, 2012

Counterfeit Super Bowl Goods Lead to Federal Seizure and Arrest for Criminal Trademark and Copyright Infringement

Indianapolis, IN - Federal authorities, led by the Homeland Security Investigations division of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have seized counterfeit Super Bowl goods, shut down websites and made one arrest in a targeted effort to crack down on counterfeit sports goods and websites. According to a government press release, federal authorities seized fake jerseys, caps, t-shirts and other souvenirs illegally bearing NFL and other sports trademarks, trade names and copyrights.SuperBowl46.bmp According to the press release, the operation has been ongoing since October 2011 and culminated in the raids and arrest on Thursday, February 2. The total value of the goods seized was reported to be $4.8 million.

Indianapolis Metro Police Department also participated in the operation, which focused on street vendors in and around the Indianapolis Super Bowl village as well as counterfeit sellers around the world. According to a news report, a store called Off the Wall in Fort Wayne was one of the stores raided by federal agents.

The operation, dubbed Operation Fake Sweep, also targeted websites that illegally stream sports events and sell counterfeit goods. Over 300 websites were shut down. Yonjo Quiroa of Michigan was the sole person arrested. He has been charged with criminal copyright infringement based on his alleged operation of websites that illegally streamed live sporting events. According to news report, many of the websites selling counterfeit goods were from.

Practice Tip: On a related note, the Indianapolis Business Journal reported that the NFL had obtained a temporary restraining order in Marion County Superior Court that allows the NFL to seize counterfeit goods without notice. The report notes the NFL has over 20 registered trademarks such as Super Bowl, SB46, team logos and the Vince Lombardi Trophy design. IBJ has quoted Judge Cynthia Ayers as writing ""Plaintiffs have shown that notice need not be given because vendors and manufacturers of counterfeit NFL merchandise have no business identity and cannot be identified, located or notified ... and if so notified would flee with the counterfeit merchandise."
February 6, 2012

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Copyright Opinion in Golan v. Holder, Protecting Foreign Copyrights in the United States

Washington, DC - The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the Uruguay Round Agreements regarding copyright protection for foreign parties. In 1994, Congress enacted Uruguay Round Agreements Act, which implemented negotiations in the World Trade Organization's Marrakech Agreement. US Supreme Court.bmpThe law in question restored foreign copyrighted works that had previously been in the public domain back to the private domain and granted U.S. copyright protection for those works. Copyright attorneys for Golan and a group of musicians who had used foreign works while the works were in the public domain had filed this lawsuit against United States Attorney General Eric Holder, arguing that the Act violated the U.S. Constitution's Copyright Clause and violated the First Amendment Rights of those who had free access to the works that were restored to private domain.

The Supreme Court rejected these challenges and affirmed the constitutionality of the Act. The Court's opinion emphasized that the Act brought the United States' law into harmony with that of other nations. The SCOTUSblog has links to all the parties' and amicus briefs as well comprehensive coverage of this case.

The Court's opinion affirmed the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals decision and the decision of Judge Babcock of the United States District Court of Colorado.

Practice Tip: The U.S. Supreme Court has a long trend of strenuously protecting the rights of intellectual property owners. This case is yet another example.

Continue reading "U.S. Supreme Court Issues Copyright Opinion in Golan v. Holder, Protecting Foreign Copyrights in the United States" »

February 4, 2012

Indiana Patent Attorneys Obtain 174 Patents for Indiana Companies in January, 2012

Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 174 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in January, 2012.

Pat. No. Title
1 D653,405 Cage having a divider panel for containing an animal 
2 D653,173 Truck cab 
3 D653,161 Spindle vase 
4 D653,047 Health care bed frame 
5 8,107,652 Controlled leakage omnidirectional electret condenser microphone element

Continue reading "Indiana Patent Attorneys Obtain 174 Patents for Indiana Companies in January, 2012" »

February 3, 2012

Trademark Registrations Issued to 146 Indiana Companies in January, 2012

The US Trademark Office issued the following 146 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in January, 2012, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

 

Reg. Number Mark Click to View
1 4,089,821 PETSIT USA VIEW
2 4,092,607 THE SENDING CENTER VIEW
3 4,091,138 SUBSCRIBERS FANS AND FOLLOWERS VIEW
4 4,091,088 VIVACIT-E VIEW
5 4,090,901 VISITBLOOMINGTON.COM VIEW

Continue reading "Trademark Registrations Issued to 146 Indiana Companies in January, 2012" »

February 2, 2012

Newt Gingrich Sued for Copyright Infringement of "Eye of the Tiger"

Chicago, IL - Copyright attorneys for Rude Music Inc. of Palatine, Illinois have filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois alleging that Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich and the American Conservative Union of Washington, D.C. infringed the copyrighted song "Eye of the Tiger," which has been registered with the US Copyright Office.

Rude Music is owned by Frank Sullivan, who is a co-author of "Eye of the Tiger," which was the theme song from the movie Rocky III. SurviorEyeOfTheTiger.jpgThe complaint alleges that Newt Gingrich has been appearing at campaign and fundraising events since 2009 where the copyrighted song was played as he took the stage. Some of these events were fundraising events for the American Conservative Union while other events were part of Gingrich's presidential campaign. The complaint states that Gingrich's use of the song is unlicensed, unauthorized and willful infringement. Interestingly, the complaint alleges that Gingrich's experiences in the House of Representatives as well as being president of Gingrich Productions, a multimedia company, make him knowledgeable about copyright infringement. The complaint seeks an injunction barring Gingrich's use of the song, damages, attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: While this type of unauthorized use of a copyrighted song is likely infringement, it is an interesting question whether Gingrich would have the defense of fair use, particularly in the context of political speech and its first amendment protection. Other political campaigns have also faces similar suits. In 2008, John McCain was sued over his use of the song "Running on Empty" by Jackson Brown. McCain filed a motion to dismiss, citing the fair use doctrine. The court denied the motion to dismiss, but the case was settled soon after.

Continue reading "Newt Gingrich Sued for Copyright Infringement of "Eye of the Tiger"" »

February 1, 2012

Southern District Dismisses AirFX's Patent Infringement Suit Against Custom Cycle Control Systems Over Motorcycle Suspension

Indianapolis, IN - The Southern District of Indiana has dismissed a patent infringement lawsuit, finding that the complaint failed to give fair notice of the patent infringement claim. Patent attorneys for AirFX, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana had filed a lawsuit against Custom Cycle Control Systems, Inc. of Las Vegas, Nevada, alleging Custom had infringed patent no. 7,559,396 Motorcycle air suspension System.

AirFX's complaint alleged that AirFX received a defective product made by Custom Cycle Control SystemsPicture.bmp from a customer, who believed he had purchased a genuine AirFX product that utilized the patented technology. AirFX claims that Custom Cycle has been manufacturing and selling products that infringe its patent and that the inferior products of Custom Cycle have damaged the reputation of AirFX. Patent attorneys filed an amended complaint in September.

In this entry by Chief Judge Richard L. Young, the court noted several "deficiencies that concern the court" in the amended complaint. The court pointed out that the Plaintiff failed to identify the means or theory of infringement and simply alleged the defendant infringed the patent. Further, the complaint included a period before the patent was assigned to AirFX. Finally, the court noted that the Plaintiff's patent attorney failed to attach a copy of the patent to complaint. The Plaintiff did attach a copy of a patent, however, it was not the patent at issue in this case. In sum, the court found the complaint failed to give the defendants sufficient notice of the claims against it. The court gave AirFX only 15 days to file a second amended complaint.

Practice Tip: As we blogged about last June, AirFX filed this patent infringement case at the same time as a second patent infringement case against J.D. Braun and other out-of-state defendants. The patent infringement case against J.D. Braun was dismissed in November for lack of personal jurisdiction. See our blog on the dismissal. Unless AirFX is able to amend their complaint sufficiently within the short 15 day deadline, AirFX's patent infringement attorneys will have struck out in the Southern District.

Continue reading "Southern District Dismisses AirFX's Patent Infringement Suit Against Custom Cycle Control Systems Over Motorcycle Suspension" »

January 30, 2012

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Issues Opinion for Rolex in Trademark Dispute Suit Over Dilution

Alexandria, VA - The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the US Trademark Office has reached a decision regarding the opposition of trademark registration filed by Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. of New York, New York against AFP Imaging Corporation of Elmsford, New York on trademark serial no. 77/492,131 for the mark ROLL-X registered with the US Trademark Office.

In 2008, AFP filed a trademark application with the US Trademark Office for the mark ROLL-X, with the product category of "x-ray tables for medical and dental use." Rolex Watch filed an oppositionROLL-X.jpg to that registration, arguing that there was a likelihood of confusion between AFP's products and the Rolex trademark that Rolex has used for many years and that the Rolex marks would likely be diluted by tarnishing or blurring of the marks. The opinion notes that Rolex's trademarks state that their products are "watches, clocks, parts of watches and clocks, and their cases." After considering all the statutory factors, the Board determined that Rolex had not demonstrated that AFP's proposed trademark registration would result in dilution of Rolex's trademarks.

Practice Tip: In considering whether a trademark application dilutes a prior mark by blurring, there are six factors to consider pursuant 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(2)(B)(i-vi). These are: the degree of similarity between the two marks, the degree of distinctness, the extent to which the owner of the famous mark is engaging in exclusive use, the degree of recognition of the famous mark, intent to create association with the famous mark, and finally, actual association with the famous mark.

Continue reading "Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Issues Opinion for Rolex in Trademark Dispute Suit Over Dilution" »

January 27, 2012

Lioness Vizions, LLC Sues Rhasha and Mikel Hoosier for Copyright Infringement in Dispute Between Co-authors of Book

Indianapolis, IN - Copyright attorneys for Lioness Vizions, LLC, Angentia Childs of Indianapolis, Indiana and Delina Hill-Brooker of Powder Springs, Georgia filed a copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Rhasha and Mikel Hoosier of Gahanna, Ohio, Reign Media Group and Romantic Media Group of the State of Ohio infringed the copyrighted work Revealing & Healing: 3 Women's Stories of Survival. The plaintiffs also allege other claims based on the operation of a limited liability company that marketed and sold the book.

The complaint describes how Ms. Childs, Ms. Hill-Brooker and Ms. Hoosier wrote a book together, which is the allegedly copyrighted work. Because they could not find a publisher, the three women formed a limited liability company, Lioness Vizions LLC, to publish, market and sell their book.3WomensStory.bmp The complaint states that the three women assigned their copyright to the company. The complaint states that in August 2010, Ms. Hoosier resigned from company and then dissolved the company without the authorization of the two other women. The complaint alleges that Ms. Hoosier, however, went on to market and sell the book on her own and formed another company to sell the book. The complaint states that Ms. Hoosier has appeared on radio shows and done other promotional activities to sell the book and has not shared the profits with the other co-authors. The complaint makes claims of wrongful dissolution for Lioness Vizions LLC, copyright infringement, right of publicity infringement, breach of operating agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, civil theft, tortuous interference with existing or potential business relationships, and unfair competition. Copyright attorneys are seeking an injunction, damages, return of all copies of the book, an order reinstating Lioness Vizions LLC, disgorgement of profits,

Practice Tip: It is interesting to note that the Plaintiffs claim venue is proper in Indiana because "solicitation of the Plaintiffs took place" in Indiana. Lioness Vizions LLC was registered as an Ohio limited liability company.

Continue reading "Lioness Vizions, LLC Sues Rhasha and Mikel Hoosier for Copyright Infringement in Dispute Between Co-authors of Book" »

January 25, 2012

Eli Lilly and Company Sues Accord Healthcare for Patent Infringement of Lung Cancer Drug ALIMTA

Indianapolis, IN - Patent attorneys for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent infringementlilly.bmp suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Accord Healthcare, Inc., USA of Durham, North Carolina infringed patent no. 7,772,209, Antifolate combination therapies, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The complaint states that in December Accord sent a letter notifying Lilly that Accord had submitted an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ADNA) to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its generic version of Alimta. Lilly alleges that Accord's proposed product and labeling will infringe its patents. Lilly seeks an injunction to prevent Accord from developing, manufacturing and selling the allegedly infringing product.

Practice Tip: Lilly has already won a patent infringement case over Alimta. As we blogged about last year, the District Court of Delaware affirmed the validity of Alimta patents. This lawsuit, however, is over a patent that was not the subject of the District Court of Delaware's decision.

Continue reading "Eli Lilly and Company Sues Accord Healthcare for Patent Infringement of Lung Cancer Drug ALIMTA" »

January 24, 2012

Indiana House Bill Looks Right of Publicity

Indianapolis, IN - A bill pending in the Indiana General Assembly would make changes to Indiana's Right of Publicity Law, I.C. 32-36-1-8. The bill would clarify that a person who died before 1994 does have the publicity rights provided by the law.

This bill is co-authored byindiana_seal.gif Representatives Sean Eberhart of Shelbyville and Ralph Foley of Martinsville. It has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. The Indianapolis Star quoted Representative Foley as explaining the need for the law as confusion in federal courts regarding whether the publicity rights attach to persons who died before 1994.

As we have previously blogged about, Indiana's Right to Publicity law is considered one of the strongest in the world. This bill, if passed, appears to strengthen that law even further. The Indiana Law Blog has compiled some recent blogs regarding the Right to Publicity law.

Practice Tip: The Indiana General Assembly has a "short session" this year, meaning March 14 will be the last day of the session. If this bill is to become a law this session, it must move quickly through the House and Senate committees in the next several weeks in order to get to Governor Daniel's desk by March 14.

Continue reading "Indiana House Bill Looks Right of Publicity" »

January 23, 2012

Angie's List Sues Click and Improve over Theft of Computer Files, Breach of Contract: Case Removed to Federal Court

Indianapolis, IN - A trade secret and breach of contract lawsuit filed in Marion County Superior Court has been removed to the Southern District of Indiana. In December, intellectual property attorneys for Angie's List Thumbnail image for AngiesList.bmpof Indianapolis, Indiana filed a suit in Marion County Superior Court alleging Click and Improve, Inc. d/b/a, ClickAndImprove.com, Avi Zikry and Jesse Friedman of New York State breached a membership agreement by misappropriating trade secrets and committing computer fraud and abuse.

Angie's List provides consumer reviews of different service providers. Click and Improve is a competitor website started in 2011. Zikry and Friedman are Click and Improve's principles. The complaint alleges Zikry and Friedman became a member of Angie's List in 2011 and signed a membership agreement that limited the ways that members could use the information on Angie's List. The complaint alleges Zikry and Friedman essentially stole reviews and other information on Angie's List and published the information on their competing website. The complaint states over 24,000 proprietary files were stolen. The complaint makes claims of breach of contract, tortuous interference with contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, computer fraud and abuse, computer trespass, conversion, fraud and theft. Angie's List seeks an injunction, damages, treble damages, costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: Any case filed in state court that makes a federal claim can be removed to federal court upon request. Most intellectual property cases involve a federal claim under the federal patent, trademark or copyright laws. Here, however, the plaintiff made a federal claim under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030.

Continue reading "Angie's List Sues Click and Improve over Theft of Computer Files, Breach of Contract: Case Removed to Federal Court" »

January 19, 2012

Appeal Court Grants Decision for Epocal, Inc. in Patent Infringement Suit Over Point of Care Blood Testing.

Washington, D.C. - The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement case. Patent attorneys for Abbott Point of Care of Princeton, New Jersey had filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Alabama alleging that Abbott should have legal title to patent no. 6,845,327, Point-of-care in-vitro blood analysis system, and 6,896,778, Electrode module which has been issued by the US Patent Office. The patents are owned by Epocal, Inc. of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, who was named as defendant in this suit. CAFC Logo.bmpThe Northern District of Alabama had granted Epocal's motion to dismiss and dismissed Abbott's complaint. Abbott appealed, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.

According to the opinion, Dr. Imants Lauks was once an employee of Abbott's predessor company, but went on to start Epocal after he left that employment. Dr. Lauks has assigned all his patent rights to Epocal. Pursuant a series of employment and consulting contracts with Abbott, Dr. Lauks agreed to assign to Abbott all patent rights to any inventions he conceived while employed with Abbott. Abbott claims that the patents in questions cover inventions that were conceived while Dr. Lauks was employed with Abbott and therefore Abbott should have the patent rights. Epocal filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Epocal claimed the patents in question were conceived after Dr. Lauks's employment terminated, therefore Abbott has no ownership.

Chief Judge Rader, writing the opinion of the court, agreed with the district court that Abbott did not have any rights to the patents and therefore, lacked standing to bring a patent infringement lawsuit. The opinion noted that the district court had concluded the terms of the most recent agreement did not cover the invention in question. Justice Bryson wrote a dissenting opinion, noting he found that contracts to be ambiguous and would have remanded for further discovery of extrinsic evidence of the intention of the parties in entering the employment contract.

Practice Tip: Employment and consultancy contracts routinely require assignment of intellectual property rights. In this case, the language of the clause in the employment/consultancy agreement changed over time. The court discussed that if the language in the first contract would have been identical to the language in the latest contract, Abbott would have had rights to the patents in question. This illustrates the importance of having an intellectual property attorney draft these clauses carefully.

Continue reading "Appeal Court Grants Decision for Epocal, Inc. in Patent Infringement Suit Over Point of Care Blood Testing." »

January 18, 2012

Syndicate Sales, Inc. Sues Hill's Import, Inc. for Patent Infringement of Flower Vase

Indianapolis, IN - Patent attorneys for Syndicate Sales, Inc. of Kokomo, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Hill's Import, Inc. of Quakertown, Pennsylvania infringed design patent no. D652,342, Plateau vase with constant size neck, known as the "Harshman patent, "which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The complaint states that the patented vase design was created by artist Trent Harshman, who has assigned all his rights to Syndicate. Syndicate's complaint states that Hill's has never beenVase.bmp granted any rights to sell or import the patented vase design. The complaint alleges that Hill's infringed the patent by importing and selling vases that utilized the patented design. Syndicate's patent attorneys have alleged that the vases in question were manufactured in by Shangdong Yiyaun Oking Glassware Company in China. Syndicate is seeking a declaration of infringement, an injunction, damages, attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: Syndicate Sales' patent purports to cover a vase having a square bottom that morphs into a rounded top with a flange. This would seem to be a common shape, and, if Hill's import does not get the case dismissed on jurisdictional ground, it can be expected to attack the validity of the patent on grounds of "obviousness." Also, the complaint alleges that the vases Hill's allegedly sold came from a factory in China and include Syndicate's UPC code. This raises an issue of whether the Chinese factory had been authorized by Syndicate to make the vases. If so, Hills may have license defense. Alternatively, Hill's may be entitled to be indemnified by its alleged Chinese supplier.

Continue reading "Syndicate Sales, Inc. Sues Hill's Import, Inc. for Patent Infringement of Flower Vase" »

January 16, 2012

Several 2011 Indiana Patent Infringement Cases Dismissed or Near Settlement

Indianapolis, IN -- Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News has followed up on patent infringement cases filed in the Northern District of Indiana and the Southern District of Indiana by patent attorneys in 2011. The following updates are now available:

As we blogged in March 2011, the U.S. District Court of South Carolina transferred FC Patents v. Ford Meter Box Company of Wabash, Indiana, a patent infringement case involving fire prevention fixtures, to Northern District Court of Indiana. Following the transfer, plaintiff FC Patents voluntarily dismissed the case. This case was assigned to Judge Theresa Springmann and Magistrate Judge Christopher A. Nuechterlein in the Northern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 3:11-cv-00116-TLS -CAN.

As we blogged in May 2011,Brandon S. Judkins of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit alleging Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation of New York, New York infringed Patent No. D591,090, FURNITURE ARTICLE, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. In August 2011, Mr. Judkins voluntarily dismissed the case. This case was assigned to Chief Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:11-cv-00661-RLY-DML.

As we blogged about in May, patent lawyers for Knauf Insulation Limited of St. Helens, Merseyside, United Kingdom and Knauf Insulation GMBH of Shelbyville, Indiana, filed a patent infringement suit alleging Certainteed Corporation of Valley Forge, Pennsylvania infringed Patent No. 7,854,980, FORMALDEHYDE-FREE MINERAL FIBRE INSULATION PRODUCT, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

In December 2011, the parties submitted a motion to stay the litigation to the court, noting that they were near settlement. This case was assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:11-CV-00680-SEB-DML.
January 13, 2012

Northern District Denies Motion To Amend Protective Order In Patent Infringement Case Over Mobile Banking Vehicle

Fort Wayne, IN - The Northern District of Indiana has denied a Motion to Amend a Stipulated Protective Order in a patent infringement case. Romary Associates Inc. of Fort Wayne, Indiana had filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that KIBBI LLC d/b/a Renegade Custom Coaches and Trailers, McKibbin Enterprises, Inc. and KIBBI, Inc. all of Bristol, Indiana infringed patent no. 7,475,809,PatentPicture.bmp MOBILE BANKING VEHICLE, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. The invention is essentially a bank branch that can be.

The parties entered a Stipulated Protective Order in February 2011. Romary had moved to have the stipulated protective order amended to have certain "strategic" information designated "Highly Confidential - Outside Attorneys' Eyes Only." The original protective order allows the other party's attorneys as well as officers and employees to view confidential information. Romary now argued that KIBBI is seeking market analysis and strategic planning documents in discovery and that such document should be subject to heightened protection. Romary argued this type of disclosure was not foreseeable.

The court, in summary, held that these types of disclosures should have been foreseeable to Romary when the original protective order was entered. Therefore, the court failed to find "good cause to amend the protective order.

Practice Tip: This case raises issues of how litigation can cause trade secret protection to be impaired if a protective order is not carefully drafted. Protective orders, which can designate certain trade secrets "attorneys' eyes only," are intended to prevent the disclosure of trade secrets and other intellectual property.

Continue reading "Northern District Denies Motion To Amend Protective Order In Patent Infringement Case Over Mobile Banking Vehicle" »