CF-BlogPhotoIndianapolis, Indiana – Attorney Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (“ CF Foundation”),who conducts business in the district, infringed his rights in United States Copyright No. VA0001785115, the “Indianapolis Photo”.  Bell is seeking actual and statutory damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief as the court finds just and proper.

Bell claims he took the Indianapolis Photo in March 2000 and registered it with the U.S. Copyright Office in 2011. Since the registration of the Indianapolis Photo, Bell has filed numerous copyright infringement lawsuits over its use and publication by other parties. In this case, Bell claims he discovered CF Foundation’s use of the Indianapolis Photo in February 2019.

The Complaint asserts that CF Foundation published the Indianapolis Photo on its Website to promote a convention in Indianapolis. Bell has alleged that the CF Foundation has infringed because he believes he had the right to control and supervise the content and access of third-party Internet users to CF Foundation’s website as they utilized his photo. According to the Complaint, Bell believes CF Foundation “downloaded or took the Indianapolis Photo from the internet without” his permission and began publishing the Indianapolis Photo in or around 2013. Based on these allegations, Bell is seeking damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 504 and 505.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging NationalNational-blogPhoto Association of Realtors (“Realtors”) infringed his rights in United States Copyright No. VA0001785115, the “Indianapolis Photo”. Bell is seeking actual and statutory damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court finds just and proper.

Attorney Bell has filed several copyright infringement lawsuits similar to this case. The Complaint in this case alleges Realtors published the Indianapolis Photo on its website to advertise its business. Bell claims after conducting a search in February 2019, he discovered Realtors published the Indianapolis Photo between the years of 2015 to 2018. However, he states he will not know the actual date of first publication until further investigations.

Bell is claiming copyright infringement against Realtors as he alleges it knowingly published the Indianapolis Photo without his authorization. Further, Bell claims Realtors refuses to pay for the unauthorized use of the Indianapolis Photo and will not agree to be enjoined from further use. Finally, Bell claims Realtors permitted third parties to view and download the Indianapolis Photo, and as such, is vicariously liable for any such downloaded copy.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Hana Business Group (“Hana”) conducts business in the district and infringed his rights in United States Copyright No. VA0001785115 “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo”.  Bell seeks injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

Bell is an attorney and photographer who claims to have taken a photograph of the Indianapolis skyline in March 2000, which he registered with the U.S. Copyright Office August 4, 2011. Since registering his photograph, Bell claims to have used the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo in advertising to the extent that the public can identify the photo as being taken by him. Bell has also filed numerous lawsuits claiming copyright infringement of the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo since its registration.

According to the Complaint, Hana does business under the name “Cheap Party Bus Rental Indianapolis Indiana.” In 2019, Bell conducted an internet search and found that the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo was published and visible to viewers on Hana’s website. Bell claims Hana utilized the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo on its website to attract prospective customers.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli Lilly”) of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. of Hyderabad, Telagana, India, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, (collectively “Dr. Lilly-v-Reddy-BlogPhotoReddy’s”) infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 Patent”). Eli Lilly is seeking judgment that Dr. Reddy’s has infringed the ‘209 patent; that the effective date of any FDA approval for Dr. Reddy’s NDA product be not earlier than the expiration of the ‘209 patent; and for costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, along with any other relief the court may deem just and proper.

The Complaint asserts that Eli Lilly sells ALIMTA ®, an FDA approved product used in combination with Cisplatin to treat patients with specific types of cancer. Eli Lilly claims that it is the assignee of the ‘209 patent, a method patent which was upheld as valid by the Federal Circuit in, Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Dr. Reddy’s and Eli Lilly were engaged in a previous lawsuit concerning Dr. Reddy’s NDA No. 208297 and the ‘209 patent. According to the Complaint in this matter, the court found in the previous lawsuit that the filing of NDA No. 208297 indirectly infringed specific claims of the ‘209 patent and entered final judgment in favor of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly claims that because Dr. Reddy’s did not challenge the validity of the ‘209 patent as a counterclaim or affirmative defense in the previous litigation over the ‘209 patent and NDA No. 208297, Dr. Reddy’s is barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata from doing so in this case.

Dr. Reddy’s has filed an amendment to NDA No. 208297, and the Complaint alleges that the purpose of this amendment was to obtain approval of the product before the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Eli Lilly is claiming infringement of the ‘209 patent based on its belief that Dr. Reddy’s NDA product delivers the same active Pemetrexed moiety as the ‘209 patent. Further, Eli Lilly alleges that Dr. Reddy’s NDA product when used as directed will infringe claims 1-22 of the ‘209 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. As such, Eli Lilly is seeking judgment of infringement, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

Continue reading

Hammond, IN – Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed a copyright infringement suit alleging Van Prooyen Builders, Inc. (“Vanblogphoto Prooyen”) of Lake County, Indiana, infringed Design Basics’ copyrighted architectural works. Both the “Coleton” and “Millington” plans, created by Design Basics, have been registered by the US Copyright Office under Registration Numbers VA 1-119-320 and VA 1-070-137 (the “Copyrighted Works”), respectively. Design Basics is seeking temporary and permanent injunctions, actual damages, statutory damages, Van Prooyen’s direct and indirect profits attributable to its alleged infringement, attorney’s fees, court costs, and other expenses.

Design Basics is in the business of creating and licensing “architectural works” and technical drawings to be used for constructing new buildings, including homes. After creating the architectural works, Design Basics claims it registers the works with the U.S. Copyright Office before publishing or marketing the plans. Design Basics has filed many lawsuits allegedly attempting to protect its intellectual property.

The Complaint asserts that the subject Copyrighted Works have generated more than $23,318.00 in licensing revenue for Design Basics since 2009. Design Basics further claims it discovered the alleged infringement by Van Prooyen in May 2016 while researching homes constructed by other builders for a different lawsuit. According to its Complaint, Design Basics sates Van Prooyen’s “Rainier” and “Abby” plans infringe on its Coleton and Millington plans, respectively.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, IN – Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed a lawsuit alleging Kirkbooher Enterprise LLC (“Kirkbooher”), a company that conducts business in Indianapolis, Indiana, who Bell alleges infringed his copyrighted photograph. Bell’s copyrighted work,  Registration No. VA0001785115, was registered by the U.S. Copyright Office on August 4, 2011. Bell is seeking an order enjoining Kirkbooher and its employees from copying and using his copyrighted works; profits derived by Kirkbooher from the use of Bell’s photo; actual and/or statutory damages, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other relief as the court may deem proper.

Bell states he took the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo,”  at issue in this case, in March, 2000. The complaint alleges Bell has published or licensed the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo in compliance with copyright laws. Further, Bell claims he is the sole owner of the copyright and has utilized the photograph to promote his photography business. Bell has filed numerous lawsuits to assert his rights as a copyright owner of the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo.

The complaint alleges Kirkbooher published Bell’s Indianapolis Nighttime Photo on its website created to advertise its business in Indianapolis without his authorization. Bell claims Kirkbooher used his photograph to promote its convention in Indianapolis and to attract prospective customers. Bell claims he discovered Kirkbooher’s website with his photograph using the computer program Tineye in February 2019. He also claims Kirkbooher published his photograph in 2017, but he does not yet know the exact publication date.

Continue reading

Fort Wayne, IN – Rich Iwasaki of Beaverton, Oregon filed suit alleging Apollo Design Technology, Inc.Apollo-300x219 (“Apollo”) of Fort Wayne, Indiana infringed his copyrighted work, Registration No. VA 2-132-257. The Complaint alleges Iwasaki’s copyrighted work, which is a photograph of skyscrapers in Chicago, Illinois (the “Photograph”) was registered by the U.S. Copyright Office on November 28, 2018. Iwasaki is seeking actual damages, Apollo’s profits, alternatively statutory damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and any other relief the court may deem proper.

Iwasaki claims he took the Photograph, added his watermark to the Photograph, and that he has always been the sole owner of the Photograph and the copyright thereto. The complaint alleges Apollo published an article on its website that included the Photograph entitled Prepared to be Wowed – the 2018 DesignScapes Product Line Has Arrived! Iwasaki claims Apollo did not have a license to publish the Photograph, nor did it have his consent or permission to use his Photograph on its website.

The Complaint alleges copyright infringement against Apollo pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501, and damages for infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Iwasaki also claims Apollo violated 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b) by falsifying, removing, or altering his watermark and copyright management information identifying him as the photographer. Iwasaki claims he may elect to recover the actual damages under 17 U.S.C. § 1202 or statutory damages of at least $2,500 up to $25,000 per violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(3).

Continue reading

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 225 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in March 2019 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.  Word Mark
5,711,810 HOPS N HONEY
5,709,777 CNO FINANCIAL GROUP INVESTED IN GIVING BACK
5,709,755 CAULKOLOGIST
5,709,754 EVERKEM
5,709,678 #MOREFORMBC

Continue reading

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign patent searches, patent applications and assists with enforcing patents via infringement litigation and licensing.

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 166 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in March 2019, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

Patent No. Title
1 D0844220 Basketball light raising and lowering apparatus
2 10,244,478 Systems and methods for controlling electronically operable access devices using WI-FI and radio frequency technology
3 10,243,397 Data center power distribution
4 10,243,355 Fault identification and isolation in an electric propulsion system
5 10,243,254 Self adjusting antenna impedance for credential detection in an access control system

Continue reading

Indianapolis, IN – Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed three separate copyright infringement suits against Subud Greater Seattle (“Subud”), Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”), and Quickbook Modeling Agency (“Quickbook”). Bell claims each of the Defendants infringed  his photograph, the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo”, Registration No. VA0001785115, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on August 4, 2008. All three suits were filed in the Southern District of Indiana and are seeking actual and/or statutory damages, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court deems proper.

All three complaints state that Bell took his photograph of the Indianapolis skyline in March 2000. He claims his photograph was first published on his Web shots account on August 29, 2000. Bell also maintains that his photograph has been used in advertisements to the point that it is identifiable by the public as being his work. After registering his photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office, Bell has filed many lawsuits for infringement of the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo.

Bell further alleges that Defendant Subud conducts business in Indianapolis, Indiana and published hisSudbud-300x50 photograph on its website to attract customers and promote a convention taking place in Indianapolis. His Complaint asserts that while Bell discovered Subud’s use of his photograph on April 6, 2018 using Google images, Subud actually published the photograph in 2016. He claims not only did Subud not disclose the source of the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo, it willfully, recklessly, and falsely claimed to own the copyrights of every image and photograph on its website.

Continue reading

Contact Information