Articles Posted in New Litigation

Lafayette, Indiana – Aaron Babcock (“Babcock”), the Plaintiff, claims to be a professional photographer in Lincoln, Nebraska. According to the complaint, Babcock photographed actor Bill Murray attending a Nebraska vs. Purdue football game (the “Photograph”). The Photograph was registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. VA 2-126-687.

In the second of two lawsuits with identical parties, Babcock claims Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC (“Gannett”), the Defendant, ran four articles on its websites featuring the Photograph. Babcock first sued Gannett for copyright infringement of a different photograph in December 2019 in the Western District of Wisconsin. In this case, Gannett allegedly used the Photograph without a license or permission from Babcock. As such, Babcock is seeking damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees for copyright infringement.

The case was assigned to Chief District Judge Theresa Lazar Springmann and Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar in the Northern District and assigned Case 4:20-cv-00023-TLS-JPK.

Lafayette, Indiana – Professional photographer and Plaintiff, Bryan Glynn, managing member of BG Pictures LLC, claims Defendant Cigar Cigar LLC (“Cigar Cigar”) displayed his photograph protected by U.S. Copyright No. VAu 1-271-409  on its website without his consent. Glynn claims Cigar Cigar’s actions amount to copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 504 and 505, Glynn is seeking Cigar Cigar’s profits from the use of the photograph, statutory damages, and attorney’s fees.

The case was assigned to District Judge Theresa L. Springmann and Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar in the Northern District and assigned Case 4:20-cv-00022.

1-Complaint

South Bend, Indiana – Real Clear Holdings LLC (“RCH”), the Defendant, is alleged to have copied Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski’s photograph of Mayor Bill de Blasio (the “Photograph”) without a license or authorization. Sadowski claims to be a professional photographer and owner of U.S. Copyright No. VA 2-175-419 for the Photograph. According to the Complaint, Sadowski licensed the Photograph to the New York Post who posted the Photograph with Sadowski’s name in an article on its website on July 25, 2019.

RCH allegedly took the Photograph from the New York Post’s website and used the Photograph on RCH’s website www.realclearmarkets.com/ in an article posted on September 9, 2019. Sadowski claims RCH did not license the Photograph from him and did not have his permission to utilize the Photograph. He further claims RCH removed the copyright management information identifying Sadowski as the photographer as shown on the New York Post’s website and instead credited “YouTube”. Therefore, he is seeking damages for copyright infringement and removal and alteration of copyright management information.

The case was assigned to District Judge Damon R. Leichty and Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. in the Northern District and assigned Case 3:20-cv-00215-DRL-MGG.

South Bend, Indiana – Kevin Jairaj (“Jairaj”), the Plaintiff, claims to be a professional photographer in the business of licensing his photographs including one of Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney (the “Photograph”). Jairaj claims to have registered the Photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office and granted Copyright Registration No. VA 2-112-984. According to the Complaint, Defendant Gray Television ran multiple articles on its websites regarding the alleged sexual abuse of McKayla Maroney featuring the Photograph without a license. Jairaj is seeking damages and statutory relief for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501 and intentionally removing copyright management information pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1202.

The case was assigned to District Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., and Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. in the Northern District and assigned Case 3:20-cv-00156-RLM-MGG.

Complaint

Fort Wayne, Indiana – George Matula (“Matula”), the Plaintiff, claims to be a professional photographer in the business of licensing his photographs for a fee. Matula allegedly photographed a horse and registered the photograph as U.S. Copyright No. VA 2-154-421 (the “Photograph”) in 2018. According to the Complaint, Defendant Triple H Magazine ran the Photograph in its publication without licensing the Photograph from Matula in violation of the U.S. Copyright Act. Therefore, Matula is seeking damages for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b).

The case was assigned to District Judge Holly A. Brady and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins in the Northern District and assigned Case 1:20-cv-00071-HAB-SLC.

Complaint

Hammond, Indiana – Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), along with eleven other Plaintiffs (the “Copyright Owners”), filed suit against Backstage of Indiana, LLC d/b/a Backstage on Broadway (“Backstage”) and Marcell Jackson (“Jackson” and collectively “Defendants”) alleging copyright infringement of six different musical compositions. BMI alleges it has licensing rights to the six musical compositions at issue which are owned by the eleven Copyright Owners. Jackson is allegedly an owner of Backstage and is responsible for the operation and management of the establishment including the public performance of musical compositions. BMI and the Copyright Owners are seeking damages for six claims of willful copyright infringement after allegedly reaching out to Defendants over seventy times in an effort to educate them on the Copyright Act and license the musical compositions to Defendants.

The case was assigned to Northern District Judge Philip P. Simon and Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar in the Northern District and assigned Case 2:20-cv-00010-PPS-JPK.

BMI-Complaint

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiffs, Esther A. L. Verbovszky (“Verbovzsky”) and Hug Me Joey, LLC (“Hug Me Joey”), less than a year after voluntarily Carseat-Photo-1-274x300dismissing a similar lawsuit, have once again filed a complaint against Defendant Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. d/b/a Maxi-Cosi (“Dorel”) claiming patent infringement. According to the Complaint, Verbovzsky strives to design and invent products to abate breathing and digestive issues in small infants during transport. Verbovzsky further claims to be the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,467,840 (the ‘840 Patent”) for “Child’s Car Seat Insert.” As the founder and CEO of Hug Me Joey, Verbovzsky allegedly licensed the ‘840 Patent to Hug Me Joey for the manufacturing of the Hug Me Joey child’s car seat insert (the “HMJ Insert”).

Diagram-Photo-278x300Apparently Dorel manufactures car seats, including 22 models that were nam ed in the Complaint as the “Accused Products”. Plaintiffs claim each of the Accused Products that are manufactured and/or sold by Dorel infringe the ‘840 Patent due to the “infant insert”, “insert cushion(s)”, “insert pillow”, “body pillow”, or “body insert pillow” that is stated to come with each car seat. The Plaintiffs believe the infringement by Dorel to be willful and knowingly. Threfore, they are seeking treble damages and a finding that this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285, respectively.

The case was assigned to District Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman in the Southern District and assigned Case 1:20-cv-00061-RLY-MPB.

Indianapolis, Indiana – Sheryl Lutz-Brown (“Sheryl”), the principal for Plaintiff, Corlinea, is a graphic designer and creator of copyrighted jewelry designs. In 2016, Sheryl claims to have developed a unique work entitled “HEARTY LOVE Design” that incorporated the word “love” into a heart shape design with one continuous line. Shortly after the “HEARTY LOVE Design”, it appears Sheryl created the “Heartlines Love Pendant” which was a heart-shaped pendant with the word “love” incorporated into the design with a continuous line. Sheryl registered both of these designs and they were assigned U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. VAu 1-301-361 and VAu 2-093-049 (the “Registered Copyrights”), respectively. Corlinea claims to own both of the Registered Copyrights by assignment.

Pendant-picture-300x161Corlinea and Defendant, Shah Diamonds, Inc. d/b/a Shah Luxury (“Shah”), are no strangers in litigation as Corlinea previously sued Shah in a similar lawsuit in 2018. The parties in that case entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement and Release and the case was voluntarily dismissed. Less than one year after Shah signed the previous Settlement Agreement and Release, Corlinea claims it discovered Shah was once again offering infringing jewelry for sale on its website.

Corlinea claims Defendants, Spath Jewelers, Inc. and Showcase Jewelers, LTD are also offering infringing jewelry for sale on their respective websites. Due to the allegedly intentional copying of the Registered Copyrights, Corlinea is seeking damages for Federal Copyright Infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501 and breach of the Settlement Agreement and Release from the 2018 lawsuit.

Continue reading

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tatuyou, L.L.C. (“Tatuyou”) of Hastings, Minnesota, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, One Ink Seven LLC (“One Ink”) of Goshen, Indiana and Robert F. Smead (“Smead”), infringed its rights in its intellectual property portfolio. Tatuyou is seeking damages,costs, and attorneys’ fees.Blog-Photo-200x300

Tatuyou claims to be in the business of selling products to be used in the tattoo industry with an intellectual property portfolio all relating to its sales business. According to the complaint, Tatuyou is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 9,546,281 (the “‘281 Patent”) entitled “Tattoo Stencil Composition and Method for Manufacturing.” Tatuyou also claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 8,545,613 (the “‘613 Patent”) entitled “Tattoo Transfer Pattern Printed by an Ink Jet Printer.”

According to the complaint, One Ink does business as “Electrum Supply” and owns and operates a website with the domain name: http://www.electrumsupply.com. Tatuyou claims that One Ink is infringing, actively inducing infringement, and contributorily infringing both the ‘281 Patent and the ‘613 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by offering for sale products named “Electrum Premium Tattoo Stencil Primer,” “Electrum Gold Standard Tattoo Stencil Primer,” “NOX Violet,” and “Eco Stencils.” Tatuyou’s attorney allegedly sent One Ink a letter on December 20, 2018 informing One Ink of the alleged infringement of the ‘281 Patent and a subsequent letter on June 12, 2019 to inform One Ink of the alleged infringement of the ‘613 Patent.

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, NeurOptics, Inc. (“NeurOptics”) of Laguna Hills, California, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Brightlamp, Inc. (“Brightlamp”) of Indianapolis, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent Nos. 6,820,979 (the “‘979 Patent”) and 9,402,542 (the “‘542 Patent” and collectively the “Asserted Patents”). NeurOptics is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.


Click Image for larger size
Blog-Photo-1-1024x637

NeurOptics claims to be an industry leader for the design, manufacture, and sale of pupilometer products. According to the Complaint, NeurOptics owns the Asserted Patents that are both entitled “Pupilometer with pupil irregularity detection, pupil tracking, and pupil response detection capability, glaucoma screening capability, intracranial pressure detection capability, and ocular aberration measurement capability.” Brightlamp is allegedly a manufacturer and distributor of pupilometer products.

As claimed in the Complaint, Brightlamp’s “Reflex” Mobile Pupillometer Application (“Accused Product”) is available for download and use by certified medical professionals and the use of that application results in direct infringement of the Asserted Patents. NeurOptics also stated it believes Brightlamp has infringed various claims from other patents owned by NeurOptics and the Complaint is likely to be amended as it completes its investigation. NeurOptics claims it sent a cease and desist notice in writing to Brightlamp prior to filing the Complaint, but Brightlamp continued the alleged infringement. Therefore, NeurOptics is seeking damages for infringement of the ‘542 and ‘979 Patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 with willful damages, fees, and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.

Continue reading

Contact Information