Articles Posted in Uncategorized

Las Vegcanelo-alvarez-vs-plant-full-fight-video-poster-2021-11-06-300x157as, NV – Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC is attempting to safeguard their purported, exclusive distribution rights by suing Indianapolis, Indiana Defendants Susana Sanchez and La Casa De Los Mariscos Mexican Grill #2 LLC for the alleged unauthorized publication of a cable television program.

G&G’s argument states that they were granted the exclusive rights to the commercial distribution of the Saul “Canelo” Alvarez v. Caleb Plant Championship Fight Program that was broadcast on Saturday, November 6, 2021.  They further argue that because they have the exclusive rights, any commercial establishment wanting to show the fight had to purchase the license to do so, which the Mexican restaurant failed to do. Therefore, G & G has accused the Defendants of willfully intercepting, receiving, and publishing the fight without said authorization.

As a result, the Plaintiff is asking the court to find that Sanchez and La Casa De Los Mariscos Mexican Grill #2 is in violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605, et seq., which prohibits the unauthorized interception, receipt, publication, and use of communications, including satellite television signals, such as the transmission of the Program in question.  In addition, G & G is seeking compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, along with costs and attorneys’ fees.

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 225 patents to persons and businesses in Indiana in September 2023:

Patent Number                             Patent Title
US 11766015 B1 Maize hybrid X13R074
US 11767804 B1 Cast engine block having a hybrid threaded insert
US 11767641 B2 Sanitary tissue products
US 11766208 B2 Device for electrophysiological recording from the eye
US 11767405 B2 Water soluble film, packets employing the film, and methods of making and using same

Continue reading

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following  177 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in October 2023 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Reg. Number Word Mark
7202013 NATE & NATTY
7201492 TIMTUSK

Continue reading

Prairieville, LA – Plaintiff Taylor Shaye Designs LLC filed a complaint against Whitestown, IN Defendant Shein Distribution Corp for copyright infringement according to the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101, et seq.


“Let’s Go Girls” – Taylor Shaye Designs LLC


Let’s Go Girls – Shein Distribution Corp

Greenfield, Indiana – Plaintiffs Sherry Childers and Diana Polston, along with others, have filed a class-action lawsuit against Hancock Regional Hospital (Hancock Health) in Greenfield, Indiana. They accuse the hospital of disclosing their private medical information to third parties like Facebook and Google. The Plaintiffs argue that mishandling medical data can lead to severe consequences such as workplace discrimination and denial of insurance coverage. They stress the importance of maintaining medical information confidentiality to uphold public trust in the healthcare system.

HancockRegional-300x100The complaint cites the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), which includes the “Privacy Rule” established by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This rule outlines guidelines for safeguarding individually identifiable health information and prohibits healthcare providers from sharing such data with third parties without explicit written consent from the individual.

Court documents claim that Hancock Health, a trusted healthcare provider, used a “Tracking Pixel” on its website to collect and transmit the Plaintiffs’ sensitive patient information to third parties without their knowledge. This alleged action is seen as a breach of the HIPAA Privacy Rule.


Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar

HAMMOND, Indiana – On October 10, 2023, Chief Judge Holly A. Brady congratulated Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar on his nomination by President Joseph R. Biden to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  If confirmed, Judge Kolar will fill the vacancy left behind by the death of Judge Michael S. Kanne.

In her statement about Judge Kolar, Chief Judge Brady wrote that the judges of the Northern District of Indiana are extremely proud of Magistrate Judge Kolar for being nominated to the Seventh Circuit.  She also remarked that Judge Kolar “has been a tremendous asset as a member of the judiciary for the Northern District [of Indiana]…his thoughtful and humble approach to the matters pending before him will surely be missed by the bench, the bar and litigants, the judges anxiously await Judge Kolar’s much deserved confirmation.”

Celina, Texas – Plaintiff, Nickels and Dimes Incorporated is suing LaPorte, Indiana company, Noah’s Arcade, LLC d/b/a Full Tilt, for infringement of its federally registered trademark TILT, in association with arcade, amusement, and entertainment services, under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Nickels and Dimes opened their first TILT arcade in 1977, inside the Six Flags Mall, in Arlington, TX, and has since owned and operated 200 TILT arcades in the U.S.  NickTiltStudio2-300x225els and Dimes states that it then began using the Trademark TILT STUDIO in 2010, and the TILTED 10 Trademark in 2021, in association with arcade games and indoor entertainment.

The Defendant, Noah’s Arcade, allegedly opened their arcade in 2022 under the mark FULL TILT and has been accused of using the mark in their marketing and advertising, to which the Plaintiff claims infringement of their trademarks TILT, TILT STUDIO, and TILTED 10.  The Plaintiff argues that the products sold under Noah’s FULL TILT mark are identical or highly similar to those that Nickels and Dimes sell under their trademarks.  In addition, the Plaintiff contends that Noah’s Domain Name is similar to Plaintiff’s TILT STUDIO and TILTED 10 marks, which could potentially cause confusion among the customer base who may assume an affiliation between the two entities.

Lilly-Logo-300x200Massachusetts – Judge Allison Burroughs sided with Eli Lilly in a dispute with Teva Pharmaceuticals, overturning a $176.5 million jury verdict that had previously been awarded to Teva in a patent infringement suit regarding the two companies’ development of drugs with antibodies capable of treating headache disorders associated with calcitonin gene-related peptide (“CGRP”).

According to the original complaint, Teva’s drug (Ajovy) and Lilly’s drug (Emgality) were similar in the ways in which they work, and they were both approved by the FDA only 13 days apart in September 2018.  However, Court documents show that Lilly contended that the two antibodies used in the drugs were different and, therefore, no infringement existed.

After a thorough examination of the case, Judge Burroughs agreed that the two drugs were distinct and that Teva’s patents were too expansive.  Judge Burroughs stated in her ruling that, “Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, asserted claims are too broad.”  She subsequently overturned the original jury verdict awarded to Teva writing in her ruling that “The Court does not reach this decision nor overturn a jury verdict lightly.”

Hamilton County, Indiana– The Plaintiffs, DCG Indiana, Inc. d/b/a Dillon Construction Group, filed suit against Cardinal XLIII, LLC (Delaware); Motorsport Real Estate Ventures LLC (Delaware); Studio M Architecture and Planning, LLC (Indiana); Gradex, Inc. (Indiana); and Glenmark Construction Co. Inc. (Indiana) in part, for copyright infringement of works of original authorship.

Andretti-Dillon-300x164According to the complaint, in early 2022, Andretti Global hired the Plaintiff and the Defendants to design and construct a racing facility in Fishers, IN. The parties then entered into a Design-Build Contract, which included financial terms, budgets, building plans, completion dates, etc.  The Plaintiffs also claim that the contract granted Cardinal a limited, irrevocable, and nonexclusive license to use the drawings, specifications, calculations, etc. (Instruments of Service) created by DCG, while also maintaining that DCG was the author and owner of said Instruments of Service, and would, therefore, retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights.  More importantly, the claim states that the contract specified that should Cardinal not substantially perform its obligations, including payment of any past-due fees to DCG, the copyright license granted to Cardinal would automatically terminate.  (Click to read the cited part of the Design-Build Contract.)

According to the Plaintiff, on March 10, 2023, Cardinal notified DCG that it would be terminating the Design-Build Contract.  At the time the Plaintiff claims Cardinal still owed them $1,011.462.21, which, according to the terms of the Design-Build Contract, meant the copyright license granted to Cardinal should have ceased.  However, the Plaintiff alleges that Cardinal continued to use DCG’s Instruments of Service after the illegal termination of the contract and even after receiving cease-and-desist letters from Plaintiff’s counsel.

Kalida, Ohio – The Plaintiff, UNVERFERTH MFG. CO., INC., filed suit against Silver Lake, Indiana company, PAR-KAN CO., LLC for patent infringement under U.S. Patent Laws, 35 U.S.C. §§ 271, 281, 283, 284, and 285.

According to the complaint, Unverferth manufactures, uses, and sells seed tender products protected by legally issued U.S. Patent No. 8,967,940 (“the ’940 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 9,745,123 (“the ’123 patent”).  In accordance with statutory marking provision of 35U.S.C. § 287(a), Unverferth has affixed serial numbers to its products to identify the patents used in those products.

8767940-Patent-300x258The Plaintiff claims that Par-Kan had knowledge of the ‘940 and ‘123 patents because these patents are continuations of U.S. Patent No. 8,221,047, which Unverferth sued Par-Kan over in a similar infringement case in 2013 and had received subpoenas and a cease-and-desist letter, identifying the patents by numbers.  It is alleged that the Defendant continues to manufacture, use, and sell products that infringe on the claims of the ‘940 and ‘123 patents, which constitutes willful infringement.

Contact Information