Northern District Court of Indiana

March 25, 2024

Stormy Dispute: Copyright Infringement Case in Lafayette, Indiana

Lafayette, Indiana – Plaintiff Aaron Rigsby, a professional videographer, has brought suit against Defendant John W. Darnell, Inc. d/b/a All Seasons Roofing for alleged copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C §101 et seq.

According to the complaint, Aaron Rigsby recorded and produced a video capturing the aftermath of a tornado in Sullivan, Indiana. Rigsby then secured copyright registrations for his work, establishing his exclusive rights to its use and distribution.

Rigsby now alleges that All Seasons Roofing, operating under the account “@All Seasons Roofing and Restoration” on Facebook, unlawfully copied and displayed his video on their platform without obtaining the necessary permissions or licenses. This unauthorized use, as Rigsby contends, constitutes a violation of his exclusive rights as a copyright holder under 17 U.S.C. §106.

September 22, 2023

Dillon Construction Group Files Copyright Infringement Suit Against Andretti Global Construction Team

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.

According 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.

September 19, 2023

Agricultural Machinery Manufacturing Company (Par-Kan) Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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.

The 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.