Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

February 28, 2012

BMI Sues Indianapolis Bar for Copyright Infringement of Honky Tonk Women

Indianapolis, IN – Copyright attorneys for Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) of New York, New York, along with Abkco Music, Inc, Screen Gems-EMI Music, Inc. of and Jay-Boy Music Corporation of have filed a copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of Indianaalleging B & D Restaurants, Inc. d/b/a Gallagher’s II a/k/a Gallagher’s Pizza, Nicholas Himes and David R. Himes of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed the copyrighted works Brown Sugar and Honky Tonk Women published by Abkco Music, Inc., We Gotta Get Out Of This Place, publisher Screen Gems-EMI Music, Inc. and You Really Got Me, publisher is Jay-Boy Music Corporation, of which all have been registered by the US Copyright Office.

The complaint alleges that the copyrighted songs were performed publicly at Gallagher’s II, also known as Gallagher’s Pizza, on September 10 and 11, 2011. The complaint states that Nicholas and David Himes are directors of B & D Restaurants have a financial interest and management responsibilities for the establishment. The complaint makes four claims of willful copyright infringement and seeks an injunction, damages, costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: BMI is known for aggressively defending copyrights and seems to be targeting Indiana bars and restaurants where copyrighted songs were performed without license or authorization. This is the third copyright infringement case filed this month in Indiana district courts. We blogged about the other two cases here and here.
Continue reading

February 27, 2012

Audio Products Corporation Sues Monster, Inc. for Trademark Infringement of Speaker Technology

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark attorneys for Audio Products Corporation of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a trademark infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Monster, Inc. of Brisbane, California infringed trademark registration no.1.807.139 for the ENERGY Design and 2,777,234 for the mark ENERGY registered with the US Trademark Office.

The complaint states that Audio designs and manufactures speakers, which are sold in major retail outlets. Audio alleges it has used the ENERGY marks in connection with its products since at least 1984. The complaint states that Monster has adopted the marks NERGY and N-ERGY to market speakers. The complaint alleges that NERGY and N-ERGY are confusingly similar to Audio’s ENERGY marks and/or a colorable imitation. The complaint characterizes Monster’s marks as attempts to misrepresent its products. The complaint further states that Monster had filed a trademark application with the US Trademark Office seeking to register the NERGY and N-ERGY. The US Trademark Office rejected the application, stating that it was confusingly similar to Audio’s marks. The complaint makes claims of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, common law trademark infringement. Trademark attorneys are seeking a declaration of infringement, an injunction, the destruction of all products and/or NERGY and N-ERGY marks, actual damages, treble damages, costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: The complaint alleges that Monster is selling products in the district to establish personal jurisdiction. No specific sales in Indiana are listed; however, the complaint states that limited jurisdictional discovery is expected to uncover Indiana sales.
Continue reading

February 24, 2012

BMI Sues Elkhart Bar for Copyright Infringement of Achy Breaky Heart and Other Songs

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, IN – Copyright attorneys for Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) of New York, New York, Universal-Millhouse Music a Division of Magna Sound Corporation, Marvin J. and Laleta Moore Living Trust is a Trust d/b/a Green Door Music, Central Songs a Division of Beechwood Music Corporation, Sutjujo Music, Faizilu Publishing, Sony/ATV Songs LLC, Mann and Weil Songs, Inc., Welsh Witch Music, EMI Al Gallico Music Corp., Geomantic Music, Unichappell Music Inc., Two Night Music, Peermusic III Ltd., Universal-Champion Music Corporation, Sony/ATV Songs LLC d/b/a/ Sony/ATV Acuff Rose Music, Galeneye Music, Universal-Songs of Polygram International Inc., Lost Boys Music, Tokeco Tunes, Sony/ATV Songs LLC d/b/a/ Sony/ATV Tree Publishing and Big Yellow Dog LLC d/b/a Big Yellow Dog Music filed a copyright infringement suit in alleging Gibson’s, Inc. d/b/a The Big Easy and Oscar N. Gibson of Elkhart, Indiana infringed the copyrighted works of Don’t Tell My Heart a/k/a Achy Breaky Heart by Don Von Tress, Four Walls by Marvin Moore and George Campbell, He’ll Have to Go by Joe Allison and Audrey Allison, I’d Really Love to See You Tonight by Parker McGee, Just Once by Barry Mann and Cynthia Weil, Landslide by Stevie Nicks, Let Me Be There by John Rostill, ManEater by Sara Allen, John Oates and Daryl Hall, Ring My Bell by Frederick Knight, Satin Sheets by John E Volinkaty, Signs by Les Emerson, Tiny Dancer by Elton John and Bernie Taupin, Total Eclipse of the Heart by Jim Steinman, You Ain’t Much Fun by Toby Keith and Carl Geoff Jr. and Whiskey Girl by Scott Emerick and Toby Keith, which have been registered by the US Copyright Office.

The complaint alleges Gibson’s, Inc. operates a bar in Elkhart called The Big Easy. Oscar N. Gibson is the owner of Gibson’s, Inc. The complaint alleges that on November 17, 2011, the fifteen copyrighted songs were performed at The Big Easy without license or authorization from the copyright owners. The complaint seeks an injunction, damages, costs and attorney fees.

Practice Tip: In this case, the plaintiffs have sued the owner of Gibson’s personally as well as the corporate entity. Copyright laws allow an officer of a corporation to be held liable for the corporation’s copyright infringement if the officer contributes to the infringement by inducing or encouraging the infringement. An officer can also be liable for copyright infringement if the officer supervises the infringing conduct and has a direct financial benefit from the infringement.
Continue reading

February 23, 2012

Southern District of Indiana Grants order over Draper, Inc. Motion to Compel to MechoShade Systems, Inc in Patent Infringement Suit Over Spring Shades

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – The Southern District of Indiana has granted Draper, Inc’s of Spiceland, Indiana, motion for limited jurisdictional discovery in a patent infringement case. In November 2010, patent attorneys for Draper, Inc’s of Spiceland, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that MechoShade Systems, Inc and Joel Berman Associates, Inc. of Long Island City, New York infringed patent no. 6,164,428, Wrap spring shade operator, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

Joel Berman Associates has been dismissed from the suit at this point. MechoShade has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In response, Draper requested the Court stay ruling on the motion to dismiss and allow Draper to conduct jurisdictional discovery. Although MechoShade appropriately responded to Draper’s initial discovery requests, it refused to comply with subsequent requests. The court, in this ruling, addressed whether Draper’s requests were appropriate for the limited purpose of the personal jurisdiction inquiry. The court ordered MechoShade to produce the following: documents showing sales communications contacts in Indiana, information showing all warranty and repair work performed in Indiana, summary of presentations given in Indiana, sales lead lists. However, the court determined that MechoShade did not have to produce Commission Reports and Booking Reports, general marketing material, and access to its intranet. The court gave MechoShade until February 24, 2012 to produce the documents it ordered. Further the court ordered that all briefing on the motion to dismiss should be complete by March 24, 2012.

Practice Tip: The court has ordered that MechoShade produce a number of these items as summaries with the accuracy of the summaries to be verified by oath or declaration.
Continue reading

February 22, 2012

Chief Judge Young Affirms Magistrate’s Discovery Order Refusing Inspection of Production Facilities in Patent Infringement Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Evansville, IN – Chief Judge Richard L. Young has affirmed Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann‘s discovery ruling that denied a request to inspect production facilities by Intertape Polymer Corp. of Bradenton, Florida, in a patent infringement lawsuit case. In May 2010, patent attorneys for Berry Plastics Corporation of Evansville, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleged that Intertape infringed patent no.7,476,416, Process for preparing adhesive using planetary extruder, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The patented technology is described as “a manufacturing process for preparing an adhesive using specifically modified planetary roller extruder.” Intertape had filed a motion to compel inspection of Berry’s production facilities, to observe the facilities in use and to perform tests on the goods produced during the inspection. Berry objected, and the issue was put before Magistrate Hussmann. The Magistrate denied Intertape’s request, finding that Intertape could use less intrusive methods to uncover the information it was seeking. Specifically, the Magistrate suggested that Intertape depose a Berry representative and pointed to video and photographs that Intertape already had.

Intertape filed objections to the Magistrate’s ruling, but Chief Judge Young affirmed, concluding “The Magistrate Judge balanced the interest of both parties, and came up with a fair and logical resolution for obtaining the information Intertape seeks.”

Practice Tip: This ruling addresses a discovery dispute. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, a party must make a good faith attempt to resolve a discovery dispute before seeking a court order to compel.

February 20, 2012

More on the Pending Bill to Expand Indiana’s Right to Publicity Law

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – In an update to our earlier blogs, the Hollywood Report has published a long article about Indiana’s Right of Publicity Law, I.C. 32-36-1-8, and the pending bill to amend that law. The article states that dead celebrities “enjoy phenomenal legal rights in the state.” Several Indiana intellectual property attorneys who represent the estates of deceased celebrities are quoted.

The article focuses on the recent decision of the John Dillinger case involving the Right to Publicity law, which Indiana Intellectual Property Law and News blogged about here.

As we have previously blogged about, Indiana’s Right to Publicity law is considered one of the strongest in the world.

Practice Tip: In order to pass this session, the bill must pass the Senate no later than March 14, 2012 since the General Assembly is in a short session this year. As we blogged, the bill has already passed the Indiana House. At this point, the bill is in a senate committee, but no hearings are scheduled for next week.
Continue reading

February 17, 2012

BMI Sues Fishers Bar for Copyright Infringement of Counting Crow’s Mister Jones and Other Songs

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Copyright attorneys for Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) New York, New York, along with Adult Music, Gems-EMI Music, Inc., Universal-Songs of Polygram International, Inc., EMI Blackwood Music, Inc. and Counting Crows, LLC d/b/a Jones Falls Music have filed a copyright infringement suit in Southern District of Indiana alleging C & R Restaurants, LLC of Fishers, Indiana infringed the copyrighted works I want you to be me by Rick Neilsen, Jessie’s Girl by Rick Springfield, and Mr. Jones a/k/a Mister Jones by Adam Duritz, David Bryson, Matt Walley, Charlie Gillingham and Steve Bowman which have been registered by the US Copyright Office.

The complaint states C & R operates a restaurant called Casler’s Kitchen and Bar in Fishers. BMI has also named the owner of C & R, Enrique Fonseca, as a defendant in the lawsuit, stating that he had the right and ability to control the alleged infringement and financially benefitted from the alleged infringement. The complaint alleges that three copyrighted works were performed at Casler’s Kitchen & Bar on August 27, 2011 without a license or authorization from the copyright owners. BMI is seeking an injunction, damages, attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: In this case, the plaintiffs have sued the owner of alleging C & R Restaurants, LLC personally as well as the corporate entity. Copyright laws allow an officer of a corporation to be held liable for the corporation’s copyright infringement if the officer contributes to the infringement by inducing or encouraging the infringement. An officer can also be liable for copyright infringement if the officer supervises the infringing conduct and has a direct financial benefit from the infringement.
Continue reading

February 16, 2012

Southern District Allows CleanTech to Amend Complaint to Add Patent to Ethanol Patent Litigation

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN –Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney of the Southern District of Indiana has allowed an additional patent to be added to a complex patent infringement suit over Ethanol byproducts. The plaintiff in this case, GS CleanTech Corporation of New York, New York had requested to amend its complaint to add infringement claim regarding patent no. 8,008,516, which has been issued by the US Patent Office, to the lawsuit. As orgininally filed, CleanTech had filed a patent infringement lawsuit alleging that twenty-two defendants had infringed patent no. 7,601,858, Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystemsTITLE.

The court describes the ‘516 patent as a continuation of the ‘858 patent and directed to the same technology. The ‘516 patent was issued by the US Patent Office on August 30, 2011. Court found that Cleantech’s motion to amend did not involve undue delay, bad faith or a dilatory motive. The court found that adding the ‘516 patent “serves the goal of furthering the efficient adjudication of the case because the ‘516 and ‘858 patents are directed to similar technology and involve similar claim terms.” Three defendants objected to the amendment of the complaint, however, the court did not find any of the objections sufficient to prevent the amendment of the complaint.

As we blogged in October 2011, Judge McKinney has already held a Markman hearing: Indiana Court issues Markman Ruling in GS Cleantech v. Big River for Ethanol Processing Patents.

Practice Tip: The litigation over the ‘858 patent has been pending for several years and involves many parties. This is a very complex case from a procedural standpoint. While the Markman ruling has already been issued, the court’s order pointed out that the discovery process has not been started.
Continue reading

February 14, 2012

Trademark Controversy Over Madonna’s Super Bowl Performance

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – The threat of a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit may have influenced Madonna‘s playlist for her Super Bowl XXXXVI half time performance at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis. According to reports, Joe Francis, who owns the Girls Gone Wild trademark, sent Madonna a cease-and-desist letter that threatened to sue her if she performed the song from her new album, “MDNA,” which is scheduled for release in March.

Joe Francis, founder of the Girls Gone Wild adult entertainment series, owns the rights to trademark registration no. 4,010741 for the mark GIRLS GONE WILD registered with the US Trademark Office.

Madonna’s Super Bowl performance did not include the Girls Gone Wild song. Another report states that Madonna never planned to play the allegedly infringing song. As of today’s date, a search of Justia.com does not show any pending lawsuits filed by Joe Francis against Madonna.

February 13, 2012

Southern District Denies Stryker Corporation’s Motion to Add Additional Counterclaims in Patent Infringement Case against Hill-Rom Services

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue of the Southern District of Indiana has denied Stryker Corporation’s Motion for Leave to Amend Its Counterclaims, which sought permission to add three more patent infringement counterclaims referencing three additional patents.

In April 2011, patent attorneys for Hill-Rom Services, Inc. of Batesville, Indiana, filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Stryker Corporation of Kalamazoo, Michigan had infringed twelve of its patents: Patent No. 6,993,799, HOSPITAL BED; Patent No. 7,644,458, HOSPITAL BED; Patent No. 6,588,523, STRETCHER HAVING A MOTORIZED WHEEL; Patent No. 6,902,019, STRETCHER HAVING A MOTORIZED WHEEL; Patent No. 7,011,172, PATIENT SUPPORT APPARATUS HAVING A MOTORIZED WHEEL; Patent No. 7,284,626, PATENT SUPPORT APPARATUS WITH POWERED WHEEL; Patent No. 7,090,041, MOTORIZED TRACTION DEVICE FOR A PATIENT SUPPORT; Patent No. 7,273,115, CONTROL APPARATUS FOR A PATIENT SUPPORT; Patent No. 7,407,024, MOTORIZED TRACTION DEVICE FOR A PATIENT SUPPORT; Patent No. 7,828,092, MOTORIZED TRACTION DEVICE FOR A PATIENT SUPPORT; Patent No. 6,772,850, POWER ASSISTED WHEELED CARRIAGE; and Patent No. 6,752,224, WHEELED CARRIAGE HAVING A POWERED AUXILIARY WHEEL, AUXILIARY WHEEL OVERTRAVEL, AND AN AUXILIARY WHEEL DRIVE AND CONTROL SYSTEM.

Stryker had counterclaimed with thirteen claims of patent infringement against Hill-Rom. In late October 2011, Stryker filed a motion seeking to add three more infringement claims regarding Patent No. 6,264,006, Brake for castered wheels, Patent No. 7,124,456, Articulated support surface for a stretcher or gurney and Patent No. 7,395,564, Articulated support surface for a stretcher or gurney.

In its decision today, the court noted that the three proposed patent infringement claims would involve significant facts and issues, such as claim-definition, claim-application, infringement and validity; that would be wholly separate and distinct from the present claims. The court stated that “The new technologies and new product hitched to the new claims will needlessly complicate and/or prolong the Court’s and the jury’s tasks.”

Practice Tip: The court’s opinion notes that Stryker stated a plan to file an additional lawsuit that would separately make these new patent infringement claims against Hill-Rom if the court denied its motion to add counterclaims to the present lawsuit. The court noted a new suit was a “ready alternative” for Stryker.
Continue reading