By

 

New Albany, IN – A Copyright lawyer for Hard Drive Productions, Inc. of Phoenix, Arizona filed a copyright infringement suit alleging 21 unnamed John Does who reside in Indiana infringed the copyrighted video work entitled AMATEUR ALLURE – ERIN which has been registered by the US Copyright Office.

Hard Drive Productions is an adult entertainment company that produced the video at issue. The complaint alleges that the 21 John Does have unlawfully reproduced and/or distributed the copyrighted video using the BitTorrent “distribution protocol”. The complaint states that Hard Drive has the Internet Protocol address (“IP address”) of these 21 individuals and will learn their identities during discovery. Hard Drive has made claims of copyright infringement and civil conspiracy. The complaint seeks an order impounding all copies of the video, damages, and litigation expenses.

This case has been assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barkerand Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned Case No. 4:11-cv-00059-SEB-WGH.

Practice Tip: As has been reported elsewhere, it appears the adult entertainment industry has adopted the copyright litigation strategy that the music industry used to halt online music sharing. Specifically, file sharing using the BitTorrent program is being targeted for litigation. According to one report, as of November 2010, over 16,000 anonymous BitTorrent users had been sued by the adult entertainment industry for illegally sharing copyrighted materials. Hard Drive Productions filed a similar lawsuit against 300 Illinois John Does late last year. Unlike the music industry copyright litigation, these individuals are likely to be greatly embarrassed when their identities are unveiled in the discovery phase of litigation.
Continue reading

By

 Knauf picture.jpg

Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Knauf Insulation Limited of St. Helens, Merseyside, United Kingdom and Knauf Insulation GMBH of Shelbyville, Indiana, filed a patent infringement suit alleging Certainteed Corporation of Valley Forge, Pennsylvania infringed Patent No. 7,854,980, FORMALDEHYDE-FREE MINERAL FIBRE INSULATION PRODUCT, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

Patent attorneys for Knauf Insulation Limited filed a nearly identical lawsuit against Certainteed in February, which was reported on by Indiana Intellectual Property Law News. According to PACER records, in April Certainteed filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction claiming that Knauf Insulation Limited did not own the asserted patent. Certainteed claimed that Knauf Insulation Limited had transferred all its interest in the patent to Knauf GMBH of Indiana. As of the date that the new lawsuit was filed, the court had not ruled on Certainteed’s motion to dismiss. In the new lawsuit that was filed by Knauf’s patent attorney on May 19, Knauf asserts essentially identical claims and adds Knauf Insulation GMBH of Shelbyville as a plaintiff.

This case has been assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:11-CV-00680-SEB-DML.

Practice Tip: It appears that Knauf is seeking to move this controversy forward without waiting for the court to decide Certainteed’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the previously filed suit and any potential appeals of this decision. Knauf’s new complaint may be an attempt to fix the perceived problem with the previously filed suit. Knauf has alleged that the ongoing alleged infringement continues to cause it damages and is seeking an injunction. Knauf, therefore, appears to desire a speedy resolution on the merits of the infringement claim.
Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – Blue Pillar Inc., currently headquartered in Atlanta, has announced that it is moving its headquarters to Indianapolis and plans to create 70 new jobs in the area. According to the Indianapolis Star, the jobs will have an average salary of $40/hour. Blue Pillar is a software company that develops software that helps manage energy use. The company expects to continue development of energy management software. According to the Indiana Business Journal, Blue Pillar’s clients include medical centers at several large university hospitals. The company will receive a grant from Develop Indy, an Indianapolis economic development project, to relocate.

Blue Pillar joins several other Indiana software and Internet companies that have recently announced new jobs in the industry. Slingshot SEO, the internet marketer on the Far Northside of Indianapolis, announced plans for expansion and 114 new jobs earlier this month. The Indianapolis Star reported that Slingshot SEO received $1.5 million in incentives from the Indiana Economic Development Corporation and a tax break from the City of Indianapolis. Also this month, the software development company DeveloperTownannounced its project to create an incubator for start-up technology companies

The growing software and Internet sector will increase the need for Indiana intellectual property attorneys.

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark lawyers for Noble Roman’s, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a trademark infringement suit alleging Findlay Tiffin Oil, LLC of Tipp City, Ohio and Ayman Magdaddi of Aurora, Indiana infringed Trademark Registration No. 987,069 for the mark NOBLE ROMAN’S; Trademark Registration No. 1,920,428 for the mark THE BETTER PIZZA PEOPLE; and Trademark Registration No. 1,682,308 for the mark NOBLE ROMAN’S PIZZA, which are registered with the US Trademark Office.

The complaint alleges that Findlay owns a convenience store located in Aurora, Indiana and Mr. Magdaddi operates the convenience store. The convenience store was owned by a company called Duncan Oil until February 2011, and Duncan Oil operated a Noble Roman’s franchise on-site that used various trademarked items and trade dress. The complaint alleges that Duncan Oil was an authorized franchise of Noble Roman’s until the property was sold in February 2011. Findlay and Magdaddi, however, have not reached an agreement to be authorized to operate a Noble Roman’s franchise. The complaint alleges that a Noble Roman’s employee visited the store in March 2011 and observed pizza being sold using the Noble Roman’s trade dress and menu boards. The complaint states that on April 30, 2011, Duncan Oil recovered all the Noble Roman’s trademarked items and trade dress. Noble Roman’s trademark attorneys have made claims of trademark infringement and federal unfair competition.

This case has been assigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:11-cv-00665-TWP-TAB.

Practice Tip: If a new owner of the franchise property wishes to continue operating the franchise, a new franchise agreement must be reached. If the new owner continues to use the franchise’s trademarked items and trade dress without authorization, a trademark infringement lawsuit may result. Noble Roman’s has been particularly aggressive in enforcing trademarks rights in franchise relationships.
Continue reading

By

 side by side.JPG

Indianapolis, IN – Brandon S. Judkins of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit alleging Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation of New York, New York infringed Patent No. D591,090, FURNITURE ARTICLE, which has been issued by the US Patent Office. The patent in question is a design patent of a table.

The complaint alleges that Polo Ralph Lauren is importing, making, using, selling or offering for sale tables that infringe Mr. Judkin’s patent. Specifically, Mr. Judkins alleges that he has seen infringing tables at Macey’s and Carson Pirie Scott locations in Indianapolis. The complaint states that Polo Ralph Lauren is using the tables to display apparel at the stores. Mr. Judkins, an attorney, is representing himself in this case. Mr. Judkins seeks an injunction, declaratory judgment, damages, and costs.

This case has been assigned to Chief Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:11-cv-00661-RLY-DML.

Practice Tip: In 2008, the Federal Circuit clarified the test for infringement of design patents in Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc., 543 F.3d 665 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In that case, the court adopted the “ordinary observer” test to replace the “point of novelty” test. In the complaint here, the patented design appears to be pretty basic. The plaintiff may face an uphill battle.
Continue reading

By

 

Alexandria, VA – The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently announced its First Full Action Interview Pilot Program, which, unlike a previous test program, applies to all areas of technology.

Under this program, if an eligible utility patent applicant electronically files a request prior to the first Office action on the merits, he or she must be granted an interview with the patent examiner assigned to the case. Traditionally, the grant of such a preliminary interview was with the discretion of the examiner.

To be eligible, the subject patent application must not have more than three independent claims and twenty or fewer total claims that are directed to a single invention.

Continue reading

By

 

Hammond, IN – Copyright lawyers for WB Music Corporation and six other music companies filed a copyright infringement suit alleging Langel’s, Inc. of Highland, Indiana infringed three copyrighted songs. Specifically, the songs at issue are: VOGUE by Madonna, FALLIN by Alicia Keys, and HEART OF ROCK AND ROLL by Huey Lewis, all of which have been registered by the US Copyright Office. WB Music has also filed the claims against Rodney D. Langel, the president of Langel’s, Inc.

The complaint alleges that Langel’s owns and operates Rodney’s Sports Bar and Langel’s Pizza in Highland, Indiana. WB alleges that the three songs at issue were performed at these establishments without license from the copyright owners in May 2008. The plaintiffs in this suit are the owners of the rights to these songs. WB Music and the others allege that Langel’s Inc. and Mr. Langel had been warned by the American Society of Composers, Artists, and Publishers (ASCAP) about its liability for copyright infringement. The complaint makes three claims of copyright infringement pursuant 17 U.S.C. § 501.

Practice Tip: In this case, the plaintiffs have sued Mr. Langel, the president of Langel’s, Inc., personally. 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.

This case has been assigned to Judge Theresa Springmann and Magistrate Judge Paul Cherry in the Northern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 2:11-cv-00166-TLS-PRC.
Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – Patent lawyers for Tissue Extraction Devices, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a patent infringement suit alleging Hologic, Inc. of Bedford, Massachusetts and Suros Surgical Systems, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed Patent No. 7,749,172, PNEUMATIC CIRCUIT, which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The patent infringement complaint alleges that Jeff Schwindt, owner of Tissue Extraction Devices, invented the technology at issue, which is apparently a hand-piece used by doctors who are performing breast biopsies. Mr. Schwindt assigned the patent rights to Tissue Extraction Devices. The hand-piece allows the doctors to remove a tissue sample for biopsy. According to the complaint, Schwindt worked together with Suros to further develop the hand-piece. Schwindt, however, is the owner of the patent on the hand-piece. Suros introduced breast biopsy systems that included the hand-piece to the market under the names ATEC and EVIVA. Suros is a wholly owned subsidiary of Hologic. Tissue Extraction claims these two systems infringe upon the patent owned by Schwindt. Tissue Extraction’s patent infringement attorneys have requested a declaratory judgment that the patent has been infringed, damages, and attorney fees.

This case has been assigned to Judge Tanya Walton Pratt and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana, and assigned case no. 1:11-cv-00628-TWP-TAB.

Practice Tip: Based on the complaint, this lawsuit appears to be the result of a dispute between an inventor and another party who participated in some way in the development or marketing of the invention. This case illustrates the importance of having a clear agreement regarding intellectual property rights before parties begin working together to invent, develop and market a product.
Continue reading

By

 

Indianapolis, IN – This week Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney of the Southern District of Indiana is presiding over a jury trial of a copyright infringement lawsuit. The case is Harvest Scents & Traders LLC v. KMI International Corporation. The trial began on Monday, May 2, continued through last week, and resumed on Monday. According to the latest information available on PACER, the trial continues today.

Copyright attorneys for Harvest Scents, of Indianapolis, filed this copyright infringement lawsuit in March 2008. The complaint alleges that KMI, an Illinois company, has sold and distributed products that contained material that Harvest Scents has copyrighted. There are six works at issue that registered by the US Copyright Office:

Willow Tree, registration number VA 1-380-918

Primitive Pear Collection, registration number VA 1-421-622

Primitive Wood Button Collection, registration number VA 1-421-623

Baskets-n-Berries Collection, registration number VA 1-424-839

Homespun Collection, registration number VA 1-421-620

Roughsawn Collection, registration number VA 1-424-205

The trial began following several recent rulings on evidentiary matters by Judge McKinney. On February 28, 2011, Judge McKinney denied KMI’s motion in limine to preclude Harvest Scents from introducing evidence at trial of its products that it had not deposited with the US Copyright Office when it submitted its copyright application. KMI had argued that “the introduction of this evidence will invite the jury to find that KMI infringed on unregistered derivative works, unduly prejudicing KMI because Harvest Scents may not bring suit based on infringement of unregistered works, 17 U.S.C. § 411.” The court rejected this argument and allowed the evidence at trial. The court explained, “Direct copying of the registered work is not necessary to infringe, so long as the protected elements are copied. See JCW Invs., Inc. v. Novelty Inc., 482 F.3d 910, 914 (7th Cir. 2007) (noting that the elements of infringement include “copying of constituent elements”); see also KnowledgeAZ, Inc., 617 F. Supp. 2d at 789.” This ruling is available here.
Continue reading

By

 

Washington, DC – As a nonprecedential disposition, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an order denying an attempt by TiVo, Inc., EchoStar Corporation, related EchoStar affiliates, and Dish Network Corporation to settle, following a decision on appeal, their long-running patent dispute.

At issue is certain video recording technology, such as that employed in digital video recorders (DVRs), allowing DVR users to watch one program while another is recorded. Following a trial at which it was held liable for infringement and permanently enjoined from making or selling infringing products, EchoStar modified its product and continued to sell it. TiVo brought a contempt action, and the trial court found EchoStar in contempt because the modified product violated the injunction by not being “colorably different” from the infringing version.

The contempt ruling was appealed. On April 20, 2011, the Federal Circuit issued a rare en banc (the full court, rather than just a panel) decision which would have required EchoStar and Dish Network pay $90 million in damages to TiVo. Importantly, that opinion provided new rules for courts to utilize in contempt proceedings involving infringing products which have been modified following issuance of an injunction.

The parties reached a settlement on April 29th and, informing the Federal Circuit of this on May 2nd, they asked the court to dismiss the appeal. At that point, the Federal Circuit had not issued a mandate to the trial court implementing the appellate decision. However, in the latest order, the Federal Circuit, again ruling en banc, succinctly refused to grant the parties’ request. Citing decisions by sister federal courts of appeal, the Federal Circuit noted that dismissing the case would essentially vacate the prior en banc opinion, which is “neither required nor a proper use of the judicial system.”

Practice Tip: Regardless of what type of wrong is alleged, if parties to a case on appeal reach a settlement before the court issues a decision, they have a duty to inform the court of the agreement.
Continue reading

Contact Information
Indiana Intellectual Property: IP Litigation, Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights
  • Seventh Circuit
  • Northern District of Indiana
  • Southern District of Indiana
Paul B. Overhauser
Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Greenfield
18 E Main St #202
Greenfield, IN 46140
Phone: 317.467.9100
Fax: 866.283.8549
Indianapolis
101 W Ohio St #2000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.891.1500
Fax: 866.283.8549

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2025, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design