In the contempoSpaceJam-209x300rary digital landscape, the protection of intellectual property, especially in the realm of creative works, has become a paramount concern. Copyright infringement, the unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted material, continues to pose significant challenges for creators and rights holders. A recent case involving Plaintiff Watson Music Group, LLC. d/b/a Quadrasound Music and Defendant Borshoff, Inc. sheds light on the complexities and legalities surrounding copyright infringement in the digital sphere.

Plaintiff Watson Music Group, a Florida-based limited liability company, alleges that Defendant Borshoff, Inc., an Indiana corporation, infringed upon its copyrighted musical work titled “Space Jam.” The alleged infringement occurred on Defendant’s social media account ‘@borshofftalks’ hosted on Facebook.

The complaint describes an unauthorized posting of a discernable excerpt of the Plaintiff’s copyrighted musical work on the Defendant’s Facebook account. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, without obtaining proper permission or authorization, reproduced, stored, and made available the copyrighted material for public performance via a digital audio transmission, thereby violating the Plaintiff’s exclusive rights as a copyright holder.

Photo-300x179Plaintiff Shoichi Matsumoto has sued Defendant Pho Real LLC, alleging copyright infringement of Matsumoto’s original work, a photograph titled “Yakisoba-4”. Matsumoto, a private chef, TV host, and photographer, claims that Pho Real used his copyrighted work without permission on their website and on a food ordering platform, Grubhub Inc., to promote its restaurant business. Matsumoto asserts that he owns the copyright to the image and had not licensed or authorized Pho Real to use it.

The complaint specifies that Matsumoto registered the work with the Copyright Office and that Pho Real’s actions of copying, displaying, and distributing the photograph were unauthorized and willful. Matsumoto alleges that he suffered irreparable harm due to Pho Real’s actions and seeks damages, including Pho Real’s profits from the infringement or statutory damages, along with legal fees and costs. Additionally, Matsumoto requests a preliminary and permanent injunction to prevent Pho Real from further infringing on his copyright.

The case has been assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Kellie M. Barr, in the U.S. District Court of Southern Indiana, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-02059-SEB-KMB.

A recent lawsuit, Stross v. Tiny Timbers, involves a copyright infringement dispute between Alexander Bayonne Stross, a photographer and owner of copyrighted works, and Homestead Properties, Inc. dba Tiny Timbers, a hardwood products manufacturer. Stross alleges that Tiny Timbers unlawfully used his copyrighted photograph for advertising and promotional purposes on Homestead Properties’ website without his authorization.Pic-300x197

Stross has filed a complaint against Tiny Timbers citing violations of the Copyright Act, specifically alleging unauthorized copying, distribution, and removal of copyright identification. He asserts that his work was registered with the Copyright Office and contains identifiable copyright management information, which was removed by Tiny Timbers when they allegedly used the image without permission.

Seeking recourse, Stross pursues both injunctive relief to prevent further infringement claims and monetary damages or profits resulting from the alleged unauthorized use of his copyrighted work. Additionally, he requests attorney’s fees and other remedies provided for under the Copyright Act.

In the competitive world of mattresses and bedding, brand recognition and trust are paramount. Companies invest years in building their reputation, and protecting their intellectual property is crucial. Plaintiff Tempur Sealy International Inc. recently filed a lawsuit against Defendant Luxury Mattress & Furniture LLC, a suit highlighting the significance of safeguarding trademarks and brand integrity.

Tempur-Pedic-300x136According to the complaint, Tempur Sealy is a renowned name in the realm of premium mattresses. Known for its TEMPUR-PEDIC products, Tempur Sealy claims distinctiveness based on their high-quality materials and unparalleled comfort. The company states that they meticulously develop, manufacture, and market products under various trademarks such as TEMPUR, TEMPUR-PEDIC, and TEMPUR SEALY. In addition, they describe exhaustive efforts to maintain their brand’s integrity, from stringent quality control measures to an authorized network of retailers, attempting to ensure that customers receive authentic products and services.

The Plaintiff claims that on February 2, 2023, it notified the Defendant that it was terminating Luxury Mattress’s authorization to sell Tempur Sealy products.  The Plaintiff then alleges that Luxury Mattress continued to use the TEMPUR-PEDIC Marks in its Valparaiso, Indiana, retail location and on its website. Furthermore, Tempur Sealy asserts that the Defendant was using the TEMPUR-PEDIC Marks to advertise different products that were not associated with the Plaintiff’s product.

PhotoAfter an illustrious four-decade career dedicated to public service, U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr., has declared his intent to retire in August 2024. His impending retirement from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana marks the culmination of a remarkable journey.

Judge Gotsch, with nearly twenty years as a judge and seven years in the federal judiciary, has left an enduring legacy. His tenure as St. Joseph Circuit Court Judge saw transformative initiatives, including repurposing an old jail into spaces for courts and community programs.

A trailblazer in advocating for domestic violence victims, Judge Gotsch pioneered the Civil Protective Order (CPO) Court, prioritizing their protection. His pivotal role in implementing the Odyssey Case Management System across Indiana courts underscores his commitment to efficient judicial processes.

Picture1-300x279STMicroelectronics, a leading European chipmaker, has been held accountable for violating Purdue University’s patent related to transistor technology. This ruling, delivered by a jury in a West Texas court, resulted in a $32.5 million damages verdict. The jury supported Purdue’s argument that ST’s use of silicon carbide metal oxide semiconductor field effect transistors (MOSFETs) in electric-vehicle chargers and other devices breached the university’s patent rights specifically pertaining to transistors designed for “high-voltage power applications.” In response, an ST spokesperson announced the company’s plan to challenge the verdict by filing an appeal.

Michael Shore, an attorney representing Purdue, highlighted compelling evidence against ST, suggesting potential additional royalties exceeding $100 million before the patent’s expiration in 2026.

MOSFETs play a critical role in electronic devices by controlling and amplifying electricity flow. Purdue initiated the lawsuit against ST in 2021, alleging that the company’s MOSFETs infringed upon two of its transistor technology patents. However, one of Purdue’s patents was removed from the case by the university in West Lafayette, Indiana last year. ST contested the accusations, arguing that the remaining Purdue patent was invalid.

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 270 patents to persons and businesses in Indiana in October 2023:

US 11515057 B2 High optical transparent two-dimensional electronic conducting system and process for generating same
US 11515742 B2 Methods, systems, and apparatus for reducing cogging torque in an electric machine
US 11512362 B2 Method for producing an ultra high strength galvannealed steel sheet and obtained galvannealed steel sheet
US 11514541 B2 Systems and methods for managing a transportation plan
US 11512659 B2 System and method for self-adjusting engine performance parameters during fuel quality variation

Continue reading

Bette-Nesmith-Graham-PhotoBette Nesmith Graham, a single mother facing financial struggles while working as a secretary, encountered a pivotal moment that transformed her career. Observing artists painting festive scenes on a bank’s windows, she had an epiphany. Her lifelong love for the arts, combined with perseverance, became her savior.

Having dropped out of high school to attend secretarial school and marry her sweetheart, she faced numerous challenges raising her son while her husband served in World War II. Her job as an executive secretary at the Texas Bank and Trust demanded high typing proficiency, a skill she lacked, especially with the transition from manual to electric typewriters. In a stroke of creative genius, she used water-based paint to cover typing errors, a solution that gained popularity among her colleagues.

Encouraged by the enthusiastic response, Bette embarked on perfecting her invention, initially named “Mistake Out,” with the help of collaborators. Financial constraints were a constant hurdle, but her determination drove her to promote and distribute her invention. Despite setbacks, including rejection by major companies like IBM, demand surged, prompting her to establish her own company.

Plaintiff OrthoPediatrics Corp. (“OP”) filed a Complaint against fellow Warsaw, Indiana corporation, WishBone Medical, Inc. (“WishBone”).  They are alleging patent infringement concerning U.S. Patent No. 8,777,998, titled “Pediatric Long Bone Support or Fixation Plate.”

The complaint states that the Plaintiff (OP) has designed and patented an innovative orthopedic plate system explicitly made for pediatric patients. They claim that the patent in question addresses a longstanding issue in pediatric orthopedics—specifically adapting adult implants for use in children, which poses risks such as damaging the epiphyseal plate or stunting bone growth.

Picture-300x92The Plaintiff asserts that WishBone’s introduction of their “PRIMA™ Femoral Locking Plate System” infringes upon Patent 8,777,998 through alleged replication of at least three of its claimed features.  OP further asserts that in addition to manufacturing their own allegedly infringing product, WishBone also markets and sells the product.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., a Pennsylvania-based corporation, alleges ownership of exclusive distribution rights for broadcasting premier sporting events, including the Ultimate Fighting Championship® (UFC). Through agreements with copyright holders, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. claims they obtained authorization to exhibit UFC 246: McGregor vs. Cowboy.

Pic-300x300Defendants, comprising LNH, LLC operating in Burlington, Indiana as Burlington Pizza/The Barn, along with Neal D. Harmon and Loriann Harmon, allegedly exhibited UFC 246 at their commercial establishment without the required authorization from Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. The plaintiff claims that this action violated licensing requirements and involved unauthorized access to the Program through various means, including cable, satellite, or internet streams.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. asserts satellite and cable piracy violations under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553, claiming that the defendants intercepted satellite signals or used unauthorized cable signals to broadcast the Program, contravening federal laws regulating such transmissions.  Joe Hand also Alleges infringement of its exclusive distribution rights under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501), contending that the defendants exhibited the copyrighted Program publicly without proper authorization, violating intellectual property laws.

Contact Information