Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

June 23, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Attorney/Photographer Sues North Carolina Hotel Operator

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana sued Defendant Alliance Hospitality Management, LLC of Raleigh, North Carolina in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement.

Bell, an Indiana copyright attorney and professional photographer, asserts that Defendant infringed his intellectual property rights in a photo of the Indianapolis skyline entitled “Indianapolis Photo,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office as Registration No. VA0001785115.

In this Indiana litigation, which Bell filed on his own behalf, a single count of “Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition” is listed. Bell asks the court to award the maximum statutory damages allowable, asserting that Alliance Hospitality Management has infringed willfully and “with oppression, fraud, and malice.” Bell seeks injunctive relief, damages, costs and attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Bell is a frequent litigant in Indiana federal courts and has been discussed here on numerous occasions. See:

• Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline
• Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• Lawsuit by Frequent Copyright Litigant Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

June 22, 2016

Indiana Patent Litigation: Folding Tricycle Alleged to Infringe Patent

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Newton Enterprises Ltd. of Kowloon, Hong Kong filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant Singleton Trading Inc. of Brooklyn, New York committed patent infringement.

In this Indiana litigation, Singleton Trading, which does business as Elama and Blue Spotlight, is accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,568,720 (the “‘720 Patent”) for a “wheeled vehicle.” The patent covers a wheeled vehicle, such as a tricycle, that can be folded from an in-use position to a storage position for ease of carrying.

Newton Enterprises claims that Singleton Trading has infringed and/or induced others to infringe the ‘720 Patent by “making, using, offering to sell, and/or selling in the United States, and/or importing into the United States, a foldable tricycle that practices at least one invention claimed in the ‘720 Patent.” It lists as an example of such infringement Defendant’s “Zoom Bike.”

In a complaint filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, a single claim is made: “Infringement of ‘720 Patent.” Plaintiff further claims that Defendant’s infringement has been willful and deliberate, entitling Plaintiff to enhanced damages in addition to compensatory damages. Plaintiff also asks that the court award attorney fees and costs.

June 20, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Botanic Gardens Asserts Infringement of 91-Year-Old Trademark

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Plaintiff Indiana Botanic Gardens, Inc. of Hobart, Indiana sued Defendant Snyder Manufacturing Corporation of Long Beach, California, which does business as Eurospa Aromatics and Eurospa Chemicals, alleging trademark infringement and related causes of action.

At issue in the lawsuit is U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,327,965 for the trademark EUCAMINT for camphorated ointment. Plaintiff states that it owns this registration, which was issued April 2, 1985. It also states that the mark was first used in commerce in 1925. Plaintiff contends that Defendant’s use of EUCAMINT to market an aromatic shower mist infringes its trademark.

This litigation, filed by Indiana trademark lawyers for Plaintiff, asserts the following causes of action:

• Count I: Federal Trademark Infringement
• Count II: Unfair Competition Under Federal Law

• Count III: Common Law Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Under Indiana Law

Plaintiff Indiana Botanic Gardens claims that Defendant Snyder Manufacturing acted intentionally and willfully in an attempt to trade upon the goodwill of the EUCAMINT trademark. Plaintiff asks that the court order the payment of damages, including punitive damages. It also seeks equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

June 17, 2016

Patent Law: Supreme Court Discards Rigid Test for Awarding Enhanced Damages for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – A unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court this week gave district courts more flexibility to award enhanced damage in cases of willful patent infringement.

This decision consolidated two patent infringement lawsuits, Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al. and Stryker Corp. et al. v. Zimmer, Inc., et al, in which Indiana-based Zimmer, Inc. was sued. In each lawsuit, the proper interpretation of the statutory language of 35 U.S.C. §284, which permits district courts the discretion to award enhanced damages in cases of patent infringement, was at issue.

The exercise of that discretion is guided by the principle that enhanced damages are to be limited to cases of egregious misconduct. Prior to this week’s decision, it was also guided by a test elucidated by the Federal Circuit, as set forth in In re Seagate Technology, LLC. This test requires a patent owner to show two things by clear and convincing evidence: first, “that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent” and, second, that the risk of infringement “was either known or so obvious that it should have been known to the accused infringer.”

In a unanimous opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that while the Seagate standard reflected an appropriate recognition that enhanced damages were to be awarded only in egregious cases, the test set forth by the Federal Circuit “is unduly rigid” and “impermissibly encumbers the statutory grant of discretion to district courts.”

The Court primarily took issue with the requirement that objective recklessness be found, holding that such a threshold “excludes from discretionary punishment many of the most culpable offenders, such as the ‘wanton and malicious pirate’ who intentionally infringes another’s patent–with no doubts about its validity or any notion of a defense–for no purpose other than to steal the patentee’s business.”

The Court also noted that the Seagate test improperly allowed ex post facto defenses in considering culpability. Specifically, under the Seagate test, an infringer could rely on a defense at trial, even if he had been unaware of that defense at the time he had acted. This, the Court held, ignored the general rule that culpability is to be determined by an actor’s knowledge at the time of the conduct in question.

Finally, the Court rejected the requirement that recklessness be proved by clear and convincing evidence, finding it to be inconsistent with §284. Instead, it stated that enhanced damages are no different from patent infringement litigation in general, which “has always been governed by a preponderance of the evidence standard.”

The Court vacated the judgments of the Federal Circuit in both cases and remanded them for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion.

Although this was a unanimous opinion, Justice Breyer authored a concurring opinion, in which Justices Alito and Kennedy joined.

June 15, 2016

Patent Office Issues 220 Patents To Indiana Citizens in May 2016

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 220 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in May 2016, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

	Patent No.	Title
1	D757,912	Faucet spout aperture
2	D757,908	Faucet handle
3	9,356,492	Electric machine with liquid cooled housing
4	9,355,845	Light induced nanowire assembly
5	9,355,511	Apparatuses and methods for displaying feedback indicators via a keypad
6	9,354,237	Methods for isolating proteins
7	9,354,181	Analytical devices for detection of low-quality pharmaceuticals
8	9,354,125	Highly-reliable micro-electromechanical system temperature sensor
9	9,353,966	System for increasing operating efficiency of an HVAC system including air ionization
10	9,353,962	Roof vent

June 13, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Architecture Firms File Four New Infringement Lawsuits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – Copyright attorneys for Plaintiff Design Basics LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed four new infringement lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana.

The first lawsuit lists Heller & Sons, Incorporated d/b/a Heller Homes and Heller Development Corporation of Fort Wayne, Indiana as Defendants. They are accused of infringing the following architectural works, which have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista VA 282-203 & 752-162
Plan No. 1380 – Patterson VA 314-024 & 726-379
Plan No. 1748 – Sinclair VA 371-214 & 726-353
Plan No. 1752 – Lancaster VA 371-204 & 756-041
Plan No. 24077 – Baisden VA 1-044-287 & 1-042-002

Plaintiff Design Basics was joined in this lawsuit by a second Plaintiff, W. L. Martin Home Designs LLC of Jacksonville, Florida. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ infringing plans are “Arthur Williams,” “David Mathew 2,” “Greyson,” “David Mathew 1” and “Spencer 5.”

The second lawsuit was filed against Defendant Slattery Builders LLC of Fort Wayne, Indiana. It is accused of infringing the following copyrighted works:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 8520 – Mindoro VA 1-074-913 & 1-082-723
Plan No. 42065 – Hepburn VA 1-671-719 & 1-921-774

Design Basics contends that Defendant is infringing with two plans, “Savannah” and “Oakhurst.”

The third lawsuit, filed against Ideal Suburban Homes, Inc. of Roanoke, Indiana asserts infringement of the following works:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 8093 – Kirby Farm VA 729-227, 729-218 & 1-432-411
Plan No. 8095 – Sun Valley VA 729-290 & 729-256

Defendant’s accused plans are entitled “Double Eagle” and “Calloway.”

In the final lawsuit, Design Basics was joined by two additional Plaintiffs, W. L. Martin Home Designs as well as Plan Pros, Inc. of Omaha, Nebraska. Defendants in this lawsuit, all Indiana entities, are: Fireside Homes Inc.; Fireside Development Company, LLC d/b/a Fireside Homes Development Company; Harth Homes, Inc.; Willies Development Corporation; and Oakbrook Homes, Inc. d/b/a Juniper Homes, Oakbrook Homes, Willie’s Oakbrook Homes and Riverview Lumber and Building Supply Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs contend that the following intellectual property has been infringed:

Title Copyright Registration Nos.
Plan No. 2226 – Wycliffe VA 434-195, 889-020 & 1-926-485
Plan No. 2245 – Tyndale VA 434-205, 710-606 & 1-924-168
Plan No. 2377 – Leighton VA 485-142, 757-614 & 1-942-396
Plan No. 2578 – Kaiser VA 524-251, 710-606 & 1-928-399
Plan No. 2761 – Mayberry VA 513-792, 710-606 & 1-926-488
Plan No. 2907 – Ashley VA 624-090, 624-091 & 826-741
Plan No. 2952 – Francis VA 624-098, 624-099 & 784-226
Plan No. 8030 – Burton Place VA 729-255 & 748-980
Plan No. 8093 – Kirby Farm VA 729-218 & 729-227

In this complaint, the following plans are accused: The Concept Home, Model 1400, Model 1200, Model 1600, Model 1650, Model 1700, Model 1900, Model 1800, Model 1300, Model 1478, Model 1759, Model 1971, and Model 2295.

Design Basics seeks damages, injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

June 9, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Attorney/Plaintiff Bell Files Three New Lawsuits Over Photo of Indianapolis Skyline

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiff Richard Bell, a copyright lawyer and professional photographer, filed three more lawsuits in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendant in the first lawsuit is Progressive Urban Management Associates of Denver, Colorado. The second lawsuit lists National Healthy Start Association of Washington, D.C. as Defendant. In the third lawsuit, an individual, Chris Young, is listed as Defendant.

In each of these lawsuits, Bell asserts copyright infringement of a photo, entitled “Indianapolis Photo,” which has been registered as Copyright Registration No. VA0001785115 by the U.S. Copyright Office. Each complaint also lists a count of unfair competition.

As with prior complaints, Bell asserts not merely copyright infringement but willful conduct, contending that Defendants in each lawsuit acted “with oppression, fraud, and malice.” He seeks the maximum statutory damages allowable as well as injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees from all Defendants.

Practice Tip: Bell, who has filed numerous lawsuits in recent years alleging infringement of the “Indianapolis Photo” as well as the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo” (the latter is not at issue in any of these lawsuits), has been discussed on this site before. See:

• Eight New Infringement Lawsuits Filed by Attorney/Plaintiff
• Attorney/Photographer Files Two New Infringement Lawsuits
• District Court Terminates Copyright Suit Over Photo; Plaintiff Appeals
• Remaining Copyright Defendants in Bell Lawsuit to be Dismissed
• Attorney/Photographer Sues Georgia Real Estate Company for Infringing Copyrighted Photo
• Sovereign Immunity May Take a Toll on Bell’s Latest Copyright Lawsuit
• Appellate Court Dismisses Copyright Appeal as Premature
• Bell Rings in the Holiday Weekend with a New Copyright Lawsuit
• Bell Files New Copyright Infringement Lawsuit
• Bell Sues Georgia-Based FindTicketsFast.com for Copyright Infringement
• Richard Bell Files Two New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits
• Court Prevents Copyright Plaintiff Bell from Outmaneuvering Legal System; Orders Bell to Pay Almost $34,000 in Fees and Costs
• Three Default Judgments of $2,500 Ordered for Copyright Infringement
• Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

• Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

June 6, 2016

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Brew Pub Accused of Infringing Use of Yeti Trademarks

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – Trademark attorneys for Plaintiff Great Divide Brewing Company of Denver, Colorado filed an infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana against Defendant Red Yeti Brewing Company, Inc. of Jeffersonville, Indiana.

Defendant is listed in the complaint as the owner of a restaurant and brewery named “Red Yeti Brewing Co.” a/k/a “Red Yeti Restaurant and Brewpub.” The complaint asserts that Red Yeti Brewing Co. wrongfully employs the term “Yeti” and a yeti design in its marketing.

Specifically, Plaintiff contends that Defendant Red Yeti’s conduct infringes two of its trademarks, U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,957,257 for a Yeti word mark and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,115,050 for a Yeti design mark. Both have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Plaintiff asserts that Red Yeti’s actions constitute a deliberate attempt to trade upon Defendant’s goodwill and reputation and that its actions are willful and malicious. In this Indiana federal lawsuit, filed by trademark lawyers for Plaintiff, the following claims for relief are listed:

• Trademark Infringement in Violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)
• Unfair Competition – False Designation of Origin in Violation of 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)
• Federal Dilution
• Common Law Unfair Competition
• Common Law Trademark Infringement

• Deceptive Trade Practices in Violation of C.R.S. § 6-1-113

Great Divide seeks damages, including punitive damages, along with equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.

June 1, 2016

262 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in May 2016

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following 262 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in May 2016 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No.	Word Mark	Click To View
4975014	EDWIN	TSDR
4973313	NCDN	TSDR
4975152	BLACK FRIDAY BRACES	TSDR
4972960	HAITIAN MOTIVATION#10	TSDR
4972958	INVESTING IN PEOPLE’S PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE	TSDR
4972928	BIZCHUM	TSDR
4972883	RUBES AND BEASTY	TSDR

May 27, 2016

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Design Basics Files Two New Copyright Lawsuits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Northern District of Indiana – Trademark counsel for Plaintiff Design Basics, LLC of Omaha, Nebraska filed two new copyright infringement lawsuits in the Northern District of Indiana alleging infringement of copyrighted architectural plans.

The first lawsuit, filed in the Fort Wayne Division, lists two Defendants, Westport Homes of Fort Wayne, Inc. and Westport Homes, Inc. They are accused of infringing Plaintiff’s “Plan No. 3090 – Jarrett,” which has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration Nos. VA 624-154 and 624-153. Plaintiff contends that Defendants’ infringing plans are marketed under the names Fairfield and Fairmont.

The second lawsuit was filed in the Hammond Division against Defendant Precision Homes, Inc. doing business as Precision Construction, Inc. and Precision Homes of Indiana, Inc. A second Plaintiff, W.L. Martin Home Designs LLC of Jacksonville, Florida, was listed in this lawsuit.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiffs state that Precision Homes offers six architectural plans, which are offered under the names Richmond, Raleigh, Durham, Kara, Abigail and Auburn, that infringe upon copyrighted works. Plaintiffs state that three copyrighted plans were infringed: “Plan No. 1032 – Monte Vista,” Copyright Registration Nos. VA 282-203 & 752-162; “Plan No. 3588 – Stratman,” Copyright Registration Nos. VA 682-254, 682-253 & 756-041; and “Plan No. 24120 – Langlade,” Copyright Registration No. VA 1-073-400.

In both cases, the court is asked to order damages, equitable relief, costs and attorneys’ fees.