Articles Posted in Breach of Contract

February 28, 2014

PC Ruehl Engineering Sues AM General for Patent Infringement of Humvee Frame Rail Assembly

South Bend, Indiana – Indiana and Wisconsin patent attorneys for Phillip C. Ruehl of Wauwatosa, Wisconsin (“Ruehl”) and PC Ruehl Engineering, Inc. of Wisconsin (“PC Ruehl”) filed patent infringement litigation in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that AM General LLC of South Bend, Indiana infringed Boxed Frame Member and Method for Manufacture, Patent No. 8,484,930 B2 (the “‘930 Patent”), which has been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

From 1969 to 2001, Ruehl was employed as an automotive frame chassis engineer. In his various positions, including as a manager of product design, Ruehl’s responsibilities included contributing to the designs of many light truck and sport utility vehicle frames.

Since the early 1980s, AM General has manufactured for the United States military, and eventually for the militaries of many other countries around the world, a High Mobility Multi-Purpose Wheeled Vehicle (or HMMWV, also known as the Humvee).

In November 2004, an employee of AM General allegedly contacted Ruehl to inquire if Ruehl was interested in consulting on a project to upgrade the frame rails for AM General’s Humvee line of trucks. The employee described the frame rail project objectives to Ruehl and sent drawings to Ruehl showing the current side rail design.

From December 2004 through February 2005, Ruehl indicates that he studied the drawings and began to consider ways to meet AM General’s objectives so that he could add value if and when AM General decided it wanted to retain him as a consultant. He contends that he was neither under contract with AM General nor was he being paid or otherwise compensated by AM General during this time.

Ruehl states in his complaint that he began to consider several potential solutions which he believed to be the most efficient means of solving the stated challenges. He sketched up many of these potential solutions so that he would remember each and be able to explain how he would proceed with each idea if he were asked. One of the new solutions Ruehl conceived of and sketched was a design that solved many of the unique dimensional and quality problems that AM General was experiencing with its current frame rail design (the “Invention”).

AM General allegedly was never invoiced and never paid Ruehl for the work he did during this preparation period. Instead, Ruehl states that AM General specifically told him that the rail design program itself was tentative, and that if it did go forward, he would not be “on board” and under contract until he had met with representatives of AM General and signed additional documents at AM General’s Michigan facility.

In February 2005, having allegedly already conceived of the Invention, PC Ruehl received from AM General a purchase order dated February 24, 2005 for “engineering support for HMMWV frame rail feasibility study.” Under this purchase order, AM General asked Ruehl to provide engineering support for a feasibility study and stated that PC Ruehl would be paid $150 per hour for Ruehl’s efforts. Ruehl signed the purchase order on behalf of PC Ruehl.

In March 2005, Ruehl drew a more detailed, presentable, and buildable sketch illustrating the Invention in its preferred embodiment, and had the owner of a Milwaukee-area prototype shop confirm its manufacturability, witness it, and agree to build a small “proof-of-concept” sample. Ruehl states that he did not bill, and was not paid by, AM General for this work.

Ruehl then brought the Invention to a meeting with AM General. Before beginning the substance of the meeting, Ruehl states that he (on behalf of PC Ruehl) and AM General signed a Mutual Confidentiality Agreement. This agreement provided that all confidential information disclosed by Ruehl to AM General and by AM General to Ruehl would “remain the property of [the] Disclosing Party[.]” “Confidential Information” was defined in the agreement as “[a]ny information that has value to the Disclosing Party and is not generally known to its competitors,” and specifically included “ideas, concepts, plans,…drawings,…products, processes[.]” Moreover, the agreement stated, “Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as granting or conferring to Receiving Party any patent rights or licenses from Disclosing Party either expressly or by implication[.]”

Following this agreement, Ruehl worked with AM General to provide engineering support services for the frame rail feasibility study. Ruehl was paid for this work pursuant to the February 2005 purchase order. Ruehl also provided additional engineering support services to AM General under an April 2005 purchase order. Ruehl contends that AM General never paid him or PC Ruehl for the transfer of ownership of Ruehl’s Invention.

On November 1, 2005, Ruehl filed a patent application on the Invention, Provisional Patent Application No. 60/732,451. Ruehl followed that application with a non-provisional patent application, Patent Application Serial No. 11/279,321, on April 11, 2006.

AM General filed its own patent application on Ruehl’s Invention, filing Provisional Patent Application Serial No. 60/764,045 on February 1, 2006, and non-provisional patent application Serial No. 11/670,217, on February 1, 2007.

On November 1, 2005, the day that Ruehl filed the provisional patent application, he informed AM General of the filing and of his expectation of receiving royalties for the use of his Invention. Conversely, AM General has purportedly advised Ruehl that it is AM General’s position that Ruehl had an obligation to assign his rights in the Invention to AM General.

On July 16, 2013, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued the ‘930 Patent to Ruehl. Ruehl now contends that AM General has incorporated Ruehl’s Invention into the frame rail assembly it is now using for its Humvee which it is manufacturing and selling to the United States Military and to others.

At issue in this Indiana patent litigation are the following:

• Count I: Infringement of the ‘930 Patent, and
• Count II: Breach of Contract.

Ruehl and PC Ruehl, via patent counsel, ask the court for a judgment that AM General has directly infringed and continues to infringe the ‘903 Patent; damages, including treble damages; a judgment that AM General’s infringement has been willful; an injunction enjoining AM General from infringing the ‘930 Patent; a declaration that this case is exceptional; costs and fees.

Practice Tip: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office provides for the recordation of assignments of applications, patents, and registrations. The patent assignment abstract of title shows that an interest in this patent was assigned from Ruehl to AM General in 2008. In 2010, another assignment of this patent was executed from AM General to Ruehl. In 2011, an assignment from AM General to itself was filed to correct error. Finally, in 2013, a second assignment to correct error, this time to and from Ruehl, was executed.

February 24, 2014

Union Hospital Sues Attachmate Seeking a Declaration of Non-Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Terre Haute, Indiana – Copyright attorneys for Union Hospital, Inc. of Terre Haute, Indiana filed an Indiana copyright lawsuit against Attachmate Corporation of Seattle, Washington in the Southern District of Indiana asking the court to declare that Union Hospital had not infringed either of two Attachmate software works titled “EXTRA!” and “Reflection”, Copyright Registration Nos. TX0005717997 and TX0007351951, which were issued by the U.S. Copyright Office.

Union Hospital, a not-for-profit regional hospital, provides healthcare to residents of the Wabash Valley community, regardless of their ability to pay. Attachmate is one of the largest software companies in the world, with 40 offices doing business in 145 countries.

Union Hospital states that, since at least 1997, it has been licensed to use Attachmate software for which it paid tens of thousands of dollars. In 2013, Attachmate conducted an audit of Union Hospital’s use of Attachmate software products. According to the complaint, as a result of this audit, Attachmate determined that Union Hospital had used the software beyond the terms of the licenses and demanded that Union Hospital pay Attachmate over $2,000,000 in license fees, interest and other charges. Union Hospital indicates Attachmate subsequently threatened to initiate copyright infringement litigation against Union Hospital.

The claims of liability which Attachmate apparently made have been attacked by Union Hospital on several grounds. Union Hospital states that the claim of over-deployment of certain software was based not upon the actual usage of Attachmate’s product, but upon the potential total number of users who could have used Attachmate software on Union Hospital’s server regardless of whether the user ever accessed or used the product. Union Hospital further asserts “estoppel, waiver, laches, and/or acquiescence” in its defense.

This Indiana litigation, filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act, was filed by Indiana copyright lawyers for Union Hospital. The complaint lists three causes of action:

1. Declaratory Judgment on Copyright Infringement Claims
2. Declaratory Judgment on Copyright Infringement Claims for Unregistered Copyrights
3. Declaratory Judgment on Breach of Contract Claims

Union Hospital asks the court to:
a. Declare that one or more of Attachmate’s breach of contract claims are preempted by the Copyright Act;
b. Declare that Attachmate’s asserted license agreements are invalid and unenforceable;
c. Declare that Union Hospital is not liable to Attachmate for copyright infringement, as Union Hospital’s use of Attachmate’s software was licensed;
d. Declare that Attachmate’s copyright infringement and/or breach of contract claims are barred by estoppel, waiver, laches, and/or acquiescence;
e. Declare that Attachmate’s copyright infringement and/or breach of contract claims are barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations;
f. Declare that, if Attachmate’s claims are allowed to proceed, any damages for Attachmate’s copyright and/or breach of contract claims be substantially reduced due to Attachmate’s failure to mitigate its damages;
g. Declare that Attachmate’s alleged copyrights were not timely registered and therefore Attachmate is barred from seeking statutory damages and attorneys’ fees for its copyright infringement claims;
h. Declare that Attachmate’s copyright infringement claims based on unregistered copyrights are barred; and
i. Alternatively, declare that Attachmate’s is only entitled to de minimis damages because Union Hospital’s uses did not exceed the total number of uses that it contracted for with Attachmate.

Practice Tip:

The use of the compound conjunction “and/or” in this complaint raises some interesting possibilities. As one basis for federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff alleges that “Attachmate’s representatives have expressly or impliedly threatened litigation for breach of contract and/or copyright infringement….” Such an assertion may not be sufficient to invoke federal-question jurisdiction, as it claims that the threat of litigation exists for one of three possible circumstances: breach of contract only, copyright infringement only, or both breach of contract and copyright infringement. Under the first scenario – breach of contract only – no federal jurisdiction would lie. This potential problem may be remedied by other allegations in the complaint, including a separate assertion of diversity jurisdiction.

The use of “and/or” is also found in the prayer for relief. There, Plaintiff asks for, inter alia, declarations “that Attachmate’s copyright infringement and/or breach of contract claims are barred by estoppel, waiver, laches, and/or acquiescence” and “that Attachmate’s copyright infringement and/or breach of contract claims are barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations.” Again, this use of the compound conjunction leaves open the possibility that the court might interpret the prayer for relief as a request to bar the claims of breach of contract or copyright infringement, but not both.

February 20, 2014

Noble Roman’s Sues Another Indiana Franchisee Alleging Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Noble Roman’s, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that B & MP, LLC (which was dissolved in 2011) and Leslie Perdriau of Apple River, Illinois (collectively, “B & MP”) infringed the trademark Noble Roman’s, Registration No. 987,069, as well as the trademark, The Better Pizza People, Registration No. 1,920,428. Noble Roman’s also lists a design mark, Registration No. 1,682,308 in its complaint. All of the marks have been registered by the U.S. Trademark Office.

Noble Roman’s is in the business of franchising the operation of Noble Roman’s pizza franchises that feature pizza, breadsticks, and other related food items to various franchisees throughout the world. Noble Roman’s has used its trademarks, among them “Noble Roman’s” and “The Better Pizza People,” registered in 1974 and 1995, respectively, in commerce in connection with marketing, identifying, and promoting its pizza franchises.

On or about March 16, 2010, Noble Roman’s and B & MP entered into two franchise agreements. Under the terms of the agreements, B & MP became a franchisee of Noble Roman’s licensed and authorized to sell “Noble Roman’s” and “Tuscano’s” branded food products using Noble Roman’s intellectual property assets. These agreements included terms relating to the accurate reporting of sales and timely payment of franchise and other fees.

B & MP is accused of failing to pay royalties as required under the agreement and of misreporting sales, among other things. Noble Roman’s contends that B & MP purposely, intentionally and knowingly misreported its sales to Noble Roman’s for the purpose of avoiding payment of franchise fees and/or royalties which were due.

Noble Roman’s also states that B & MP used the Noble Roman’s trademarks in connection with the sale of non-Noble Roman’s pizza and other menu items and that such use of the trademarks was without the authorization or consent of Noble Roman’s. Those acts were asserted to constitute trademark infringement, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1), as well as a false designation of origin in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

Although the complaint lists two Defendants, Noble Roman’s states that Defendant B & MP was involuntarily dissolved in 2011 and that Defendant Leslie Perdriau succeeded to its obligations.

The complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark lawyer, lists the following:

• Count One (Trademark Infringement)
• Count One [sic] (Breach of Contract)
• Count Two (Fraud)

Noble Roman’s asks for judgment in its favor in amount to be proven at trial, together with interest, punitive damages, costs of collection and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip: Noble Roman’s has been particularly aggressive in enforcing franchise agreements. Since 2007, it has also filed the following suits in the Southern District of Indiana:

September 5, 2012 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. VILLAGE PANTRY

March 17, 2011 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. FINDLAY TIFFIN OIL, LLC and AYMAN MAGDADDI

January 27, 2011 – NOBLE ROMAN’S INC. et al. v. BRABHAM OIL COMPANY and BRABHAM OIL COMPANY

October 9, 2009 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. CITY CENTER FOOD CORP., INC.

August 31, 2009 – NOBLE ROMAN’S INC. v. W.J. INTERNATIONAL GROUP, LLC

July 17, 2009 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. MARDAN, INC.

July 8, 2009 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. RENTON WILLIAMS

April 21, 2009 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. RICHARD A. GOMES and RRCM FOODS, INC.

April 2, 2009 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. KANDAKAR ALAM

February 17, 2009 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. EXPRESS LANE, INC.

February 10, 2009 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. JJP&L, LLC

November 6, 2008 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. PARDIS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

October 24, 2008 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v DELTA PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, ZACK BROTHERS TRUCK STOP, LLC and STANDARD PETROLEUM CORP.

October 6, 2008 – NOBLE ROMAN’S INC. v. JAY’S GAS LLC

April 9, 2008 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. SHAHRAM RAHIMIAN

March 17, 2008 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. MEDALLION CONVENIENCE STORES, INC.

December 20, 2007 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. MICHAEL J. BRUNSWICK, LAURIE BRUNSWICK, and M&L RESTAURANTS, LLC

September 17, 2007 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. THE FRENCH BAGUETTE, LLC et al.

July 26, 2007 – NOBLE ROMAN’S, INC. v. MR. RON’S, L.C.

July 19, 2007 – NOBLE ROMAN’S INC. v. BAUER BUILT, INC. et al.

February 12, 2014

Sprint Weighs in with Civil Suit Against Defendants in Criminal Phone-Trafficking Scheme

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – In a 42-page complaint for damages and injunctive relief, trademark attorneys for Sprint Solutions, Inc. of Reston, Virginia; Sprint Communications Company L.P. and Boost Worldwide, Inc., the latter two of Overland Park, Kansas (collectively, “Sprint”), sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Reginald Aldridge and Arrice Aldridge, both of Park Forest, Illinois, and Damion Transou of Humboldt, Tennessee infringed certain Sprint trademarks. These trademarks include the following Sprint marks: Registration Nos. 1,104,943, 1,573,863, 1,712,259, 1,839,302, 2,833,134, 2,836,616, and 3,046,207. They have been registered with the U.S. Trademark Office.

Sprint sells wireless handsets (“Phones”) under the brands Sprint, Boost Mobile, Virgin Mobile, payLo and Assurance Wireless for use on Sprint’s wireless network at prices significantly below the wholesale prices of the Phones so that they will be more widely accessible to consumers. Sprint states that it subsidizes the cost of the new Phones for the benefit of its “legitimate” customers. Sprint asserts that it spent more than $6.6 billion on handset subsidies in 2012.

Defendants, along with their alleged co-conspirators are accused of perpetrating an unlawful scheme of bulk handset theft and trafficking to profit from the illegal acquisition and resale of new Phones for their own profit and to the detriment of Sprint. As part of this purportedly fraudulent scheme, Sprint Phones are purchased and resold multiple times. During that process, the Phones are “unlocked” so that they may be used with any service provider, including non-Sprint providers. Sprint contends that, ultimately, these Phones end up in the hands of someone other than the Sprint customer whom Sprint intended to benefit. Sprint contends that the Phones often are sold overseas, where it does not provide service. As a result, Sprint states, Defendants are profiting from this scheme by appropriating the subsidies that Sprint provides to its customers.

Defendants are also accused of unlawfully accessing Sprint’s protected computer systems and wireless network, trafficking in Sprint’s protected and confidential computer passwords, and/or stealing legitimate customer upgrades. It is asserted that Defendants fraudulently placed at least 65 orders on more than 17 corporate accounts to which they had no legal right of access for the purpose of ordering more than 288 items valued at over $100,000.

Finally, Sprint contends that Defendants’ behavior violates the Terms and Conditions to which the sales of Phones are subject as well as willfully infringes Sprint’s trademark rights.

Defendants Arrice Aldridge and Damion Transou were indicted, in part for the activities described in the complaint.

In the complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark lawyer, in conjunction with trademark attorneys from Florida and Georgia, the following counts are asserted:

• Count I: Unfair Competition
• Count II: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships and Prospective Advantage
• Count III: Civil Conspiracy
• Count IV: Unjust Enrichment
• Count V: Conspiracy to Induce Breach of Contract
• Count VI: Common Law Fraud
• Count VII: Fraudulent Misrepresentation
• Count VIII: Trafficking in Computer Passwords – 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(6)
• Count IX: Unauthorized Access – 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(5)(C)
• Count X: Unauthorized Access with Intent to Defraud – 18 U.S.C. §1030(a)(4)
• Count XI: Federal Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. §1114
• Count XII: Federal Common Law Trademark Infringement and False Advertising – 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(1)(A)
• Count XIII: Contributory Trademark Infringement
• Count XIV: Conversion

Plaintiffs ask the court for damages, including exemplary damages; attorneys’ fees and costs; a permanent injunction prohibiting the practices described in the complaint; and the delivery to Plaintiffs of the Defendants’ inventory of accused Phones.

Practice Tip: Cases of cellular phone trafficking such as these, and there are more than a few of them, are an unusual combination of contract law, trademark law and criminal law. In at least one case similar to this one, 16 defendants were also convicted of terrorism charges when it was found that the proceeds from their phone trafficking and other illegal conduct was being funneled to the terrorist organization Hezbollah.

February 7, 2014

Licensor of “Tiki Tan” Mark Alleges Infringing Use by Solarium and Solarium Bittersweet

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Al Reasonover of Elkhart, Indiana sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Solarium LLC of South Bend, Indiana (“Solarium”) and Solarium Bittersweet LLC of Elkhart, Indiana (“Solarium Bittersweet”) committed trademark infringement of “Tiki Tan”, Trademark Reg. No. 2602388, which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In this complaint for trademark infringement and unfair competition, Plaintiff Reasonover states that he operates tanning salons under the Tiki Tan Mark and that he also develops tanning salons operated by others to whom he licenses the use of the Mark for a fee. Among these licensees, claims Plaintiff, is Solarium.

Reasonover asserts that, instead of displaying the Tiki Tan Mark as licensed, Solarium displays a service mark at its website reading “Tiki Tan by Solarium”. Reasonover also claims that, while he and Solarium entered into a licensing agreement that permitted Solarium to use the Mark only within a five mile territory around 4542 Elkhart Road, Elkhart, Indiana, Defendants Solarium and/or Solarium Bittersweet are operating additional tanning salons under the name “Tiki Tan” at 306 N. Bittersweet Road, Mishawaka, Indiana; 1290 E. Ireland Road, South Bend, Indiana and 215 E. University Drive, Granger, Indiana.

Plaintiff indicates that the licensing agreement neither permits Solarium to alter the Mark nor to use the Mark outside of the five mile territory around 4542 Elkhart Road, Elkhart, Indiana. He also claims that Solarium’s modification of the Mark to include its own name in connection with the promotion, sale and distribution of tanning salon services infringes on Plaintiff’s rights in his federally registered trademark, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1114. Reasonover further alleges that Defendants’ actions are intended to cause, have caused, and are likely to continue to cause, confusion, mistake, deception among consumers, the public, and the industry as to whether Defendants’ services originate from, are affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by Plaintiff.

Finally, Defendants are accused of infringing the Mark intentionally, deliberately and willfully. The complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark lawyer, lists the following counts:

• Count I – Trademark Infringement – Injunctive Relief
• Count II – Trademark Infringement – Damages
• Count III – Common Law Trademark Infringement
• Count IV – Common Law Unfair Competition

Reasonover asks the court for:

• a finding that Defendants have violated 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1114; that Defendants have engaged in trademark infringement and unfair competition under the common law of Indiana; and that such conduct has damaged Plaintiff monetarily and in ways not adequately remedied by monetary damages alone;
• an injunction, preliminarily and permanently restraining Defendants from altering the registered Mark, “Tiki Tan,” in any way including but not limited to including the words “by Solarium” with the Mark; operating tanning salons at 306 N. Bittersweet Road, Mishawaka, Indiana; 1290 E. Ireland Road, South Bend, Indiana; or 215 E. University Drive, Granger, Indiana under the name “Tiki Tan”; engaging in any other activity constituting unfair competition with Plaintiff; and engaging in any other activity constituting trademark infringement or which deceives consumers or the public about the origin of services associated with Plaintiff;
• an order for corrective advertising;
• statutory damages or, alternatively, the disgorgement of all profits realized as a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and also awarding Plaintiff its actual damages;
• a trebling of damages under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1117;
• Plaintiff’s costs, attorney fees, investigatory fees, and expenses under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1117; and
• pre-judgment interest on any monetary award.

Practice Tip: A trademark license may be granted by a licensor to a licensee to permit the licensee to use a trademark in a way that would otherwise infringe upon the licensor’s intellectual property rights. A license to use a trademark typically includes various restrictions. Those restrictions may include, among other things, limits on territory, term and manner of use.

February 3, 2014

Indiana Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Resident’s Daughter in Nursing Facility Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Alexis Hutchison (“Hutchison”) (pictured right) appealed a small claims court (“trial court”) judgment in favor of Trilogy Health Services, LLC, d/b/a Springhurst Health Campus (“Springhurst”), on Springhurst’s claim against Hutchison and her now-deceased mother, Martha Farber (“Farber”), for payment of services provided to Farber while she was a resident at Springhurst. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed.

For a number of years, Farber was ill with cancer, requiring various trips to, and stays at, hospitals. After one of her hospital visits, and finding that she was in need of constant care, she became a resident at Springhurst, a skilled nursing facility.

When Farber was admitted to Springhurst, Hutchison signed Springhurst’s Move-In Agreement (“Agreement”) as a “Responsible Party/Agent.” This Agreement stated that, to the extent that Hutchison was authorized to “control[] or access[]” her mother’s assets, she agreed to direct her mother’s income and resources towards any financial obligations which Farber had to Springhurst. Springhurst later contended that Farber and Hutchison, as Farber’s Responsible Party/Agent, owed $1,716.90 for services rendered to Farber. Farber disputed all but a small portion of the charges and Springhurst filed suit against Farber and Hutchinson.

A trial was held. During the trial, Hutchison testified that she was not Farber’s power of attorney and that she had “no authority to use [her] mother’s income for anything.” Hutchison indicated that the only thing she could have done was point out to her mother that a bill was owed. When Hutchison cross examined Dionne Fields (“Fields”), Springhurst’s business office manager, Fields admitted that Springhurst had no documents indicating that Hutchison had any authority over her mother’s financial affairs.

Hutchison also called as a witness her husband, David Hutchison (“David”), who was present when Hutchison signed the Agreement. David testified that Hutchison had asked if signing the Agreement would make her personally financially responsible for her mother’s stay at the nursing facility. The Springhurst representative, he said, had answered with “an emphatic no.”

The trial court found the evidence – including the language of the contract, the assurances of Springhurst that Hutchison would not be held personally liable and the uncontroverted testimony that Hutchison had no power of attorney over her mother – to be unpersuasive. It rendered a general judgment in favor of Springhurst stating that “the court found the plaintiff proved the defendant liable pursuant to contract and Indiana case law for the sum of $2,610.87” but declined to specify further facts or law in support of the judgment.

Hutchison, again acting as her own attorney, appealed this ruling and the Indiana Court of Appeals held in her favor. The appellate court first cited federal limitations that have been enacted regarding the notion of imposing upon one family member financial responsibility for another family member’s care. For example, under 42 U.S.C. §§1396r(c)(5)(A)(ii) and 1395i-3(c)(5)(A)(ii), a nursing home certified as eligible for Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement “must not require a third party guarantee of payment to the facility as a condition of admission . . . to, or continued stay in, the facility.” The Indiana Administrative Code provides a similar restriction in 410 Ind. Admin. Code 16.2-3.1-16.5.

The appellate court then acknowledged that resident rights activists echoed Hutchison’s argument that an agreement to assume the status of a “responsible party,” and the personal financial liability which might accompany that, might be inconsistent with federal law and inherently illegal. The court, however, declined to decide this issue, which was apparently one of first impression in Indiana courts.

The court also declined to address the testimony that Springhurst had assured Hutchison that she would not incur personal financial liability by signing the Agreement.

Instead, the court found the provisions of the Agreement itself, in conjunction with undisputed evidence, to be dispositive. The Agreement stated that Farber “may designate” a person to act on her behalf as a Responsible Party/Agent and that, if such a designation was to be made, “the Resident shall provide the Facility with a copy of a written agreement that authorizes such individual to manage, use, control or access the Resident’s income, financial account(s) or other resources” (emphasis added by the court). It was undisputed that neither Farber nor anyone else had provided Springhurst with any such document; indeed, the unrefuted evidence had been that Springhurst did not possess any such document.

The court noted that Hutchison’s responsibilities, then, were at most “to pay the Facility the full amount of the Resident’s income and resources that the Responsible Party/Agent controls or accesses” (emphasis added by the court). As it was undisputed that Hutchison possessed neither control nor access to Farber’s income and resources, the appellate court concluded that the trial court had clearly erred. It reversed and remanded the matter with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Hutchison.

Practice Tip #1: Cases tried before the bench in small claims court are reviewed for clear error and appellate courts are particularly deferential to the trial court in small claims actions. The appellate court, when reviewing the case, will not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses but will consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Moreover, when a trial court’s judgment is rendered as a “general judgment,” as was the case here, that judgment will be affirmed upon any legal theory consistent with the evidence. Thus, it is very important to put on one’s best possible case to the trial court, as substantial deference is given to the trial court’s findings.

Practice Tip #2: While this case was not an Indiana intellectual property case, we include it in the Indiana Intellectual Property Law Blog to congratulate Alexis Hutchison, a valued and talented member of the Overhauser Law Offices team, on her well-deserved success in litigating this matter.

December 12, 2013

Redwall Sues ESG for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Redwall Live Corp. (“Redwall”) has sued ESG Security, Inc. (“ESG”) in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Both parties are located in Indianapolis, Indiana. The design at issue in this lawsuit has been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office under Registration No. VA 1-874-872.

Redwall is a consulting and design services firm engaged in the business of strategic branding and advertising. Its services include, but are not limited to, developing a clear message and a unique visual image as well as developing brand value for its clients.

Redwall states that it was engaged by ESG to reinvent ESG’s brand. As part of the design plan, Redwall indicates that it created a new logo design for ESG (the “Design”) to be utilized on ESG’s business cards, letterhead, brochures, and on ESG’s website. Redwall asserts that the agreement relating to the creation of the Design required that ESG’s business cards and letterhead be printed by Redwall and provided to ESG upon request.

In May 2013, Redwall registered the Design with the United States Copyright Office. A Certificate of Copyright Registration issued by the Register of Copyrights under Registration No. VA 1-874-872.

Redwall asserts that, despite its performance in full, ESG has failed to pay to Redwall the remaining balance for the work completed. It also claims that ESG has used and continues to use Redwall’s copyrighted Design on a variety of items including, but not limited to, its website and traffic barricades.

• Count I: Copyright Infringement
• Count II: Breach of Contract
• Count III: Unjust Enrichment

Redwall asks the court for findings that ESG committed copyright infringement, breached its contractual obligations to pay for services rendered and were unjustly enriched by such actions; temporary and permanent injunctions against using the Design; damages; impoundment of items containing the copyrighted Design; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

Practice Tip: Commissioning someone to create a copyrightable work does not necessarily mean the copyrights in the resulting work are owned by the commissioning party. The commissioning party will only own the work if it is a “work made for hire” under the Copyright Act. A “work made for hire” is usually limited to situations in which there is either an employer-employee relationship or where the work is a contribution to a “collective work.” Absent these circumstances, the commissioning party will own the work only if it is expressly assigned to it by the party preparing the work. A commissioning party should usually have a written agreement stating that the party preparing the work assigns its copyrights to the commissioning party.

December 11, 2013

Project Management Academy Sues Former Instructor for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – eCity Market, Inc. d/b/a Project Management Academy (“PMA”) of Lafayette, Indiana has sued Vaughn Scott Burch (“Burch”) and Graywood Consulting Group, Inc. d/b/a Graywood Training Solutions of Leesburg, Virginia (collectively, “Graywood”) alleging infringement of its Project Management Professional examination and certification training. This suit was initially filed in Delaware County Circuit Court No. 4 but was removed to the Southern District of Indiana.

PMA offers preparation courses for the Project Management Institute’s Project Management Professional (“PMP”) examination and certification process. PMA states that Burch was one of its most-trusted PMP course instructors in the Washington, D.C. area and that, in connection with that position, PMA provided him with access to its proprietary manner of conducting its PMP-examination preparation courses. Moreover, PMA claims that it commissioned Burch and Graywood, Burch’s company, to draft and prepare as a “work for hire” certain training modules that would be for PMA’s exclusive use.

PMA alleges that Burch and Graywood are now teaching PMP courses that are in direct competition with PMA. It also contends that Defendants have stolen PMA’s confidential, proprietary and copyrighted materials to further their own course offerings. PMA further indicates that Defendants are violating the non-competition covenants by reproducing PMA’s copyrighted materials and are passing them off as their own. Finally, PMA contends that Defendants are attempting to engage in unfair competition with PMA by publishing student testimonials as if they were from Defendants’ students when, PMA states, the testimonials were actually given by the students of PMA.

An intellectual property lawyer for PMA filed a complaint alleging the following:

• Count I – Breach of Contract
• Count II – Breach of Duty of Loyalty
• Count III – Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
• Count IV – Theft/Conversion
• Count V – Tortious Interference with Prospective Business Relationship and Advantage
• Count VI – Lanham Act Violations
• Count VII – Unfair Competition

PMA asks for preliminary and permanent injunctions; an order requiring the return of all PMA materials; judgment in favor of PMA on the seven counts listed; damages, including treble and punitive damages; attorney’s fees and costs; and interest.

Practice Tip: There has also been a growing trend, perhaps fueled in part by states’ difficulties in paying increasing unemployment benefits, to limit via legislation the enforceability of non-compete agreements. Indiana considers non-compete agreements to be in restraint of trade and, thus, construes them narrowly. Among the states that have considered such limitations are Maryland, New Jersey, Minnesota, Massachusetts and Virginia. However, even in those cases where a non-compete agreement is found to be unenforceable, such a finding will not prevent a party from suing to protect its other rights, such as the intellectual property rights granted under copyright law.

November 18, 2013

Preliminary Injunction Improper for Overly Broad Non-Compete Agreement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana Court of Appeals Judges Elaine Brown, Edward Najam and Paul Mathias reversed a trial court’s entry of preliminary injunction, holding that the non-compete agreement at issue was overly broad and, thus, unreasonable as a matter of law.

Glacier Group (“Glacier”) provides employee recruiting and placement services in the field of information technology. It primarily places salespeople, pre-sales engineers, systems engineers and people in leadership positions such as directors, vice presidents, chief financial officers and chief executive officers. Daniel Buffkin began working as a sales recruiter for Glacier in August 2008. Buffkin’s work with Glacier was subject to an “Independent Contractor Agreement” (the “Agreement”).

In June 2011, Glacier terminated the Agreement with Buffkin. In November 2012, it sued Buffkin alleging that he was in breach of the non-competition portion of the Agreement and requesting damages and injunctive relief.

In March 2013, the trial court determined that “during the almost three (3) year business relationship between [Glacier] and [Buffkin], [Buffkin] came into contact with a vast number of prospects and candidates, as well as clients of [Glacier], including their names and at the very least, their e-mail addresses, together with the requirements of [Glacier’s] customers for prospects and candidates to fill employment positions” and that “[t]his therefore created a legitimate protectable business interest by [Glacier].”

The trial court also stated that “[Buffkin] has admitted to directly competing against [Glacier] after being terminated from working for [Glacier]” and that Buffkin had been either unable or unwilling to supply a list of “where and when [Buffkin] has obtained the contacts he has made that he has used to make placements in the field in which [Glacier] works and operates.”

The trial court concluded that Glacier had a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of its case and granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Buffkin from competing with Glacier in employee placement in the areas of “data storage, cloud, virtualization, big data, managed hosting, managed services, data communication, and telecommunication.”

From this ruling, Buffkin brought an interlocutory appeal to the Indiana Court of Appeals. He argued that the non-compete clause of the Agreement was unreasonable and therefore unenforceable. He first asserted that the non-compete clause was overly broad because it did not have any restrictions regarding which industry it covered. He contended that, as written, the Agreement purported to prohibit him from doing executive recruiting in any industry. He also argued that the Agreement did not protect a legitimate interest of Glacier and that the restrictions on geographic scope were overly broad. Buffkin asked the Court of Appeals to hold that the trial court had abused its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.

Glacier countered that it had provided Buffkin with insider knowledge and that Buffkin could not have had the success that he had after leaving Glacier without having used the proprietary information which he had acquired during his time with Glacier. It maintained that it had a protectable interest as a result of Buffkin’s purported use of insider knowledge acquired at Glacier and that Buffkin’s use of that information to Glacier’s detriment should be enjoined.

The appellate court first considered whether Glacier had an interest to be protected. It held that, while Buffkin may have acquired training, knowledge and skills while working at Glacier, such general skills would not be sufficient to rise to the level of a protectable interest unless their use would result in irreparable injury to Glacier. No such irreparable injury was proven. Glacier also failed to prove that, during his time with the company, Buffkin had access to proprietary information which gave him an improper advantage at Glacier’s expense. The court concluded that the interest to be protected by the non-competition provision of the Agreement, if any, was minimal.

The reasonableness of the restrictions was then addressed. Two provisions in particular were at issue: the geographic restriction and the activities restricted. The Agreement had attempted to restrict Buffkin from performing recruiting or placement services for employers “with offices in the continental United States.” The court held that Glacier had not met its burden of proof to demonstrate that it had a legitimate interest to be protected by such a broad restriction and held the geographic restriction to be unreasonable.

The court next held that the broadly worded text restricting Buffkin from being “connected in any way with any business that competes” with Glacier, and which made no distinction between past, current, or potential future customers of Glacier was excessive and, thus, unenforceable. It held that the trial court’s ruling had been clearly erroneous and that it had abused its discretion by granting the preliminary injunction.

Practice Tip #1: The Indiana Supreme Court has held that, to be enforceable, a non-compete agreement must be reasonable and that “[u]nlike reasonableness in many other contexts, the reasonableness of a noncompetition agreement is a question of law.” Such agreements in employment contracts are strongly disfavored under Indiana law as restraints of trade. They are scrutinized more closely than most other types of contracts and are strictly construed against the employer. Identifying a party to the contract as an independent contractor rather than as an employee does not change the analysis.

Practice Tip #2: A preliminary injunction should not be granted except in rare instances in which the law and facts are clearly within the moving party’s favor. To obtain a preliminary injunction, the moving party has the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence the following: (1) a reasonable likelihood of success at trial; (2) the remedies at law are inadequate; (3) the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the potential harm to the nonmoving party from the granting of an injunction; and (4) the public interest would not be disserved by granting the requested injunction. If the party seeking the preliminary injunction fails to prove any of these requirements, the trial court’s grant of an injunction will be considered an abuse of discretion.

November 7, 2013

WindStream Sues Rambo and Keebler for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – WindStream Technologies, Inc. of North Vernon, Indiana filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Rambo LLC, Rambo Montrow Corporation (collectively, “Rambo”) and Rick Keebler, all of Madison, Indiana, as well as ten unidentified John Does residing in Indiana, infringed its trademarked TurboMill, Trademark Registration No. 3,986,494, which has been registered by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

WindStream manufactures wind turbines for municipal, residential and commercial use. Those turbines are shipped worldwide from its Indiana manufacturing facility. It contracted with Rambo and Keebler, who is asserted to be a principal of the Rambo entities, to provide component parts and to act as an authorized dealer of TurboMill turbines in certain territories.

WindStream has multiple contractual disputes with Defendants and Defendants’ predecessors in interest and asserts that component parts in which WindStream has an interest are being held “hostage” in an attempt to renegotiate the terms of one of the contracts. Further, WindStream contends that the failure of Defendants to deliver the parts has damaged its business. WindStream also charges Defendants with unfair competition, claiming that they are selling WindStream products, including WindStream’s TurboMill, as their own. Finally, it asserts that, among the prospective customers that Keebler and Rambo are targeting are individuals and entities that had previously been identified by WindStream as potential customers.

In its complaint, filed by the trademark attorney for WindStream, the following counts are alleged:

• Federal Unfair Competition and Passing Off (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a))
• Trademark Infringement (15 U.S.C. § 1114)
• Breach of Contract (Dealer Agreement)
• Breach of Contract (Purchase Orders)
• Interference with Contract and Prospective Economic Advantage

WindStream asks the court for an injunction prohibiting trademark infringement and similar conduct; damages, including treble damages; punitive damages for Defendants’ willful and malicious acts; and attorney’s fees and costs of the lawsuit.

Practice Tip: The complaint asserts that the trademark for TurboMill was registered on June 28, 2001 and that the mark has been used in commerce since at least 2009. In contrast, the registration is listed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as having occurred on June 28, 2011 with the mark shown as having first been used in commerce in 2011, the same year in which WindStream began manufacturing its wind turbines. While the former inconsistency, which adds exactly ten years to the apparent life of the trademark, can be assumed to be a typographical error, the origin of the latter inconsistency, which adds another two years to the period during which the TurboMill mark is claimed to have been used in commerce, in unclear.