Articles Posted in Civil Procedure

May 23, 2014

Indiana Copyright Law: Court Orders Severance of Misjoined Copyright Infringement Complaint

Indianapolis, Indiana – Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue, writing for the Southern District of Indiana, directed the Clerk of the Court to sever all but one defendant from the copyright infringement complaint of Richard Bell, an Indiana copyright attorney. Bell was also ordered by the court to pay separate filing fees for each new cause of action.

Bell is a copyright lawyer and a professional photographer. He contends that he is the owner of two copyrighted photographs of Indianapolis taken in March 2000. The photos have been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.

In April, Bell filed another copyright infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement of his photos by numerous Defendants. The Defendants were: Diversified Vehicle Services of Marion County, Indiana; Cameron Taylor and Taylor Computer Solutions of Indianapolis, Indiana; Rhonda Williams of Indianapolis, Indiana; Forensic Solutions, Inc. of Waterford, New York; Heath Garrett of Nashville, Tennessee; CREstacom, Inc. of Fishers, Indiana; American Traveler Service Corp LLC, location unknown; Mike Cowper of Martinsville, Indiana; Kimberly Hinds of Indianapolis, Indiana; Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute of Troy, New York; EasyStreet Realty of Indianapolis, Indiana; Drohan Management of Reston, Virginia; Metal Markets of Indianapolis, Indiana; Mattison Corporation of Indianapolis, Indiana; Industrial Heating Equipment Association of Taylor Mill, Kentucky; Junk Dawgs of Indianapolis, Indiana and WRTV of Indianapolis, Indiana. Bell is both the copyright lawyer and Plaintiff in this lawsuit.

In this earlier complaint, Bell alleged that each Defendant, independent of each other Defendant, “created their individual website to promote and market their business” and placed the Plaintiff’s copyrighted photo on each of the Defendants’ respective websites. Claiming copyright infringement, unfair competition and theft, Bell asked the court for, inter alia, the maximum allowable statutory damages for each copyright violation.

The court ordered Bell to show cause why all defendants but one should not be severed for misjoinder. Bell argued that the rules regarding joinder should be given a broad scope so that multiple lawsuits could be avoided.

The court was not persuaded. In addressing Bell’s contention that joinder of the unrelated Defendants was proper, it was Bell’s own language, and the factual underpinnings of that language, to which the court pointed in denying joinder. The court noted that Bell’s “complaint alleges that ‘[e]ach defendant, independently of each other, created or had created a website to promote and advertise the business of each Defendant,’ and that Plaintiff discovered that ‘the website [of] each of these Defendants contained [one of the photographs].'” The court also noted that “[e]xcept for defendants Cameron Taylor and Taylor Computer Solutions, the Complaint contains no allegation that any defendant acted in concert with another defendant in appropriating Plaintiff’s photographs and it does not allege any transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences in which two or more defendants participated.” (Citations omitted.)

The court then reviewed the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2)(A) that a Plaintiff’s claims against defendants joined in the same action must respect or arise out of the same occurrence or the same series of occurrences. While Bell had alleged copyright infringement of the same copyrighted material against all Defendants, the court held this to be insufficient. Similarly, while the same types of questions of fact would arise against each Defendant – “e.g., how did the defendant find Plaintiff’s photograph, what did the defendant know about the photograph’s copyright status, did the defendant make commercial use of the photograph, and did the defendant pay for the use of the photograph” – those similar questions of fact provided no logical relationship among the Defendants that would support joinder.

Instead, the court found that each Defendant was accused of independently committing separate and distinct acts of copyright infringement that happened to involve the same photograph.

The court then directed the Clerk of the Court to sever all defendants other than Diversified Vehicle Services from the complaint as it had been filed and to open separate causes for each of the severed defendants, with the exception of defendants Cameron Taylor and Taylor Computer Solutions, which the court directed to be joined in one cause. WRTV was dropped, as Bell indicated that it had been included as a defendant inadvertently.

The court also ordered Bell to pay the $400 filing fee for each of the 15 severed causes of action no later than June 2, 2014.

Practice Tip #1: There has been a growing trend of attempting to monetize copyright infringement. In this particular case, the docket for the initial complaint showed Bell’s demand to be $5,000,000 for the alleged infringing activities. In ruling that “unrelated claims against unrelated defendants belong in different suits, in part to ensure that plaintiffs pay the required filing fees” and subsequently ordering the Plaintiff to pay a separate filing fee for each of the Defendants, Magistrate Judge LaRue has employed one approach that may be useful in combatting such copyright trolling.

Practice Tip #2: Under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(1), a copyright owner may elect actual or statutory damages. Statutory damages range from a sum of not less than $750 to not more than $30,000 per infringed work.

Practice Tip #3: The claims of this case appear calculated to trigger the “advertising injury” clause of many general business liability insurance policies. If a defendant has applicable business insurance, this may allow Bell to negotiate quicker settlements. Overhauser Law Offices, publisher of this Site, counsels clients on insurance coverage for insurance claims.

Practice Tip #4: These latest causes of actions represent the most recent of three ongoing cases filed by Bell asserting infringement of his photos. We have blogged about his copyright infringement litigation before. See here. The Indiana Lawyer also wrote recently about Bell’s copyright litigation. That article includes an interview with Paul B. Overhauser, Managing Partner of Overhauser Law Offices.

May 16, 2014

Indiana Trademark Law: Seventh Circuit Holds Indiana Court Lacked Personal Jurisdiction Over RAP4

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chicago, Illinois – Indiana trademark attorney Paul B. Overhauser, on behalf of K.T. Tran and Real Action Paintball, Inc., a California corporation (collectively “RAP4”), argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that the trademark infringement suit brought in the Northern District of Indiana by Advanced Tactical Ordnance Systems, LLC, an Indiana corporation (“ATO”), was not properly before the Indiana court, as it lacked personal jurisdiction over RAP4. The Seventh Circuit agreed and instructed the district court to dismiss the complaint.

RAP4 and ATO are competitors in the “irritant projectile” market. Unlike the more familiar game of paintball, in which a paint-filled sphere is shot at opponents as part of a war game, these irritant projectiles are used by the police and military to intervene in hostile situations where lethal force is unnecessary. While paintballs are filled with paint, irritant projectiles use capsaicin, the active ingredient in pepper spray. Irritant projectiles, thus, allow law enforcement personnel to use less-than-lethal force from a distance.

Among the many issues in this lawsuit, including assertions by ATO of trade-dress infringement, unfair competition and misappropriation of trade secrets, were allegations that RAP4 had infringed the trademarked term “PEPPERBALL,” to which ATO claimed ownership. That trademark, Registration No. 2716025, was issued in 1999 by the U.S. Trademark Office to a non-party to this suit.

The trouble began when another company, non-party PepperBall Technologies, Inc. (“PTI”), began to have financial problems. PTI had also been a competitor in the irritant-projectile market. To address its difficulties, PTI held a foreclosure sale, the validity of which was hotly contested. ATO claimed that it had purchased PTI’s trademarks – including “PEPPERBALL” – and other property during this foreclosure sale.

During the time that PTI ceased its operations and was attempting to convey its assets, RAP4 was contacted by an executive of non-party APON, a company which had manufactured some of PTI’s irritant projectiles. He asked if RAP4 was interested in acquiring irritant projectiles from APON.

RAP4 agreed to purchase irritant projectiles from APON. After having negotiated this access to APON’s machinery, recipes, and materials – which had had at one time been used by PepperBall Technologies Inc. – RAP4 announced this fact to the people on its e-mail list. Specifically, it stated in its e-mail that it had acquired access to, “machinery, recipes, and materials once used by PepperBall Technologies Inc.” It was this language to which ATO, which claimed to be the successor in interest to PTI, particularly objected.

ATO sent a cease-and-desist letter to RAP4. In response, RAP4 added a disclaimer that it was not affiliated with PTI. ATO then sued in the Northern District of Indiana. It claimed several different theories of recovery, including intentional violations of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1111 et seq., common law trademark infringement and unfair competition, trade dress infringement, and misappropriation of trade secrets.

Of particular interest to the Seventh Circuit in addressing this Indiana trademark litigation was the issue of personal jurisdiction over RAP4 in the Northern District of Indiana. RAP4 contested that such jurisdiction over it was lacking. ATO countered that RAP4 had sufficient contacts, including a “blast e-mail” announcement from RAP4 that would suffice for jurisdiction in Indiana, stating that “many [RAP4 customers] are located here in the state of Illinois. I mean, state of Indiana.” It also contended that RAP4 regularly e-mailed customers or potential customers from all over the United States, including Indiana, and that RAP4 had made at least one sale to an Indiana resident.

ATO conceded that it lacked general jurisdiction. Thus, the Seventh Circuit turned to an analysis of specific jurisdiction. “For a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant’s suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State,” noted the appellate court. Moreover, the relation between the defendant and the forum “must arise out of contacts that the ‘defendant himself’ creates with the forum.”

In determining that personal jurisdiction existed, the Indiana district court had relied on several facts: “first, [RAP4] fulfilled several orders of the allegedly infringing projectiles for purchasers in Indiana; second, it knew that Advanced Tactical was an Indiana company and could foresee that the misleading emails and sales would harm Advanced Tactical in Indiana; third, it sent at least two misleading email blasts to a list that included Indiana residents; fourth, it had an interactive website available to residents of Indiana; and finally, it put customers on its email list when they made a purchase, thereby giving the company some economic advantage.”

The Seventh Circuit held that these facts were insufficient to support specific jurisdiction. The only Indiana sales that would have been relevant were those that related to RAP4’s allegedly unlawful activity. ATO failed to meet its burden of proof of any such Indiana sales. Similarly, the court held that any effects that were purportedly felt in Indiana by ATO did not support specific jurisdiction. Instead, the relation between RAP4 and the Indiana forum “must arise out of contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum State.”

Further, neither RAP4’s e-mail communications nor its website were held to create specific jurisdiction. If such contacts were sufficient, the court held, there would be no limiting principle on personal jurisdiction and a plaintiff could sue almost any defendant with an Internet presence or which utilized e-mail in almost any forum in the United States or the world. To find jurisdiction on such vanishingly small contacts would offend the long-held and traditional “notions of fair play and substantial justice.”

The Seventh Circuit remanded the case to the Indiana district court with instructions to vacate the judgment and dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Practice Tip #1: RAP4’s references to “Pepperball Technologies, Inc.” could not as a matter of law constitute trademark infringement, counterfeiting or false advertising. Instead, RAP4’s use of its competitor’s name is a merely a wholly permissible nominative use of that mark. As a matter of law, a “nominative use of a mark – where the only word reasonably available to describe a particular thing is pressed into service – lies outside the strictures of trademark law.”

Practice Tip #2: Personal jurisdiction is an essential element of federal court jurisdiction, without which the court is powerless to adjudicate the matter before it. However, a defendant’s argument that personal jurisdiction does not exist can easily be waived inadvertently by the incautious litigant. In this case, an evidentiary hearing regarding personal jurisdiction was conducted in December 2012. It was only by careful preservation of this argument by trademark counsel for RAP4 while litigating in the district court that the appellate court was able to hear RAP4’s claim and reverse the district court.

Practice Tip #3: This case was successfully argued before the Seventh Circuit by Paul B. Overhauser, Managing Partner of Overhauser Law Offices.

March 20, 2014

Dyer’s General Store May Not Proceed Pro Se, Ordered to Retain Counsel

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Terre Haute, Indiana – Indiana trademark litigation against a corporate entity requires the participation of an attorney for the defense to avoid default.

In 2013, a trademark lawyer for Coach, Inc. of New York, New York and Coach Services, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida (collectively “Coach”) sued for trademark infringement in the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiffs alleged that Dyer’s General Store and Outlet (“Dyer’s General”), Kimberly Dyer and David L. Dyer, all of Worthington, Indiana, infringed Trademark Registration Nos. 2,088,706 and 3,157,972, which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In the complaint, Coach asserted Lanham Act violations including counterfeiting, trademark infringement, false advertising, common law trademark infringement, unfair competition, forgery, counterfeiting and unjust enrichment. Coach alleges that it is suffering irreparable injury and has suffered substantial damages as a result of Defendants’ allegedly illegal activities.

David Dyer filed an answer pro se purporting to represent himself, Kimberly Dyer and Dyer’s General. While only Mr. Dyer signed this answer, the court seems to have accepted the filing with respect to both Mr. and Ms. Dyer. However, in its most recent order, the court noted that “corporations cannot appear pro se, but must appear through an attorney.” District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ordered Dyer’s General, a corporate entity, to retain counsel to prepare an answer to the complaint if it intends to participate in the litigation.

Practice Tip: Coach is an active litigant, especially in matters of protecting its intellectual property. Since 2009, it has sued more than 20 retailers in Indiana federal courts.

March 19, 2014

Divided Federal Circuit Rules En Banc to Retain Cybor Rule of De Novo Review for Claim Construction

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded in a six-to-four decision that the rule in Cybor – that claim construction is an issue of law subject to de novo review on appeal – will be retained under the principles of stare decisis.

In 1998, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, decided Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc. Among the issues in Cybor was the standard of appellate review of district court decisions concerning the meaning and scope of patent claims (“claim construction”). The Federal Circuit held that, for purposes of appellate review, claim construction was to be considered to be a question of law, not one of fact, and subject to de novo review.

Recently, in Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics North America Corp, the Federal Circuit was asked to revisit the Cybor holding. In addition to the arguments presented by the parties, patent attorneys for thirty-eight organizations and individuals filed twenty-one amicus briefs.

The opinion of the Court, written by Judge Newman, was joined by Judges Lourie, Dyk, Prost, Moore, and Taranto; it included a concurring opinion by Judge Lourie. A dissenting opinion, written by Judge O’Malley, was joined by Chief Judge Rader and Judges Reyna and Wallach.

The court, again sitting en banc, retained the rule, as stated in Cybor, that no deference will be given by the appellate court to the trial court’s decisions concerning the meaning and scope of patent claims.

Among the arguments presented for reversal of Cybor was an assertion that treating claim construction as a matter of law increases uncertainty, “negates settlement and increases litigation costs.” The court found these arguments unpersuasive. Instead, it discussed two reasons to maintain the Cybor rule.

The court cited the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (also known as “Markman II“), in which the Court had stressed that issues of claim construction should be considered “purely legal.” Moreover, the Supreme Court has emphasized the importance of “uniformity in the treatment of a given patent.” For example, the possibility of differing claim constructions could lead to different results for infringement and validity, as well as the possibility of disparate district court constructions. De novo review by an appellate court ensures national uniformity, stability and predictability in claim construction.

The court also cited the rule of stare decisis in its refusal to abandon the fifteen-year-old rule established in Cybor and the subsequent years of experience with that rule, stating that it had been presented with “no argument of public policy, or changed circumstances, or unworkability or intolerability, or any other justification for changing the Cybor methodology and abandoning de novo review of claim construction.” The court held that the demanding standard for departure from established law had not been met and retained the de novo review of claim construction established in Cybor.

Practice Tip #1: The issues addressed in claim construction are not considered to be questions of weight of the evidence or credibility of witnesses, but rather of the scope of the claims as set forth in the patent documents.

Practice Tip #2: Claim construction is typically conducted relatively early in the trial court’s proceedings, before addressing questions such as patent infringement, patent validity and damages. At the outset, the trial court must establish the metes and bounds of the claims that define the scope of the intellectual property.

Practice Tip #3: In a dissent that was, at times, strongly worded, Judge O’Malley opined that “no one in the legal community–except perhaps the members of the majority–has come to believe that either the wisdom or vitality of Cybor is settled.” She cited previous statements of Circuit Judges who challenged Cybor as improperly relying on the legal fiction that there are no facts to be decided in claim construction and as “profoundly misapprehend[ing]” the Supreme Court’s decision in Markman.

March 12, 2014

Supreme Court Reverses Federal Circuit on Burden of Proof in Patent Infringement Litigation Brought Under the Declaratory Judgment Act

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – An issue in the patent infringement dispute between medical-device giant Medtronic, Inc. and Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC (“Mirowski”) was heard by the United States Supreme Court. In question was the placement of the burden of proof in patent infringement litigation that seeks a declaratory judgment. The Supreme Court reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the burden of proof of infringement rests with the patent holder even if the lawsuit is filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

After hearing arguments by patent attorneys for each side, the district court had held that Mirowski, the party asserting infringement, had the burden of proving patent infringement; it found that Mirowski had not met that burden.

The Federal Circuit reversed. It concluded that, when a patentee (Mirowski) is a declaratory judgment defendant and is also prevented from asserting an infringement counterclaim by the existence of a license between the parties – as Mirowski was – the party seeking the declaratory judgment (Medtronic) bears the burden of proving that it had not infringed the patent.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari. The question before the Court was “whether the burden of proof shifts when the patentee is a defendant in a declaratory judgment action, and the plaintiff (the potential infringer) seeks a judgment that he does not infringe the patent.”

Mirowski argued that it would be unfair to place a burden of proof on the party that was not seeking relief. The Intellectual Property Owners Association supported Mirowski’s position, contending that a failure to shift the burden of proof in such cases would lead to abuse of declaratory judgment actions, as the risks and burdens of patent infringement litigation would be placed entirely on the patent owner.

In contrast, Medtronic argued that placing the burden on a licensee would create an unacceptable choice between finality and fairness, as it would require the judicial system to permit a party to relitigate issues that had been previously decided under a different burden of proof.

The Supreme Court reversed the shifted burden of proof imposed by the Federal Circuit. The Court declared that it saw “no convincing reason why burden of proof law should favor the patentee” simply because it was filed under the Declaratory Judgment Act.

Practice Tip #1: It is settled law that, in patent infringement litigation, a patentee normally bears the burden of proof. Because 1) the operation of the Declaratory Judgment Act is only procedural and leaves substantive rights unchanged and 2) the burden of proof is a substantive aspect of a claim, this holding by the Supreme Court is not unanticipated.

Practice Tip #2: When drafting the terms of a license, patent owners should consider adding provisions to deter potential challenges by licensees.

Practice Tip #3: We have also blogged recently about another declaratory judgment case involving Mirowski, which is being heard in the Southern District of Indiana.

March 10, 2014

Southern District of Indiana to Begin Pilot Program

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Southern District of Indiana is beginning a pilot program that will allow active hyperlinks to be included within e-filed and court-issued documents. Hyperlinks will allow immediate access by the reader to the referenced materials, i.e., case management and electronic court filing system (“CM/ECF”) filings, case and statute citations, attachments, and exhibits.

During the initial phase of the pilot program, the court will be issuing a limited number of entries and orders containing hyperlinks. The hyperlinks may be page-specific. For instance, an order may contain a hyperlink to a specific page of a specific affidavit, which will be accessible with one click. Access to court-issued documents will continue to be available via the Notice of Electronic Filing (“NEF”) email system.

The next, and most important, phase of the pilot program will involve a small group of attorneys e-filing documents with hyperlinks. When utilized by attorneys, hyperlinks in briefs and other court filings will provide quick, easy, and pinpoint access to particular sections of a case, or to specific filings in the court’s record, adding another level of persuasion to their writing. Hyperlinking will also be a great benefit to the court, allowing members of the judiciary and their staff to quickly and easily review case-supporting materials.

January 16, 2014

Fourth Circuit Affirms Districts Court’s Injunction and Admission of Evidence in False Advertising Case

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Richmond, Virginia – PBM Products, LLC (“PBM”) sued Mead Johnson & Company, LLC (“Mead Johnson”) alleging false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) and (B), and commercial disparagement. Mead Johnson filed counterclaims against PBM. The district court dismissed the counterclaims and entered an injunction against Mead Johnson. Mead Johnson appealed. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

PBM produces store-brand, “generic,” infant formula. Mead Johnson produces baby formula products under the brand name Enfamil, including a standard formula, a formula with broken-down proteins, and a formula with added rice starch. Both companies use the same supplier for two key nutrients–docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and arachidonic acid (ARA)–which are important to an infant’s brain and eye development. Mead Johnson calls these nutrients by their brand name “Lipil,” while PBM describes them generically as “lipids.” Both companies use the same level of the lipids. As a result, PBM includes a comparative advertising label on their formula that states, “Compare to Enfamil.”

PBM sued Mead Johnson under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), alleging that Mead Johnson engaged in false advertising and commercial disparagement when it distributed more than 1.5 million direct-to-consumer mailers that falsely claimed that PBM’s baby formula products were inferior to Mead Johnson’s baby formula products.

Mead Johnson filed counterclaims against PBM alleging breach of contract, defamation, false advertising, and civil contempt. Mead Johnson’s defamation counterclaim was based primarily on a press release issued by PBM CEO Paul Manning declaring that “Mead Johnson Lies About Baby Formula … Again.” Mead Johnson’s false advertising counterclaim alleged that labels on PBM’s products conveyed several implied messages comparing PBM and Mead Johnson’s formulas. Mead Johnson’s breach of contract and civil contempt counterclaims related to prior litigation between the parties.

After a jury found that Mead Johnson had engaged in false advertising, the district court issued an injunction prohibiting Mead Johnson from making similar claims, which enjoined all four advertising claims that Mead Johnson had made, including the express claim that “only Enfamil LIPIL is clinically proven to improve brain and eye development.”

On appeal, Mead Johnson presented three clusters of issues for review by the Fourth Circuit: (1) whether the district court erred in its dismissal of Mead Johnson’s counterclaims; (2) whether the district court abused its discretion in its admission of expert opinion testimony and evidence of prior litigation between the parties; and (3) whether the district court erred or abused its discretion in issuing the injunction.

The dismissals of Mead Johnson’s counterclaims for breach of contract, defamation, false advertising, and civil contempt were all affirmed. The allegedly defamatory statement “Mead Johnson Lies About Baby Formula … Again” was held to be true, as it was found that Mead Johnson had made false statements prior to the publication of PBM’s press release (“Mead Johnson Lies”) and had also made previous false statements about PBM’s baby formula (the “Again” portion of the PBM’s press release). The dismissal of the defamation claim on summary judgment was held to be proper as no false statement had been made.

The Fourth Circuit then upheld the district court’s disposal of Mead Johnson’s Lanham Act counterclaims as a matter of law. Those claims accruing prior to the two-year statute of limitations were affirmed to be time-barred. Claims accruing after that period were affirmed as correctly estopped under the equitable principle of laches.

The Fourth Circuit also held that the district court did not err in granting judgment as a matter of law on Mead Johnson’s Lanham Act counterclaim concerning PBM’s rice starch formula advertisements, holding that the district court had properly concluded that, because the consumer surveys that had been conducted by Mead Johnson had failed to address the allegations in the lawsuit, no relevant evidence had been produced by Mead Johnson on this claim. Moreover, it was held that Mead Johnson had failed to show either falsity of the statements or that any damage was caused by any of the “compare to Enfamil” language that had been used by PBM.

The appellate court then addressed Mead Johnson’s contention that the district court erred by admitting (1) expert survey evidence and (2) evidence of prior Lanham Act litigation between the parties. These decisions were reviewed for abuse of discretion.

Mead Johnson had argued that the survey evidence offered by PBM should be excluded as the consumers involved in the survey did not exactly match the “universe” of consumers appropriate to this litigation. The district court was not convinced. It noted that “while Mead Johnson has pointed out numerous ways in which it would have conducted [the] survey differently, its arguments do not demonstrate that the methods used were not of the type considered reliable by experts . . . .” The district court concluded that the possibility that the survey had targeted the wrong universe went to the weight to be accorded to the survey, not to its admissibility. The appellate court cited a Seventh Circuit case, AHP Subsidiary Holding Co. v. Stuart Hale Co., which noted that “[w]hile there will be occasions when the proffered survey is so flawed as to be completely unhelpful to the trier of fact and therefore inadmissible, such situations will be rare” and affirmed the district court’s conclusion “without difficulty.”

Mead Johnson also had also asserted that the district court had erred in admitting evidence of the 2001 and 2002 Lanham Act lawsuits filed by PBM, contending that the evidence was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. The Fourth Circuit found that the history of prior litigation was both relevant and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice. Moreover, in upholding the trial court’s ruling, the appellate court opined that a district court’s decision to admit evidence over an objection based on the potential for unfair prejudice “will not be overturned except under the most extraordinary circumstances, where [the district court’s] discretion has been plainly abused.”

The Fourth Circuit then turned to Mead Johnson’s contention that the injunction issued by the district court had been improper. Mead Johnson argued that the injunction was improper for two reasons. First, it asserted that PBM failed to establish any risk of recurrence of the violation. Second, it argued that the scope of the injunction was too broad, as it prohibited conduct that PBM had not proved at trial and that it was beyond the harm PBM sought to redress.

The appellate court was not persuaded. At trial, the jury had returned a verdict in favor of PBM on its false advertising claim and had awarded PBM $13.5 million in damages. In such a case, where a violation has been established and the party seeking the injunction has made a showing that such an injunction is proper, section 1116(a) of the Lanham Act vests district courts with the “power to grant injunctions, according to the principles of equity and upon such terms as the court may deem reasonable, to … prevent a violation under [§ 1125(a) of the Lanham Act].” The Fourth Circuit held that a showing sufficient to support the district court’s injunction had been made and upheld the lower court’s ruling. The appellate court further indicated that the injunction was proper as, “PBM cannot fairly compete with Mead Johnson unless and until Mead Johnson stops infecting the marketplace with misleading advertising.”

Finally, Mead Johnson argued that, because the general jury verdict did not specify which of the four statements in the mailer the jury found to be false and/or misleading, the district court’s injunction must be limited only to the mailer or other advertisements not colorably different from the mailer. The Fourth Circuit rejected the narrow construction suggested by Mead Johnson. It noted again that, inter alia, Mead Johnson’s claim that it was the “only clinically proven” formula had been found to be misleading by the district court. It concluded that because the district court’s interpretation of the jury verdict was plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the factual findings upon which it based the scope of its injunction could not as a matter of law be clearly erroneous. Consequently, the scope of the injunction also was affirmed.

Practice Tip #1: These parties are familiar combatants on the Lanham Act battlefield. For example, in 2001, Mead Johnson distributed brochures and tear-off notepads to patients in pediatricians’ offices stating that store-brand formula did not have sufficient calcium or folic acid. PBM sued and obtained a restraining order prohibiting Mead Johnson from making similar statements. The parties settled that dispute. Then, in 2002, Mead Johnson distributed a chart to physicians stating that store-brand formula did not contain beneficial nucleotides. PBM sued and, again, the parties settled.

Practice Tip #2: The Lanham Act prohibits the “false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which … in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)(1)(B).

Practice Tip #3: In the Seventh Circuit, as with other federal circuits, “[A] court may find on its own that a statement is literally false, but, absent a literal falsehood, may find that a statement is impliedly misleading only if presented with evidence of actual consumer deception.” Abbott Labs. v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6, 14 (7th Cir. 1992).

Practice Tip #4: Before an injunction may issue, the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate that (1) it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) remedies available at law are inadequate; (3) the balance of the hardships favors the party seeking the injunction; and (4) the public interest would not be disserved by the injunction. eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006).

January 15, 2014

Indiana Tax Court Shields Orbitz from Disclosure of Trade Secrets

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – In the matter of Orbitz, LLC v. Indiana Department of State Revenue, Orbitz, LLC of Chicago, Illinois was heard by the Indiana Tax Court on its request to prohibit public access to information in the court record. The court granted the request, holding the trade secrets contained in documents submitted to the court were protected against public disclosure by both the Access to Public Records Act (Indiana Code § 5-14-3-1 et seq.) and Indiana Administrative Rule 9.

Orbitz, an online travel company, provides travel-related services on its website that enable its customers to search for and make reservations for a broad array of travel products, including airline tickets, lodging, rental cars, cruises and vacation packages.

The broad issue in this Indiana-state tax appeal was the appropriate base on which to calculate the Indiana state and local taxes due. Generally speaking, a hotel will contract with Orbitz to make its rooms available for reservation through Orbitz’s website. Pursuant to the contract, the hotel agrees to accept a certain amount for its rooms (“net rate”). Nevertheless, a customer who books a room through the website sees – and ultimately pays – a different amount, as Orbitz has added a facilitation fee, a service charge, and a tax recovery charge to the net rate. The tax recovery charge is equal to the amount of state and local taxes due on the room’s rental at the net rate.

After the customer has occupied the room, Orbitz forwards to the hotel the portion of the payment it collected from the customer that constitutes the room’s net rate and tax recovery charge. The hotel is then responsible for remitting to the taxing authorities the appropriate state and local taxes due on the room’s rental.

Following an audit in which the Indiana Department of Revenue found Orbitz to have underpaid the taxes due, Orbitz brought this appeal. Orbitz argued to the court that tax was due only on the net amount paid by Orbitz to the hotel. The Indiana Department of Revenue, in contrast, maintained that Orbitz had been deficient in remitting Indiana’s gross retail (sales) and county innkeeper taxes on the hotel bookings at issue. It contended that the total amount paid by the customer to Orbitz for the room was the correct figure on which to base the Indiana-state tax.

When asking the Indiana Tax Court for summary judgment, Orbitz also asked that the court prohibit public access to its contracts with the Indiana hotels, stating that the contracts were “proprietary [and] competitively sensitive” and that they contained trade secrets belonging to Orbitz.

The general rule in Indiana is that the public has access to court records. Citing the Access to Public Records Act, Ind. Code § 5-14-3-1, the court stated “all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of [their] government.” However, in certain circumstances, that right of access is restricted. An example of such a circumstance is when materials submitted to the court qualify as a trade secret. Trade secrets are protected from disclosure by statute in Indiana.

Indiana Code Section 24-2-3-2 defines a trade secret as:

information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

1. derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

2. is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

The court then enumerated the four general characteristics of a trade secret:

1. it is information;

2. that derives independent economic value;

3. that is not generally known, or readily ascertainable by proper means by others who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

4. that is the subject of efforts, reasonable under the circumstances, to maintain its secrecy.

The court granted Orbitz’s motion to shield Orbitz’s contracts with Indiana hotels, holding the information in those contracts to be properly protected as trade secrets. It stated, “Competition is the bedrock of our country’s economic system. The protection afforded to trade secrets under [the Access to Public Records Act] and Administrative Rule 9 helps to foster a healthy, competitive marketplace . . . . Here, Orbitz’s contracts contain trade secrets and therefore are protected from public disclosure under both APRA and Administrative Rule 9.”

Practice Tip:

When, as here, the documents sought to be protected fall within a mandatory exception set forth in the Access to Public Records Act or Indiana Administrative Rule 9, a court can seal those records without holding a hearing and balancing the competing interests. However, in other cases, when issuing an order to shield information from public access, the court must specifically outline why the need for privacy outweighs the strong public policy to allow such access.

In such a case, Indiana Code § 5-14-3-5.5(d) requires that the court’s order be based on findings of fact and conclusions of law and show “that the remedial benefits to be gained by effectuating the [state’s] public policy of [public access] are outweighed by proof by a preponderance of the evidence by the person seeking the sealing of the record that: (1) a public interest will be secured by sealing the record; (2) dissemination of the information contained in the record will create a serious and imminent danger to that public interest; (3) any prejudicial effect created by dissemination of the information cannot be avoided by any reasonable method other than sealing the record; (4) there is a substantial probability that sealing the record will be effective in protecting the public interest against the perceived danger; and (5) it is reasonably necessary for the record to remain sealed for a period of time.”

January 9, 2014

Supreme Court’s Holding in Gunn Requires Remand of Suit Alleging Malpractice in Patent Law

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Citing the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gunn v. Minton, the Southern District of Indiana has remanded to the Marion Superior Court the legal malpractice lawsuit filed by the Indiana patent lawyer for Miller Veneers, Inc. The Defendants in the case are Indiana patent attorney Clifford W. Browning as well as two Indiana law firms, Krieg DeVault, LLP and Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry, LLP.

In September 2012, Miller Veneers sued Clifford W. Browning; Krieg DeVault; and Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett & Henry in Marion Superior Court alleging attorney malpractice regarding the acquisition of patents. Defendants removed the case to the Southern District of Indiana in October 2012, asserting federal question jurisdiction and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) (2008).

Although the court originally found that it had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Gunn v. Minton led the court to reconsider the question of federal jurisdiction and to conclude that it did not, in fact, have subject matter jurisdiction over the suit, despite that the legal malpractice claims were based on underlying patent matters.

According to the new standard set forth in Gunn, federal jurisdiction exists over state law claims “if a federal issue is (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.”

While the issues of federal law in this malpractice lawsuit were found to meet the first two prongs, the court held that they failed the second two prongs. Specifically, the third Gunn prong requires that the issue be “substantial,” which requires the court “to look to the importance of the issue to the federal system as a whole.” The court held that, as was the case in Gunn, this issue was not important to the federal system as a whole but merely to the parties. The court also held that the fourth prong had not met. It stated that, where issues such as malpractice are to be litigated, the balance is in favor of the states as they have “a special responsibility for maintaining standards among members of the licensed professions.”

The court, upon determining that it lacked jurisdiction under the standard set forth in Gunn, remanded the matter to the Marion Superior Court.

Practice Tip: In Gunn, the Supreme Court held that a legal malpractice claim pertaining to the handling of a patent infringement case did not afford jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), stating, “We are comfortable concluding that state legal malpractice claims based on underlying patent matters will rarely, if ever, arise under federal patent law for purposes of § 1338(a).”

January 8, 2014

Court Strikes Four Affirmative Defenses of BitTorrent Defendant

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – District Magistrate Judge Roger B. Cosbey struck four affirmative defenses asserted by anonymous Defendant John Doe in Plaintiff Malibu Media’s lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana for copyright infringement.

Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC, filed a copyright infringement action against Defendant John Doe. Defendant answered with ten affirmative defenses. Malibu Media sought to strike four of those defenses–laches, unclean hands, waiver, and estoppel; failure to mitigate damages; failure to join an indispensable party; and implied license, consent, and acquiescence.

Plaintiff first moved to strike Defendant’s second affirmative defense–that “Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the equitable doctrines of laches, unclean hands, waiver and estoppel”–as a bare conclusory allegation unsupported by any factual basis. The court ordered that defense stricken, stating “[m]erely stringing together a long list of legal defenses…does not do the job of apprising opposing counsel and this Court of the predicate for the claimed defense–which is after all the goal of notice pleading.”

Plaintiff next moved to strike Defendant’s fifth affirmative defense–that Plaintiff did not mitigate its damages. Malibu Media argued that this defense was improper because it had elected to pursue only statutory, rather than actual, damages. The court agreed that a copyright plaintiff’s exclusive pursuit of statutory damages invalidates a failure-to-mitigate defense and struck this affirmative defense.

The court also struck Defendant’s seventh affirmative defense, in which Defendant argued that Plaintiff had failed to join an indispensable party. Defendant asserted that he had not engaged in any infringing activity and Plaintiff has not joined those who had. The court held that Defendant’s assertion that he had not engaged in any improper activity was not an affirmative defense but rather a mere denial of liability. It further held that Defendant was incorrect in asserting that joinder was necessary, holding that the court would be able to adjudicate the matter and “accord complete relief to Plaintiff regardless of whether any other allegedly infringing members were joined in the action.

Finally, Plaintiff asked that Defendant’s eighth affirmative defense as be struck as conclusory. Defendant had asserted that “Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Plaintiff’s implied license, consent, and acquiescence to Defendant because Plaintiff authorized use via Bit Torrent [sic].” The court held that Defendant’s Answer foreclosed the possibility of an implied license defense, as Defendant had denied downloading the copyrighted work. As such, Defendant could not also argue that he had downloaded the copyrighted work with a license.

Practice Tip #1: Generally speaking, motions to strike portions of pleadings are disfavored as they consume scarce judicial resources and may be used for dilatory purposes. Such motions will generally be denied unless the portion of the pleading at issue is prejudicial. When faced with a motion to strike affirmative defenses under Rule 12(f), Indiana federal courts apply a three-part test: (1) whether the matter is properly pled as an affirmative defense; (2) whether the affirmative defense complies with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8 and 9; and (3) whether the affirmative defense can withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge. An affirmative defense that fails to meet any of these standards must be stricken.

Practice Tip #2: Defendant did not file a response to Malibu Media’s motion to strike Defendant’s affirmative defenses. For that reason alone, the court could have ruled on the motion summarily under the Northern District’s Local Rule 7-1(d)(4).

Practice Tip #3: Even under the liberal notice pleading standards of the Federal Rules, an affirmative defense must include either direct or inferential allegations as to all elements of the defense asserted. Bare bones conclusory allegations are insufficient. Moreover, laches, waiver, estoppel, and unclean hands are equitable defenses that must be pled with the specific elements required to establish the defense.

Practice Tip #4: An implied license, which Defendant argued as an affirmative defense, arises when (1) a person (the licensee) requests the creation of a work, (2) the creator (the licensor) makes that particular work and delivers it to the licensee who requested it, and (3) the licensor intends that the licensee-requestor copy and distribute his work.

Practice Tip #5: This opinion demonstrates one of the pitfalls of pleading in the alternative. Defendant appears to have tried to argue that he didn’t download the copyrighted material but that, if he had, it was with an implied license from Plaintiff. The court was not persuaded, however, as Defendant’s Answer had denied downloading the copyrighted material with BitTorrent. As a result, Defendant was not permitted to argue also that he downloaded the copyrighted material using BitTorrent but that he had an implied license to do so.

A well-known example of such alternative pleading was demonstrated by Richard Haynes: “Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you. Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn’t bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don’t believe you really got bit. And fourth, I don’t have a dog.”