Conversion

December 5, 2014

Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation: DirecTV Sues Alleging Illegal Satellite Signal Interception

Indianapolis, Indiana – An intellectual property lawyer for DirecTV, LLC of El Segundo, California has sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging the illegal use of DirecTV’s satellite signal. Named as Defendants in the complaint are Rodolpho Flores, who has been sued as an individual and also as an officer, director, shareholder, and/or principal of Mexico City Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Mexico City Grill, and Mexico City Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Mexico City Grill (collectively, “Defendants”). DirecTV claims that Defendants are located in Fishers and Indianapolis, Indiana. DirecTV seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages for the improper receipt, transmission and exhibition of its satellite programming signals.

DirecTV distributes satellite programming throughout the United States. Through its operations, DirecTV provides this programming via specialized satellite-signal receiving equipment to subscribers who purchase a programming license by paying a subscription fee.

In its intellectual property complaint, DirecTV acknowledges that it granted a license for commercial service at the Mexico City Grill located on Fishers Station Drive. However, it claims that the DirecTV receiver authorized for the Mexico City Grill on Fishers Station Drive was, in fact, used at a second Mexico City Grill located on Emerson Avenue without the proper authorization from DirecTV.

This intellectual property lawsuit was brought under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. §521, et seq. DirecTV also asserts that Defendants’ conduct violates several federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§2511 and 2512, and 47 U.S.C. §605, and laws of the State of Indiana. The complaint further alleges that Defendants’ use of an authorized commercial subscription to DirecTV in a commercial establishment for which it was not authorized was willful and unlawful.

The complaint, filed by an intellectual property lawyer for DirecTV, lists three causes of action:

Count One: Damages for Violations of Cable Communications Policy Act under 47 U.S.C. §605(e)(3)(c);
Count Two: Damages for Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2511; and
Count Three: Civil Conversion.

DirecTV asks for the following: a declaration that Defendants’ use of DirecTV was a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2511 and 47 U.S.C. §605 and that such violations were willful and for the purpose of commercial advantage; an injunction against further violations; statutory damages under 18 U.S.C. §2511; statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. §605; punitive damages; costs; attorney’s fees and interest.

November 26, 2014

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Hoosier Momma Sues Founding Member Erin Edds

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana trademark attorneys for Hoosier Momma, LLC (“Hoosier Momma”) of Brownsburg, Indiana sued Erin Edds (“Edds”) of Marion County, Indiana in the Southern District of Indiana. In this Indiana litigation, Hoosier Momma accuses Edds of violations of the federal Lanham Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and Indiana’s Uniform Trade Secret Act, as well as computer tampering, misappropriation and attempted misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, tortious interference with business relationships, and conversion. Among its allegations, Hoosier Momma contends that Edds tarnished its “Hoosier Momma” trademark as well as its “Betty Design” trademark, U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 4584165 and 4584167, which have been registered with the U.S. Trademark Office.

In 2010, Kimberly Cranfill (“Cranfill”), Catherine Hill and Edds formed Hoosier Momma. They are the sole members of Hoosier Momma, which is in the business of developing and selling vegan, gluten-free products that are sold in more than 600 restaurants, stores and hotels in at least six states.

Hoosier Momma alleges multiple wrongs by Edds, including making damaging false statements, engaging in conduct that conduct negatively affects Hoosier Momma’s reputation and sales of its products, tarnishing its trademarks, and changing passwords to Hoosier Momma’s social media accounts without authorization, refusing to relinquish control of the accounts and continuing to post to those accounts.

Edds is also accused of accessing Cranfill’s e-mail account to obtain confidential information as well as sharing confidential information with Wilks & Wilson, a competitor of Hoosier Momma. Hoosier Momma also contends that Edds contacted Tone Products, Inc. (“Tone,”) a direct competitor of Hoosier Momma’s packer, and asked that Tone reverse engineer a Hoosier Momma product to allow Tone to determine the confidential recipe of such product, a trade secret of Hoosier Momma, and provide it to Edds for her personal use and/or a use that jeopardized the disclosure of Hoosier Momma’s trade secrets. Hoosier Momma also claims that Edds improperly contacted several of Hoosier Momma’s distributors, clients, manufacturers and other business partners.

Further, Edds allegedly attempted to sell her interest in Hoosier Momma without the consent purportedly required under the Hoosier Momma operating agreement. Finally, Hoosier Momma contends that Edds sold and traded Hoosier Momma product and improperly retained the proceeds.

In its Indiana trademark complaint, filed by trademark lawyers for Hoosier Momma, the following is claimed:

Count I: Violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051, et seq.
Count II: Violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, et seq.
Count III: Computer Tampering
Count IV: Misappropriation and Attempted Misappropriation of Trade Secrets and Violation of Indiana Uniform Trade Secret Act
Count V: Breach of Contract
Count VI: Breach of Fiduciary Duties
Count VII: Tortious Interference with Business Relationships
Count VIII: Conversion
Count XI [sic]: Unjust Enrichment

Hoosier Momma asks for injunctive relief; compensatory and exemplary damages; costs; expenses; and attorneys’ fees.

October 31, 2014

Indiana Patent and Copyright Litigation: Lake Lite Sues Multiple Defendants for Patent and Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – A patent and copyright attorney for Lake Lite Inc. of Laotto, Indiana filed a complaint in the Northern District of Indiana asserting, inter alia, that Universal Forest Products, Inc. of Grand Rapids, Michigan (“UFP”); Universal Consumer Products, Inc., also of Grand Rapids, Michigan (“UCP”); and Maine Ornamental, LLC of Greene, Maine infringed “Solar Dock Light” and “Low Profile Solar LED Lamp,” Patent Nos. D697,246 and 8,845,126, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lake Lite is in the business of designing and selling dock lights and other related products and accessories in the boating/dock industry. Its product line includes solar-related dock lights.

In April 2012, Lake Lite first began to offer a “Solar Dot” line of products. Lake Lite indicates that UFP inquired about collaborating with Lake Lite to offer the Solar Dot products to UFP’s customers and that, in November 2012, a mutual non-disclosure agreement was entered so that confidential information regarding Lake Lite’s Solar Dot products could be disclosed and the potential collaboration evaluated. The disclosed information included Lake Lite’s copyright applications to now-copyrighted materials, registered as U.S. Copyright Nos. VAu001118627 and VAu001156962.

Lake Lite asserts that, during these negotiations, it made numerous modifications requested by UFP for which it was not compensated. Lake Lite and UFP failed to reach an agreement about licensing terms and discontinued negotiations. Instead, Lake Lite asserts, UFP has now wrongfully begun offering its own “Solar Deck and Dock Lights.”

In this Indiana copyright and patent litigation, Plaintiff Lake Lite’s specific complaints include that Defendants have been unjustly enriched as a result of their manufacture, importing, marketing and sale of their solar deck and dock light products. Lake Lite contends that Defendants’ acts include infringement of Lake Lite’s copyrights and patents, unauthorized use and misappropriation of Lake Lite’s confidential information and trade secrets and violation of the mutual non-disclosure agreement between Lake Lite and UCP.

The complaint, filed by a copyright and patent lawyer for Lake Lite, alleges the following:

• Count One – Copyright Infringement

• Count Two – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. D697,246

• Count Three – Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,845,126

• Count Four – Breach of Contract

• Count Five – Breach of Implied Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

• Count Six – Violation of Indiana Uniform Trade Secret Act

• Count Seven – Unjust Enrichment

Lake Lite asks for a judgment of infringement of its copyrights-in-suit, of infringement of its patents-in-suit, that the non-disclosure agreement was violated by Defendants, that Defendants violated the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in their dealings with Lake Lite regarding the Solar Dot products, that Defendants have misappropriated Lake Lite’s trade secrets and that Defendants have been unjustly enriched.

Lake Lite seeks injunctive relief; damages, including punitive damages; costs and fees, including attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip:

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 four general characteristics of a trade secret are:

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.

October 13, 2014

Indiana Teen Indicted for Theft of Intellectual Property Valued More Than $100 Million

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

District of Delaware – Four members of an international computer hacking ring were

indicted for stealing gaming technology and Apache helicopter training software. Two have already pled guilty.

Four members of an international computer hacking ring have been charged with breaking into computer networks of prominent technology companies and the U.S. Army and stealing more than $100 million in intellectual property and other proprietary data. Two of the charged members have already pleaded guilty. The alleged cyber theft included software and data related to the Xbox One gaming console and the Xbox Live online gaming system; popular games such as “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3” and “Gears of War 3”; and proprietary software used to train military helicopter pilots.

September 24, 2014

J & J Sports Sues Soriano’s Mexican Restaurant and Owner for Illegal Signal Interception

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An intellectual property attorney for J & J Sports Production, Inc. of Campbell, California (“J & J Sports”) sued Minerva Soriano and Soriano’s Mexican Restaurant, LLC, both d/b/a Soriano’s Mexican Restaurant of Indianapolis, Indiana, in the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants illegally intercepted and broadcast the Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. v. Sergio Martinez WBC Middleweight Championship Fight Program on September 15, 2012.

Defendant Minerva Soriano, alleged to be an owner and/or an individual with control, oversight and management of Soriano’s Mexican Restaurant has been sued for the illegal interception of the Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. v. Sergio Martinez WBC Middleweight Championship Fight Program (the “Program”). Soriano’s Mexican Restaurant, LLC, the legal entity which apparently owns the restaurant, has also been sued.

Plaintiff J & J Sports alleges that it was granted the exclusive nationwide television distribution rights to the Program, including all under-card bouts and fight commentary included in the television broadcast of the event. It states that it entered into subsequent sublicensing agreements with various commercial entities, which were, in turn, granted certain commercial sublicensing rights to the Program.

J & J Sports contends that, “with full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted, received and exhibited by entities unauthorized to do so” Defendants and/or their agents unlawfully published, divulged and exhibited the Program. It further asserts that this conduct was “willful, malicious, and intentionally designed to harm” J & J Sports and to cause economic distress.

In the Indiana intellectual property complaint filed on behalf of J & J Sports, the following is alleged:

• Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605
• Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553
• Count III: Conversion

Regarding Count I, J & J Sports asks the court for the following: (a) Statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $100,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), and (b) the recovery of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).

Plaintiff requests the following remedies for the alleged violations of Count II: (a) Statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $50,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. 553 (b)(2) and (b) the recovery of full costs pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553
(c)(2)(C), and (c) and reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553 (c)(2)(C).

Finally, for the count of conversion, J & J Sports asks: for compensatory damages in an amount according to proof against Defendants, and for reasonable attorney fees, and for all costs of the lawsuit, including but not limited to filing fees, service of process fees, investigative costs.

Practice Tip:

J & J Sports is a frequent litigant but it is relatively infrequent that a trial on the merits of its intellectual property claims is held. In 2010, it sued in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging unauthorized interception and broadcast of the December 2007 “Undefeated” match between Floyd Mayweather and Ricky Hatton. Defendants argued that the broadcast had been authorized by its cable provider. Specifically, Time Warner Cable, which had been licensed to provide the non-commercial rights, expressly admitted that it had inadvertently authorized the commercial display of the broadcast. Time Warner Cable had also offered to pay to J & J Sports the liquidated damages that the contract required in cases of such a breach. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court agreed with J & J Sports’ allegations that either a violation of § 605 or § 553 had occurred and awarded to J & J Sports statutory damages of $350 and costs and attorneys’ fees of $26,780.30.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. The issue of whether § 605 applied was one of first impression for the court. It stated that § 605 did not apply to that case, holding that the receipt or interception of communications by wire from a cable system was not governed by § 605. The court then evaluated Defendants’ conduct under the “safe harbor” provision of § 553. That provision exempts from liability any cable recipient who is authorized by a cable company to receive a transmission. In this case,Time Warner Cable’s representative admitted that it had inadvertently sold the broadcast of the fight to Defendants for a non-commercial price, despite knowing that Defendants ran a commercial establishment. This, held the Fifth Circuit, was enough to create a material fact regarding whether Defendants in that case had violated § 553 making the trial court’s grant of summary judgment reversible error.

September 15, 2014

G & G Joins J & J in Suing for Illegal Interception of Championship Fight

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

canelo-alvarez-v-josesito-lopez-20120915-214826-955.png

South Bend, Indiana – An intellectual property attorney for G & G Circuit Events, LLC (“G & G”) of Campbell, California sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Juan Aguirre, Beatriz Zarate, Graciela Valles and Taqueria Los Gallos, Inc. illegally intercepted and broadcast “Knockout Kings: Canelo Alvarez v. Josesito Lopez Championship Fight” (the “Program”) on September 15, 2012.

G & G states that it is the exclusive domestic commercial distributor of the Program. It has sued multiple Defendants both individually and doing business as Taqueria Los Gallos under the Communications Act of 1934 and The Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

Specifically, Defendants have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the Program at issue on September 15, 2012 without an appropriate license. Regarding the claim under 47 U.S.C. §605, the Complaint alleges that with “full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted, received, and exhibited” without authorization, “each and every one of the above named defendants . . . did unlawfully … exhibit the Program” for the purpose of commercial advantage and/or private financial gain. A count of conversion is also included. It asserts that Defendants’ acts were “willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff.”

In the Complaint, the intellectual property lawyer for G & G listed the following counts and requests for redress:

• Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605. For this count, G & G requests (a) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $100,000.00, and (b) the recovery of all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.
• Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 553. For this count, G & G asks the court for (a) statutory damages of $50,000 for each willful violation; (b) the recovery of all costs; and (c) and in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorneys’ fees.
• Count III: Conversion. For this count, the court is requested to order both compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants as the result of the Defendants’ allegedly egregious conduct, theft, and conversion of the program and deliberate injury to G & G.

Practice Tip #1: Typically, an Indiana intellectual property plaintiff suing for interception cannot recover under both §§ 553 and 605, as the Seventh Circuit has held that those sections relate to two different kinds of piracy. Specifically, the Seventh Circuit has held that Section 553 governs the interception of cable television program traveling over a cable network. Section 605, in contrast, addresses interception of television programming traveling through the air. However, the federal appellate courts are not in agreement on this interpretation.

Practice Tip # 2:

This Complaint is very similar to the Complaint we blogged about on Friday, which was filed by the intellectual property counsel for J & J Sports. The complained-of activity (interception) is the same, the intellectual property that was allegedly intercepted (the Program) is the same and the Defendants are the same. One can also surmise that the Plaintiffs – J & J and G & G – may be related as well. Even the mysterious page-numbering notations found at the bottom of each page – “Page PAGE 7” [sic] – are the same on both Complaints.

The main substantive difference seems to be that Plaintiff J & J Sports asserts that it was granted “the exclusive nationwide commercial distribution (closed-circuit) rights” to the Program, while Plaintiff G & G asserts a right to “exclusive nationwide television distribution rights.”

September 12, 2014

J & J Sports Productions Sues For Illegal Interception of Satellite Signal

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond & South Bend, Indiana – An attorney for J & J Sports Productions, Inc., of

Campbell, California filed two Indiana intellectual property lawsuits alleging illegal interception of programming.

The first lawsuit was filed in South Bend, Indiana. It alleges that Juan C. Aguirre, Beatriz Zarate, Graciela Valles and Taqueria Los Gallos, Inc. of Logansport, Indiana illegally intercepted satellite signals and broadcast the “Julio Cesar Chavez, Jr. v. Sergio Martinez WBC Middleweight Championship Fight” Program. The second lawsuit alleged illegal interception of another program, “Knockout Kings: Canelo Alvarez v. Josesito Lopez Championship Fight” Program. This lawsuit was filed in Hammond, Indiana and listed Richard Serrano and Agave Mexican Restaurant of Hobart, Indiana as Defendants. Both Programs were broadcast on Saturday, September 15, 2012.

J & J Sports states that it is the exclusive domestic commercial distributor of the Programs. It has sued multiple Defendants both individually and doing business as commercial entities under the Communications Act of 1934 and The Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

Specifically, Defendants have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the Programs at issue on September 15, 2012 without a commercial license. Regarding the claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605, the Complaints allege that with “full knowledge” that the Program was not to be intercepted, received, and exhibited without authorization, “each and every one of the above named defendants . . . did unlawfully … exhibit the Program” for the purpose of commercial advantage and/or private financial gain.

A count of conversion is also included. It asserts that Defendants’ acts were “willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff J & J Sports.” In the Complaint against Agave, J & J Sports asserts that, as a result of being deprived of their commercial license fee, J & J Sports suffered “severe economic distress and great financial loss.”

In addition to naming the separate legal entities which apparently owns the restaurants in question, Plaintiff has also sued the individuals alleging that they had the right and ability to supervise the activities of the restaurants. J & J Sports asserts that the activities that they supervised included the unlawful interception of Plaintiff’s program. J & J Sports contends that the individual Defendants specifically directed the employees of the restaurants to unlawfully intercept and broadcast Plaintiff’s program at the commercial establishments or, if they did not, that the actions of the employees of the restaurants are directly imputable to the individuals by virtue of their purported responsibility for the activities of their respective restaurants.

In the Complaints, the intellectual property attorney for J & J Sports listed the following counts and requests for redress:

•Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605. For this count, J & J Sports requests (a) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $100,000.00 [$110,000 in the Complaint against Agave], and (b) the recovery of all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

•Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 553. For this count, J & J Sports asks the court for (a) statutory damages; (b) additional statutory damages for each willful violation; (c) the recovery of all costs; and (d) and in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorneys’ fees. [A total of $50,000 was requested as against Taqueria Los Gallos on this Count, while a total of $60,000 was requested as against Agave.]

•Count III: Conversion. For this count, the court is requested to order both compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants as the result of the Defendants’ allegedly egregious conduct, theft, and conversion of the program and deliberate injury to J & J Sports.

Practice Tip #1: The interception claim has a two-year statute of limitations, which explains why these complaints were filed on September 11, 2014, almost exactly two years after the broadcast date of the Programs at issue. J & J Sports and similar plaintiffs are frequent litigants, filing thousands of lawsuits per year, usually seeking a settlement instead of litigation. It appears that many of them are also filed near the eve of the two-year anniversary of the broadcast of the program at issue in each individual lawsuit.

Practice Tip #2: Most of these intellectual property lawsuits, including similar complaints filed by Joe Hand Promotions, are initiated with cut-and-paste complaints, leading to not-infrequent, and sometimes odd, errors. In this set of complaints, the same misspelling of “Agave Mexican Restuarant [sic]”occurred 16 times; J & J Sports was listed as “a California corporation with its principal place of liquor [sic] located [in California].” In turn, the complaint against Taqueria Los Gallos includes “page PAGE 7” [sic] at the bottom of each page, an error we first noticed in a November 2013 complaint filed on behalf of Joe Hand Promotions.

July 7, 2014

Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation: Joe Hand Promotions Sues Johnson’s Tavern and its Owner for Unlawful Interception and Broadcast of Championship Fight

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An intellectual property lawyer for Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. of Feasterville, Pennsylvania has sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Michael J. Casteel, individually and d/b/a Johnson’s Tavern and Casteel Enterprises of Galveston, Inc., both of Galveston, Indiana, unlawfully intercepted and broadcast the “Ultimate Fighting Championship 148: Anderson Silva v. Chael Sonnen” championship fight (the “Program”).

Joe Hand Promotions was granted rights to distribute the Program, which was telecast nationwide on Saturday, July 7, 2012. In the complaint against Casteel and Casteel Enterprises, both d/b/a Johnson’s Tavern, an intellectual property lawyer for Joe Hand Promotions has alleged such wrongful acts as interception, reception, publication, divulgence, display and/or exhibition,” claiming that Defendants “tortuously [sic] obtained possession of the Program” and engaged in conversion when they displayed the Program in Johnson’s Tavern.

In addition to naming the separate legal entity which allegedly owns Johnson’s Tavern, Joe Hand Promotions has also sued Casteel as an individual, claiming that he is an officer of Casteel Enterprises and that he had the right and ability to supervise the activities of Johnson’s Tavern on the night of the Program. Plaintiff asserts that those activities included the unlawful interception of its UFC Program. It further claims that Johnson’s Tavern and Casteel received financial benefit from the unlawful display of the Program.

Casteel has been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553. The complaint also lists a count of conversion. Joe Hand Productions seeks statutory damages of $100,000 for each willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 605; $60,000 for each willful violation of 47 U.S.C. § 553; compensatory damages on the claim of conversion; and costs and attorney’s fees. These claims have been made against both Casteel Enterprises and as personal liability claims against Casteel.

Practice Tip #1: Joe Hand Productions has sued two entities: a corporation and an individual who is allegedly a principal of that corporation. While corporations were designed, among other purposes, to limit the liability of the principals, they are not always successful in doing so. Where a principal is personally involved in certain types of illegal activity, legal mechanisms (such as a corporation or a limited liability company) that are designed to shield the principal from liability may fail to do so.

Practice Tip #2: While on the surface this appears to be a copyright case, an allegation of interception under 47 U.S.C. § 605 is a different cause of action from copyright infringement. However, a suit alleging interception does not preclude an additional lawsuit alleging different causes of action. For example, the copyright holder can also sue for copyright infringement, which could increase damages by as much as $150,000.

June 13, 2014

Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation: DirecTV Sues Alleging Illegal Satellite Signal Interception

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An intellectual property lawyer for DirecTV, LLC of El Segundo, California has sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Jeremy Jennings and Regal Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Ron-De-Voo Inn, all of Hagerstown, Indiana illegally utilized a satellite signal that had been licensed for residential service by displaying the satellite programming in a commercial establishment. DirecTV seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages for the improper receipt, transmission and exhibition of its satellite programming signals.

DirecTV distributes satellite programming throughout the United States. Through its operations, DirecTV provides this programming via specialized satellite-signal receiving equipment to subscribers who purchase a programming license by paying a subscription fee.

This intellectual property lawsuit was brought under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. §521, et seq., and 47 U.S.C. §605. The complaint alleges that Jennings, in his capacity as an owner and individual with close control over internal operating procedures of Regal Enterprises, LLC and Ron-De-Voo Inn willfully and unlawfully used a residential subscription to DirecTV in a commercial establishment. Jennings has been sued both individually and as an officer, director, shareholder, principal, manager and/or member of Regal Enterprises, LLC, which does business as Ron-De-Voo Inn.

The complaint, filed by an intellectual property attorney for DirecTV, cites three causes of action:

• Count One: Damages for Violations of Cable Communications Policy Act under 47 U.S.C. §605(e)(3)(c);
• Count Two: Damages for Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2511; and
• Count Three: Civil Conversion.

DirecTV asks for the following: a declaration that the defendants’ use of DirecTV was a violation of §2511 and §605, that such violations were willful and for the purpose of commercial advantage; an injunction against further violations; statutory damages under 18 U.S.C. §2511; statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. §605; punitive damages and costs, attorney’s fees and interest.

Practice Tip #1: DirecTV provides services to homes based on residential rates and to commercial establishments under commercial rates. Jennings and Regal Enterprises are accused of surreptitiously gaining access to DirecTV programming without proper authorization by subscribing to DirecTV services under a residential account and then installing/moving the equipment to the business establishment and utilizing the services, licensed at a residential rate, in a commercial environment.

Practice Tip #2: As part of its complaint, DirecTV claims that its goodwill and reputation have been usurped. It will be interesting to see what evidence it offers as proof that, as a result of allegedly receiving a lower monthly fee for the programming provided to the defendants – a circumstance, if true, presumably known to few other than Jennings – its goodwill or reputation have been impacted.

June 12, 2014

Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation: J & J Sports Sues Again Asserting Illegal Cable Signal Interception

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – An intellectual property attorney for J & J Sports Productions, Inc. (“J & J Sports”) of Campbell, California sued Sheila M. Kikalos individually and d/b/a Valla Del Sol a/k/a Villa Del Sol of Merrillville, Indiana in the Northern District of Indiana alleging the illegal interception and broadcast of Manny Pacqiao v. Timothy Bradley, WBO World Welterweight Championship Fight Program (the “Program”), which was telecast nationwide on June 9, 2012.

J & J Sports states that it is the exclusive domestic commercial distributor of the Program. It has sued Sheila M. Kikalos individually and d/b/a Villa Del Sol, under the Communications Act of 1934 and The Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

Specifically, Kikalos has been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the Program without a commercial license on the day of its broadcast. Regarding the claim under 47 U.S.C. § 605, the complaint alleges that with “full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted, received, published, divulged, displayed, and/or exhibited by commercial entities unauthorized to do so, each and every one of the above named Defendants . . . did unlawfully intercept, receive, publish, divulge, display, and/or exhibit the Program” for the purpose of commercial advantage and/or private financial gain.

A count of conversion is also included in the complaint. It asserts that the alleged acts of interception and exhibition were “willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff J & J Sports” and that, as a result of being deprived of their commercial license fee, J & J Sports suffered “severe economic distress and great financial loss.”

As there appears to be no separate legal entity, the lone defendant is Kikalos, who has been named both individually and doing business as Villa Del Sol. As an individual, J & J Sports asserts that Kikalos is responsible for the alleged unlawful activity, contending that she had the right and ability to supervise the activities of the establishment. J & J Sports asserts that the activities that she supervised included the unlawful interception of Plaintiff’s program. J & J Sports contends that Kikalos specifically directed the employees of Villa Del Sol to unlawfully intercept and broadcast Plaintiff’s program at Villa Del Sol and Grill or, if she did not, that the actions of the employees of Villa Del Sol are directly imputable to Kikalos by virtue of her purported responsibility for the activities of the restaurant.

J & J Sports further asserts that Kikalos as an individual specifically identified on the liquor license for Villa Del Sol, had an obvious and direct financial interest in the activities of Villa Del Sol.

In the complaint, the intellectual property lawyer for J & J Sports listed the following counts and requests for redress:

• Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605. For this count, J & J Sports requests (a) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $100,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. 605(e)(3)(C)(ii), and (b) the recovery of full costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 605(e)(3)(B)(iii).
• Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 553. For this count, J & J Sports asks the court for (a) statutory damages for each violation in an amount to $10,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(A)(ii); (b) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $50,000.00 pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553(c)(3)(B); (c) the recovery of full costs pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553 (c)(2)(C); and (d) and in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to Title 47 U.S.C. § 553 (c)(2)(C).
• Count III: Conversion. For this count, the court is requested to order both compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants as the result of the Defendants’ allegedly egregious conduct, theft, and conversion of the program and deliberate injury to J & J Sports.

Practice Tip #1: While on the surface this appears to be a copyright case, an allegation of interception under 47 U.S.C. § 605 is a different cause of action from copyright infringement. However, a suit alleging interception does not preclude an additional lawsuit alleging different causes of action. For example, the copyright holder can also sue for copyright infringement, which could increase damages by as much as $150,000.

Practice Tip #2: As part of its complaint, J & J Sports claims that the Kikalos’ actions have subjected them to “severe economic distress and great financial loss.” It will be interesting to see what evidence it offers as proof that, as a result of allegedly not receiving its full commercial fee for the programming purportedly displayed by the Kikalos – a circumstance, if true, presumably known to few other than the Kikalos herself – it has suffered severe economic distress and great financial loss.