Copyright Infringement

April 23, 2014

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Transcultural C.A.R.E. Sues Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation

Evansville, Indiana – A copyright attorney for Dr. Josepha A. Campinha-Bacote d/b/a Transcultural C.A.R.E. Associates of Cincinnati, Ohio filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Evansville Vanderburgh School Corporation of Evansville, Indiana (“EVSC”) and Dionne Blue and Deborah Hartz, both of Indiana, infringed the copyrighted work “Cultural Competency in Healthcare Delivery: Have I ‘ASKED’ Myself the Right Questions?” (the “ASKED” model). This work was registered by the U.S. Copyright Office.

Plaintiff Campinha-Bacote is the President and sole proprietrix of Transcultural C.A.R.E. Associates, which provides education regarding transcultural issues in health care to improve awareness and sensitivity to cultural concerns among healthcare professionals and others. In 2002, Dr. Campinha-Bacote developed the ASKED mnemonic model of cultural competence. The work was registered by the U.S. Copyright Office in 2003.

Defendants are accused of unlawfully reproducing, copying, publishing and displaying the ASKED model in a PowerPoint presentation titled “Culturally Competent Classroom Management.” Defendant EVSC is being sued directly as well as vicariously for the actions of Defendants Blue and Hartz.

In her complaint, filed by an Ohio trial lawyer, Plaintiff asserts willful copyright infringement. She asks for injunctive relief, statutory damages, a declaration that Defendants’ actions be declared willful, attorney’s fees, costs and pre- and post-judgment interest.

Practice Tip:

Lawsuits against government entities often differ from those against private defendants. For example, when seeking to sue in federal court, litigators must evaluate whether the 11th Amendment, which generally prevents federal-court actions seeking damages from a state, will hamper their efforts.

Congress may waive states’ sovereign immunity in some cases, provided that it does so with explicit language. In 1990, Congress amended the Copyright Act in an attempt to limit sovereign immunity for lawsuits under the Copyright Act. Section 501(a), which deﬁnes copyright infringers, was modified to include as a potential defendant “any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any ofﬁcer or employee of a State acting in his or her ofﬁcial capacity.” A new section, §511, was also added. It provides that states, state instrumentalities and their employees “shall not be immune, under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or any other doctrine of sovereign immunity” from suit in a federal court for copyright infringement.

The United States Supreme Court has evaluated similar attempts to waive sovereign immunity under the Commerce Clause, the Patent Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The Court held that in federal-court lawsuits for damages for patent or trademark infringement, Congress lacked the constitutional authority to abrogate the sovereign immunity of the states. Subsequent decisions by federal district courts and federal appellate courts have extended this decision to actions for copyright infringement.

April 18, 2014

Indiana Copyright Litigation: BMI Sues The Irish Exit for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, Indiana – An Indiana copyright attorney for Broadcast Music, Inc. of New York, New York (“BMI”), Sony/ATV Songs LLC, Fall Out Boy, Inc. d/b/a Chicago X Softcore Songs, Beechwood Music Corporation, and Universal Music-Z Tunes LLC d/b/a Universal Music Z Songs sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that The Irish Exit, LLC d/b/a The Irish Exit and Matthew McMahan, both of New Albany, Indiana, committed willful copyright infringement. All copyrights-in-suit have been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office.

In its complaint, BMI states that it has been granted the right to license the public performance rights of more than eight million copyrighted musical compositions, including the compositions at issue. The other plaintiffs are the publishers of the copyrighted music that was allegedly infringed.

The lawsuit, brought under The Copyright Act, alleges that the defendants infringed multiple songs in BMI’s repertoire by performing those copyrighted songs without authorization and/or causing the copyrighted songs to be performed publically in The Irish Exit without authorization. BMI alleges that there were three instances of infringement, with each publisher-plaintiff having at least one copyrighted song infringed by the defendants.

BMI contends that The Irish Exit, LLC (the legal entity) has a direct financial interest in The Irish Exit (the business establishment), as does Matthew McMahan. Further, it is alleged that Matthew McMahan is a member of The Irish Exit, LLC, with responsibility for the operation, management and supervision of the activities of LLC and the business establishment.

The plaintiffs claim that they have suffered great and incalculable damage as a result of the defendants’ actions and that further acts of infringement will injure them irreparably. They ask that the court enjoin the defendant from committing further acts of infringement. The plaintiffs also seek statutory damages pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §504(c) and costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip:

The Copyright Act empowers a plaintiff to elect to receive an award of statutory damages between $750 and $30,000 per infringement in lieu of an award representing the plaintiffs’ actual damages and/or the defendants’ profits. In a case where the copyright owner proves that infringement was committed willfully, the court may increase the award of statutory damages to as much as $150,000 per infringed work. A finding of willful infringement will also support an award of attorney’s fees.

Furthermore, not only is the performer liable for infringement, but so is anyone who sponsors an infringing performance. A corporate officer will be found jointly and severally liable with his corporation for copyright infringement if he (1) had the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity, and (2) has a direct financial interest in such activities.

April 9, 2014

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Richard Bell Files Another Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Richard Bell, an Indiana copyright attorney, filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging copyright infringement by numerous Defendants. The Defendants are: 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. Mr. Bell is both the copyright lawyer and Plaintiff in this lawsuit.

Bell is a copyright attorney 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.

Bell alleges 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. It is alleged that no Defendant had obtained the right to publish either photo but that each falsely represented otherwise to the world. Bell asserts that, as a result, Defendants have “realized and continue to realize profits and other benefits rightfully belonging to Plaintiff.” Each Defendant is accused of “willfully and deliberately” engaging in copyright infringement “with oppression, fraud, and malice.”

In his complaint, Bell lists the following claims:

• Count I: Copyright Infringement and Unfair Competition
• Count II: Theft

Bell asserts that he has already suffered, and is continuing to suffer, irreparable injury as a result of the alleged infringement of his copyrighted photos. Bell asks the court to declare that the Defendants’ conduct in using his photos violates his rights under Indiana law and the Copyright Act and asks the court to enjoin further infringing uses of his photos. Among other remedies, he seeks treble damages under Indiana statutory authority. He also asks for an accounting of all gains, profits and advantages derived by Defendants as a result of the alleged infringement and for the maximum allowable statutory and/or actual damages for each violation. Plaintiff also seeks reimbursement of costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees.

Practice Tip #1: 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 Mr. Bell to negotiate quicker settlements. Overhauser Law Offices, publisher of this Site, counsels clients on insurance coverage for insurance claims.

Practice Tip #2: This newest complaint initiates the latest of three ongoing cases filed by Mr. Bell asserting infringement of his photos. We have blogged about his copyright infringement litigation before. See here. The Indiana Lawyer also wrote today about Mr. Bell’s copyright infringement lawsuits. See here. The Indiana Business Journal ran a similar piece. Those articles include an interview with Paul Overhauser, Managing Partner of Overhauser Law Offices.

March 14, 2014

Meeting on Notice and Takedown System to be Held

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – A public meeting to focus on improving the operation of the notice and takedown system under the DMCA will be held on March 20, 2014.

DOC Picture.jpg The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Internet Policy Task Force (“IPTF”) will hold the first meeting of the public multistakeholder forum on improving the operation of the notice and takedown system for removing infringing content from the Internet under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. The meeting was called for in the Commerce Department’s Green Paper on Copyright Policy, Creativity, and Innovation in the Digital Economy released last year. The IPTF is a joint effort between the USPTO and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”).

The goal of the multistakeholder forum is to identify best practices and/or produce voluntary agreements for improving the operation of the DMCA notice and takedown system. The IPTF plans to hold several additional meetings throughout the year. The initial meeting will focus on identifying concrete topics to be addressed by participants, and to discuss and make decisions about the process for the forum’s ongoing work. The IPTF aims to have participation from a wide variety of the notice and takedown system’s current users, including right holders and individual creators, service providers, and any other stakeholders that are directly affected – such as consumer and public interest representatives, technical and engineering experts, and companies in the business of identifying infringing content.

March 7, 2014

Supreme Court Grants Review for Four Intellectual Property Lawsuits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to review the judgments of several Courts of Appeals in four intellectual property disputes. The cases included two patent cases (regarding joint-infringement liability and indefiniteness invalidity), a copyright case (concerning public performances), and a case which may have implications under trademark law (whether a Lanham Act claim is barred by the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act).

Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., Docket No. 12-786, is a patent case involving technology for managing web images and video. Appellate attorneys for Limelight Networks brought the case to the Court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, in the case of method patents, multiple parties could be found to jointly infringe on a patent. The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, held by a 6-5 vote that “all the steps of a claimed method must be performed in order to find induced infringement, but that it is not necessary to prove that all the steps were committed by a single entity.”

The question raised for review by the Supreme Court is whether a defendant may be liable for inducing patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) even if none has committed direct infringement under § 271(a). Patent attorneys for technology companies including Google Inc., Cisco Systems, Inc., Oracle Corporation, Red Hat, Inc., and SAP America, Inc. filed a brief in support of Limelight.

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.

January 29, 2014

Sixteen Doe Defendants Alleged to Have Infringed “Charlie Countryman”

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Michigan copyright attorney Paul Nicoletti, on behalf of Countryman Nevada, LLC (“Countryman”), sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that 16 unidentified John Does infringed the copyright of the motion picture “Charlie Countryman,” which has been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office. The movie stars Shia LaBeouf, Evan Rachel Wood and Mads Mikkelsen. It was directed by Fredrick Bond.

Countryman alleges that the infringing transfer and copying of this movie, which was released on DVD in January 2014, was accomplished by Defendants using BitTorrent, a peer-to-peer file-sharing protocol. Plaintiff states that the BitTorrent protocol makes even small computers with low bandwidth capable of participating in large data transfers for copying large files such as movies.

In this Indiana lawsuit, the Doe Defendants are accused of deliberately participating in a peer-to-peer “swarm” and illegally reproducing and/or distributing portions of the movie “Countryman” in digital form with other Defendants. Countryman indicates in its complaint that it used geolocation technology to determine that the Doe Defendants were located in Indiana.

The complaint lists a single count: copyright infringement. The copyright lawyer for Plaintiff Countryman asks the court for permanent injunctions prohibiting infringement of Plaintiff’s movie by all Doe Defendants; the destruction of all copies of infringing works in any Defendant’s control; judgment that Defendants have willfully infringed Plaintiff’s copyrighted work; judgment that Defendants have otherwise injured the business reputation and business of Plaintiffs; actual damages or statutory damages; an order impounding all infringing copies of Plaintiff’s movie; attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses.

Practice Tip: This is at least the second movie starring Shia LaBeouf which is the subject of copyright litigation in Indiana. In October 2013, a similar Indiana lawsuit regarding “The Company You Keep,” also starring LaBeouf, was filed in the Southern District of Indiana. That lawsuit was also filed by copyright lawyer Nicoletti. In addition to these lawsuits filed by the owners of the copyrighted movies, LaBeouf seems to have intellectual property concerns of his own, most recently having been served with another cease and desist letter for posts to his Twitter feed.

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.”

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.

Copyright lawyers for Redwall filed a complaint against ESG asserting the following:

• 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.