Articles Posted in INSD News

An Indiana federal judge has dismissed a patent infringement lawsuit between Knauf Insulation Inc. and Johns Manville Corp. just days before trial. Chief U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt chose not to overturn previous rulings on claim construction, stating it would be against public interest and waste substantial efforts already put into the case.

On August 16, the two companies jointly requested dismissal of the 2015 lawsuit, which alleged that Johns Manville’s EasyFit and Flex-Glass insulation products infringed on seven Knauf patents. Although the case is dismissed, the court’s earlier rulings, including invalidation of six patents, remain in effect.CombinedPic

Judge Pratt argued that vacating prior rulings would not benefit the public and could encourage prolonged litigation. She cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership as precedent against overturning rulings after settlement.

Paris-based photographer Julien Pepy has filed a lawsuit against Angie’s List, Inc., also known as Angi, for alleged copyright infringement. The case, filed in the Southern District of Indiana, highlights the growing concerns around digital content use and copyright protections.

Julien Pepy, a professional photographer renowned for his distinctive images, claims that Angi, a major digital marketing company operating under the Instagram handle “@angi,” used his copyrighted photographs without permission. According to the complaint, Pepy’s works were displayed on Angi’s Instagram account in August 2023 without any authorization.

Photo
Pepy’s lawsuit alleges that Angi displayed three of his photographs—showcasing various angles and details of bathroom vanities—on its account. The complaint emphasizes that these images were not only displayed but were also distributed commercially, contradicting copyright laws that protect creators’ rights.

Lancaster, South CarolinaNutramax Laboratories, Inc. and Nutramax Laboratories Veterinary Sciences, Inc. (collectively known as “Nutramax”) have filed suit against Indiana company, Abumayyaleh Bros, LLC.  The Plaintiffs allege multiple intellectual property violations including trademark infringement, unfair competition, and tortious interference with contractual relationships.

Pic-226x300According to the complaint, Nutramax contends that Abumayyaleh Bros, LLC is reselling Nutramax products, specifically their Proviable®-DC Digestive Health Supplement Capsules, on Amazon without authorization. The Plaintiffs are concerned that the products bear Nutramax’s well-known trademarks, such as PROVIABLE and NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES, but do not adhere to the stringent storage, distribution, and customer support standards set by Nutramax for its authorized resellers.

Nutramax asserts that the defendants’ unauthorized use of their trademarks constitutes a trademark infringement violation of Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1114(1)). By selling products under the Nutramax Marks without authorization, the Plaintiffs claim the defendants are causing consumer confusion regarding the source and authenticity of the products.

Eli Lilly and Co., together with POINT Biopharma, are facing a lawsuit accusing them of willful infringement of a cancer treatment patent held by the Purdue Research Foundation. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleges that the defendants have infringed on patents related to radiotherapeutic drugs for prostate cancer, particularly focusing on POINT’s drug PNT2002. Pic-1

The Purdue Research Foundation, along with co-plaintiffs Endocyte Inc. and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., claims that POINT’s PNT2002 infringes on U.S. Patent 10,624,970, which covers treatments targeting the prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA). The plaintiffs assert that POINT’s actions have caused substantial damage and are seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages.

Lilly’s spokesperson stated that the lawsuit lacks merit and expressed confidence in defending against the claims. The case, assigned to District Judge Richard Young and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker, is documented under Case No. 1:24-cv-01011.

Prince William County, Viriginia – Plaintiff Morgan Howarth has filed suit against Fishers, Indiana Defendant, My Sauna World LLC.  Morgan Howarth, a professional photographer, accuses Sauna World LLC of infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §101 et seq. for allegedly using his copyrighted photographs without permission or authorization.

The photograph in question is a master bathroom image that Howarth claims he created and registered with the United States Copyright Office in 2011. Despite his purported ownership and licensing rights, Howarth argues that My Sauna World LLC prominently featured the photograph on its own website as part of an online product listing, thereby infringing on Howarth’s copyright.Screenshot-2024-05-31-091009

Central to the case is the question of whether My Sauna World LLC’s actions constitute willful copyright infringement. Howarth argues that the defendant knowingly and intentionally violated his copyright by continuing to reproduce and display the photograph even after they were notified of the alleged infringement.

Plaintiff, G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC, a California-based company, has filed a lawsuit against Defendant, Pilot Pursuit LLP, along with Lynn A. Pittman, identified as its General Partner,Picture-300x169 operating the Recovery Room Lounge in Indianapolis, Indiana. The lawsuit centers on allegations of unauthorized interception, receipt, and broadcast of a televised sporting event known as the Gervonta Davis v. Ryan Garcia Championship Fight Program, which G & G Closed Circuit events, LLC holds exclusive nationwide commercial distribution rights to.

The suit alleges that Lynn A. Pittman, with her roles within Pilot Pursuit LLP and Recovery Room Lounge, had the authority and responsibility to supervise the establishment’s activities, including ensuring lawful operations. Despite this, the Plaintiff claims that Pittman either directed or permitted the interception and broadcast of the Program, leading to increased profits for the Lounge.

The defendants are accused of violating both Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605 and Title 47 U.S.C. Section 553, which prohibit the unauthorized interception, receipt, and publication of communications, including television broadcasts. These statutes aim to protect the exclusive rights of content distributors and prevent unauthorized commercial use.

Screenshot-2024-04-25-131414-300x170A legal dispute has arisen between Plaintiff August Image, LLC, a New York-based company representing over 100 contemporary photographers globally, and Indy Founders LLC, operating as Powderkeg, an Indiana-based digital community serving startups and professionals. The lawsuit alleges copyright infringement regarding a professional photograph taken by renowned photographer Peter Yang.

August Image, LLC, headquartered in New York City, specializes in representing creative photographers worldwide. Its collection encompasses various genres which are available for licensing, and the company is known for its commitment to customer satisfaction and meticulous acquisition of image rights.

Powderkeg, based in Indianapolis, Indiana, supports startups and professionals across the United States through its digital community. It provides resources and networking opportunities for over 10,000 active members nationwide.

Indianapolis, IndianaFullBeauty Brands Inc. has been accused of trademark infringement in a lawsuit filed by Pennsylvania-based Global Trademarks Inc. The lawsuit alleges that certain swimsuits marketed by FullBeauty Brands and affiliated entities bear a striking resemblance to designs owned by competitors.

Global Trademarks, operating under the umbrella of Swim USA, claims ownership of swimwear designs and brands like MIRACLESUIT® and SWIM SOLUTIONS ®. Swim USA asserts that it has diligently pursued protection for its intellectual property through design patents and trademark registrations.

Swim USA’s lawsuit alleges that FullBeauty Brands engaged in unauthorized, commercial activities which include the manufacture, distribution, and sale of swimwear that infringes upon Global Trademark’s intellectual property rights.  Specifically, the defendants are accused of replicating patented swimsuit designs and unlawfully using the SWIM SOLUTIONS® trademark.blog-photo-300x246

Indianapolis, Indiana – Defendant Circle City Broadcasting, LLC d/b/a WISH-TV, is being sued by Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski over alleged copyright infringement.  Sadowski is a photojournalist from New Jersey, who has been published in numerous popular newspapers and magazines. While he holds the licenses to his photographs, court documents explain that Sadowski allows entities to purchase a one-time-use license for themselves.

PhotoForBlog-300x206According to the complaint, in 2019, Sadowski created and copyrighted a photograph titled “062219garbagetruck4CS,” depicting the bustling streets of New York City.  In 2021, Circle City Broadcasting purportedly published Sadowski’s work on their website, without obtaining the necessary licensing. It is alleged that not only did they display the image without consent, but they also cropped out Sadowski’s copyright management information, potentially infringing upon his rights.

Despite Sadowski’s supposed attempts to resolve the matter amicably, Circle City Broadcasting purportedly failed to address the issue satisfactorily. Consequently, Sadowski pursued legal action to address the alleged willful infringement.

pic-300x169Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC (“Baskin-Robbins”) v. Blue Moo Ice Cream Inc. (“Blue Moo”) is a breach of contract and trademark infringement suit involving Plaintiff Baskin-Robbins/BR IP Holder, a well-known franchisor in the ice cream industry, and Defendants Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc., and Robert Holocher.

According to the complaint, Baskin-Robbins entered into franchise agreements with Blu Moo Ice Cream Inc. for the operation of Baskin-Robbins franchises in the greater Indianapolis area. However, Baskin-Robbins claims the termination of the agreements ensued due to Blu Moo’s repeated failure to fulfill financial obligations to Baskin-Robbins, triggering a series of legal actions.

The crux of the case revolves around Blu Moo’s alleged unauthorized use of Baskin-Robbins’ intellectual property, including trademarks and trade dress, after the termination of franchise agreements. Baskin-Robbins claims to have given clear instructions to cease operations and de-identify the restaurants, but Blu Moo purportedly continued to operate, sparking Baskin-Robbins’ claim of irreparable harm to their brand reputation and goodwill.

Contact Information