Intellectual Property Law

December 4, 2023

Unraveling the Legal Knot: Copyright Infringement and the UFC Broadcast Case

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc., a Pennsylvania-based corporation, alleges ownership of exclusive distribution rights for broadcasting premier sporting events, including the Ultimate Fighting Championship® (UFC). Through agreements with copyright holders, Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. claims they obtained authorization to exhibit UFC 246: McGregor vs. Cowboy.

Defendants, comprising LNH, LLC operating in Burlington, Indiana as Burlington Pizza/The Barn, along with Neal D. Harmon and Loriann Harmon, allegedly exhibited UFC 246 at their commercial establishment without the required authorization from Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. The plaintiff claims that this action violated licensing requirements and involved unauthorized access to the Program through various means, including cable, satellite, or internet streams.

Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. asserts satellite and cable piracy violations under 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553, claiming that the defendants intercepted satellite signals or used unauthorized cable signals to broadcast the Program, contravening federal laws regulating such transmissions. Joe Hand also Alleges infringement of its exclusive distribution rights under the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501), contending that the defendants exhibited the copyrighted Program publicly without proper authorization, violating intellectual property laws.

December 1, 2023

Court Order in HeathSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Defendants in trademark infringement case, HealthSmart Foods, Inc. v. Sweet Nothings, Inc. and Beth Porter have initiated a Motion to Dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule o f Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, they have requested the case be transferred to the Northern District of California.

The dispute before Indiana Judge Matthew P. Brookman involves the use of the trademark SWEET NOTHINGS. In the midst of the case, Defendant Beth Porter initiated a separate lawsuit in California against HealthSmart, claiming fraud and unfair competition. Defendants argue that the defenses in the Indiana case overlap with Ms. Porter’s claims in the California case, indicating evidence and witness overlap as grounds for the case to be transferred. However, after careful consideration, the Court DENIED the Defendants’ request to transfer the Indiana case to the Northern District of California.

As for the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, the judge stated that the issue revolves around whether Defendants’ contacts with Indiana justify personal jurisdiction. Defendants conceded that Sweet Nothings has minimum contacts with Indiana, but the parties disputed the significance of these contacts, the consideration of third-party retailer contacts, and whether exercising jurisdiction aligns with fair play and substantial justice. The Plaintiff argued that Sweet Nothing’s website, offering shipping options to Indiana, actively engaging with Indiana consumers, and facilitating sales through Amazon to Indiana residents, demonstrates purposeful conduct directed towards the Indiana market. Judge Brookman agreed with the Plaintiff and DENIED the Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

November 27, 2023

Protecting Intellectual Property: A Legal Fight in the Entertainment Industry

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Las Veg as, NV – Plaintiff G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC is attempting to safeguard their purported, exclusive distribution rights by suing Indianapolis, Indiana Defendants Susana Sanchez and La Casa De Los Mariscos Mexican Grill #2 LLC for the alleged unauthorized publication of a cable television program.

G&G’s argument states that they were granted the exclusive rights to the commercial distribution of the Saul “Canelo” Alvarez v. Caleb Plant Championship Fight Program that was broadcast on Saturday, November 6, 2021. They further argue that because they have the exclusive rights, any commercial establishment wanting to show the fight had to purchase the license to do so, which the Mexican restaurant failed to do. Therefore, G & G has accused the Defendants of willfully intercepting, receiving, and publishing the fight without said authorization.

As a result, the Plaintiff is asking the court to find that Sanchez and La Casa De Los Mariscos Mexican Grill #2 is in violation of Title 47 U.S.C. Section 605, et seq., which prohibits the unauthorized interception, receipt, publication, and use of communications, including satellite television signals, such as the transmission of the Program in question. In addition, G & G is seeking compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, along with costs and attorneys’ fees.

November 10, 2023

Rights to Asphalt Paving Technology at Dispute in Lawsuit Between AarMaz Products Inc, and Rieth-Riley Construction Co.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Mulberry, Florida – Plaintiff ArrMaz Products Inc. has filed a lawsuit against Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc. of Goshen, Indiana, alleging patent infringement related to their asphalt paving technologies covered by U.S. Patents Nos. 7,802,941 and 8,465,843. These patents are associated with ArrMaz’s BondTekk® bonded-paving technology, adopted by multiple states and contractors for creating safer and more durable roads.

The original complaint states that Rieth-Riley Construction is also involved in asphalt paving services and operates in several Midwestern states where asphalt-paving projects are awarded through competitive bidding. In February 2022, the claim states, the Plaintiff notified Rieth-Riley that ArrMaz’s patents covered specific projects awarded to Rieth-Riley by the state of Indiana and offered a license for their use. However, ArrMaz claims that Rieth-Riley expressed an intention to ignore the patents and not obtain the necessary licenses before moving forward with the project.

ArrMaz alleges that Rieth-Riley not only infringed on their patents but also engaged in willful infringement by using and selling the patented technology. Therefore, ArrMaz is seeking a court injunction to prevent Rieth-Riley from using or selling their patented products without the proper licenses. Additionally, they are seeking a monetary award to cover damages, including the costs and expenses of the lawsuit.

October 20, 2023

Multiple Patents Allegedly Infringed Upon In Suit between Rogue Fitness and Bells of Steel USA, Inc.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Columbus, Ohio – Plaintiff Coulter Ventures, LLC, d/b/a Rogue Fitness (“Rogue”) filed suit against Bells of Steel USA Inc., for alleged patent infringement of its fitness products in Bell’s sporting goods stores, including their Indianapolis, Indiana, Bells of Steel USA Showroom.

According to the complaint, Rogue Fitness owns several design and utility patents for fitness equipment, including Patent No. 11,173,337: “Weightlifting Assembly and Weight Rack Including Weightlifting Assembly”, Patent No. 10,226,661: “Weightlifting Rack Assembly and Wall Mount Bracket for a Weightlifting Rack Assembly,” Patent No. D992,063: “Wall Mounted Exercise Rack,” Patent No. D961,020: “Weight Plate,” and Patent No. RE49,513: “Barbell.” Rogue states that all these patented products are listed on the company’s website for the public to view at any time.

In the suit, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has been purposely advertising, marketing, selling, manufacturing, and distributing products that are infringing on Rogue’s lawfully held patents. Rogue specifically identified 8 of the products Bells advertises as infringing upon the Plaintiff’s patents in their design and/or utility. The Plaintiffs claim that the Defendant relies on “making cheap copies of products and designs created by others and only later dealing with patent infringement.”

October 9, 2023

Joe Hand Promotions Sues Shift Restaurant and Bar for Cable and Satellite Piracy

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Feasterville, Pennsylvania – Plaintiff Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. is suing Lawrenceburg, Indiana Defendants Shift Restaurant and Bar, Matt Euson, and Nicholas Roberts for allegedly committing “Cable Piracy” and “Satellite Piracy” as is defined in the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. § 553 and U.S.C. § 605).

According to the complaint, Joe Hand Promotions is a company specializing in the licensing and distribution of premier sporting events to commercial establishments. Joe Hand states that it holds exclusive licensing rights to many televised sporting events, including the Ultimate Fighting Championships®. Since obtaining the rights to the Ultimate Fighting Championships in 2001, the Plaintiff claims they have entered into agreements with various U.S. restaurants, bars, lounges, clubhouses, etc., who have purchased the pay-per-view rights to commercially broadcast the Championships and other similar sporting events to their patrons.

On January 18, 2020 and again on August 15, 2020, two different Ultimate Fighting Championship fights were scheduled to be broadcast on pay-per-view television (Ultimate Fighting Championship® 246: Conor McGregor vs. Donald “Cowboy” Cerrone and Ultimate Fighting Championship® 252: Stipe Miocic vs. Daniel Cormier). The Plaintiff alleges that on both nights, the Defendants chose to circumvent the Plaintiff’s licensing rights and commercially broadcast the fights at Shift Restaurant without purchasing permission to do so. The Plaintiff claims the Defendants pirated the programming and infringed upon their right as the rightful owner of the distribution license.

October 6, 2023

Nickels and Dimes Goes Full Tilt on Noah’s Arcade in Trademark Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Celina, Texas – Plaintiff, Nickels and Dimes Incorporated is suing LaPorte, Indiana company, Noah’s Arcade, LLC d/b/a Full Tilt, for infringement of its federally registered trademark TILT, in association with arcade, amusement, and entertainment services, under Section 32(1) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Nickels and Dimes opened their first TILT arcade in 1977, inside the Six Flags Mall, in Arlington, TX, and has since owned and operated 200 TILT arcades in the U.S. Nickels and Dimes states that it then began using the Trademark TILT STUDIO in 2010, and the TILTED 10 Trademark in 2021, in association with arcade games and indoor entertainment.

The Defendant, Noah’s Arcade, allegedly opened their arcade in 2022 under the mark FULL TILT and has been accused of using the mark in their marketing and advertising, to which the Plaintiff claims infringement of their trademarks TILT, TILT STUDIO, and TILTED 10. The Plaintiff argues that the products sold under Noah’s FULL TILT mark are identical or highly similar to those that Nickels and Dimes sell under their trademarks. In addition, the Plaintiff contends that Noah’s Domain Name is similar to Plaintiff’s TILT STUDIO and TILTED 10 marks, which could potentially cause confusion among the customer base who may assume an affiliation between the two entities.

October 2, 2023

Teva Pharmaceutical’s Patent Infringement Verdict Against Eli Lilly Overturned

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Massachusetts – Judge Allison Burroughs sided with Eli Lilly in a dispute with Teva Pharmaceuticals, overturning a $176.5 million jury verdict that had previously been awarded to Teva in a patent infringement suit regarding the two companies’ development of drugs with antibodies capable of treating headache disorders associated with calcitonin gene-related peptide (“CGRP”).

According to the original complaint, Teva’s drug (Ajovy) and Lilly’s drug (Emgality) were similar in the ways in which they work, and they were both approved by the FDA only 13 days apart in September 2018. However, Court documents show that Lilly contended that the two antibodies used in the drugs were different and, therefore, no infringement existed.

After a thorough examination of the case, Judge Burroughs agreed that the two drugs were distinct and that Teva’s patents were too expansive. Judge Burroughs stated in her ruling that, “Even viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, asserted claims are too broad.” She subsequently overturned the original jury verdict awarded to Teva writing in her ruling that “The Court does not reach this decision nor overturn a jury verdict lightly.”

September 29, 2023

Christopher Sadowski Claims Copyright Infringement for Award-Winning Photography

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Jersey – Plaintiff Christopher Sadowski is suing Defendant Restoration 1 By J&D, LLC, of New Palestine, Indiana, over violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501, for allegedly reproducing, distributing, and publicly displaying Sadowski’s intellectual property for its own commercial purposes.

According to the claim, Sadowski is an award-winning photojournalist with 19 years of experience in documenting ordinary life and the human condition through photography. His work has been commissioned in magazines and newspapers such as the New York Post, Daily Mail Online, Reader’s Digest, USA Today, New York Times, Fox News, CBS News, NBC News, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Los Angeles Times, Newsweek Magazine, and People Magazine. The complaint states that while the Plaintiff does sell limited, one-time use licenses to customers, he always retains copyright ownership of the photographs.

The suit accuses Restoration 1, a property damage restoration company, of using Sadowski’s photograph of Christmas lights on the Restoration 1 website without the proper licensing or permission to do so. The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant has never been licensed to use the photograph and upon learning of its unauthorized use, the Defendant has not been willing to negotiate a reasonable license for it. Furthermore, the complaint states that Restoration 1 displays a copyright disclaimer (“Copyright © 2017”) on the page of the website that contains the photo, allegedly asserting that Restoration 1 owns the rights to everything on the webpage, including the photo in question.

September 22, 2023

Dillon Construction Group Files Copyright Infringement Suit Against Andretti Global Construction Team

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hamilton County, Indiana– The Plaintiffs, DCG Indiana, Inc. d/b/a Dillon Construction Group, filed suit against Cardinal XLIII, LLC (Delaware); Motorsport Real Estate Ventures LLC (Delaware); Studio M Architecture and Planning, LLC (Indiana); Gradex, Inc. (Indiana); and Glenmark Construction Co. Inc. (Indiana) in part, for copyright infringement of works of original authorship.

According to the complaint, in early 2022, Andretti Global hired the Plaintiff and the Defendants to design and construct a racing facility in Fishers, IN. The parties then entered into a Design-Build Contract, which included financial terms, budgets, building plans, completion dates, etc. The Plaintiffs also claim that the contract granted Cardinal a limited, irrevocable, and nonexclusive license to use the drawings, specifications, calculations, etc. (Instruments of Service) created by DCG, while also maintaining that DCG was the author and owner of said Instruments of Service, and would, therefore, retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights. More importantly, the claim states that the contract specified that should Cardinal not substantially perform its obligations, including payment of any past-due fees to DCG, the copyright license granted to Cardinal would automatically terminate. (Click to read the cited part of the Design-Build Contract.)

According to the Plaintiff, on March 10, 2023, Cardinal notified DCG that it would be terminating the Design-Build Contract. At the time the Plaintiff claims Cardinal still owed them $1,011.462.21, which, according to the terms of the Design-Build Contract, meant the copyright license granted to Cardinal should have ceased. However, the Plaintiff alleges that Cardinal continued to use DCG’s Instruments of Service after the illegal termination of the contract and even after receiving cease-and-desist letters from Plaintiff’s counsel.