Articles Posted in New Decisions

May 1, 2014

Insurance Coverage for Advertising Injury: Allstate Held to Have No Duty to Defend or Indemnify Against Allegations of False Advertising

Indianapolis, Indiana – An insurance attorney for Allstate Insurance Company of Northbrook, Illinois (“Allstate”) filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in the Southern District of Indiana. Allstate asked the court to declare that it had no duty to defend or indemnify the defendants in a putative class action lawsuit proceeding against the defendants in the Middle District of Georgia. The Indiana court ruled against Defendants Preferred Financial Solutions, Inc. (“PFS”) of Indianapolis, Indiana; Credit Card Relief, Inc. (“CCR”) of Indianapolis, Indiana; Jeffery Brooks, President of PFS and CCR of Zionsville, Indiana and Thomas P. Dakich, d/b/a Dakich & Associates, of Indianapolis, Indiana.

This lawsuit concerns Allstate’s obligations to the defendants with respect to a class action lawsuit filed in Georgia against the defendants and others (the “underlying litigation”). The complaint in the underlying litigation, filed by the underlying plaintiffs, alleges that the defendants are interrelated entities that collectively comprise a debt-adjustment-services operation that targets financially troubled customers and extracts fees for worthless services.

In this litigation, which the underlying plaintiffs are attempting to classify as a class action, it is alleged that the defendants promote themselves in print, on the internet, and in broadcast media as a provider of debt-settlement services, debt-elimination services and debt-reduction services. The underlying plaintiffs contend that the defendants never made any attempts to pay or settle the debts of at least some members of the putative class.

The defendants tendered the complaint to Allstate for defense, asserting that the claims in the underlying litigation triggered potential coverage as a covered peril – an “advertising injury” – under the provisions of their insurance contracts with Allstate.

This issue – whether Allstate’s contract for insurance coverage for an “advertising injury” required them to defend and indemnify the defendants – was submitted to the Indiana District Court. Allstate moved for judgment as a matter of law, asserting that the conduct at issue did not qualify as an advertising injury. It contended that it thus had no duty to provide a defense in the underlying litigation.

Under the terms of the insurance agreement, an “advertising injury” was defined in the insurance contract as an “injury arising out of one or more of the following offenses:

1. Oral or written publication of advertising material that slanders or libels a person or organization or disparages a person’s or organization’s goods, products or services;
2. Oral or written publication of advertising material that violates a person’s right to privacy;
3. Misappropriation of advertising ideas or style of business; [and/or]
4. Infringement of copyright, title or slogan as a result of your advertising.”

Excluded from coverage was “[a]ny advertising injury arising out of…[i]ncorrect description of or mistake in advertised price of goods, products or services sold, offered for sale or advertised.”

The Indiana court, in an opinion written by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch, noted that there had been no allegation of defamation, violation of privacy, misappropriation of advertising ideas or infringement of intellectual property in defendants’ advertising. As a result, the court concluded that no “advertising injury,” as it was defined in the insurance contract, had occurred. As that holding was dispositive, the court did not reach the issue of whether the exclusion to coverage for “incorrect description” would have applied. As no coverage was found to exist, Allstate was determined to have neither the duty to defend nor to indemnify the defendants.

Practice Tip:

Exclusions to coverage in insurance policies are narrowly construed. However, it seems likely that, had the court not disposed of this matter as not fitting within the definition of “advertising injury,” it would have instead concluded that there was no coverage upon construing the exclusion for “incorrect description” of goods or services offered.

In contrast, businesses sued for defamation, invasion of privacy, misappropriation of advertising ideas and/or infringement of intellectual property, would be wise to consult their commercial general liability insurance policies to evaluate whether such an advertising injury is considered a covered peril.

March 26, 2014

Daughter’s Facebook Comments Establish Breach of Confidentiality, Cost Her Father $80,000

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Miami, Florida – The Third District Court of Appeal for the State of Florida heard the appeal of Gulliver Schools, Inc. (“Gulliver”) and School Management Systems, Inc. in the age-discrimination and retaliation lawsuit of Patrick Snay. Appellants prevailed on their claim that Mr. Snay had breached the confidentiality clause of the settlement agreement, thus gulliver Stamp picture.jpg eliminating Gulliver’s obligation to pay portions of the settlement amount.

Patrick Snay, formerly the headmaster of Gulliver, sued for age discrimination and retaliation when Gulliver did not renew his contract for the 2010-2011 school term. The dispute was settled and the parties executed a release for the full and final settlement of Snay’s claims. Under the settlement, the school would pay $10,000 in back pay and $80,000 to Snay to settle the matter, as well as $60,000 for Snay’s legal fees.

As part of the settlement, Snay agreed to a detailed confidentiality clause, which provided that the existence and terms of the agreement between Snay and the school were to be kept strictly confidential and that, should Snay or his wife breach the confidentiality provision, a portion of the settlement proceeds (the $80,000) would be disgorged by Snay to Gulliver. This provision read, in pertinent part: “[T]he plaintiff shall not either directly or indirectly, disclose, discuss or communicate to any entity or person, except his attorneys or other professional advisors or spouse any information whatsoever regarding the existence or terms of this Agreement . . . A breach . . . will result in disgorgement of the Plaintiffs [sic] portion of the settlement Payments.”

Shortly after the agreement was signed, Snay informed his daughter that his lawsuit against Gulliver had been settled and that he was happy with the result. Snay’s daughter posted news of the agreement on Facebook, “Mama and Papa Snay won the case against Gulliver. Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer.” This Facebook post was available for viewing by approximately 1,200 of Snay’s daughter’s Facebook friends, many of whom were either current or past Gulliver students.

Gulliver learned of the Facebook post. Four days after the agreement was signed, Gulliver notified Snay that it considered the Facebook post to be a material breach of the agreement. Gulliver stated that, while it would pay the amount of the settlement which constituted attorneys’ fees, it would not pay any of Snay’s portion as a result of the breach of the confidentiality clause.

Snay moved to enforce the settlement agreement, arguing that his statement to his daughter and her comment on Facebook did not constitute a breach. The trial court agreed, finding that neither Snay’s comments to his daughter nor his daughter’s Facebook comments constituted a breach of the confidentiality agreement.

Gulliver appealed. The appellate court held that the plain language of the contract prohibited the disclosure that Snay had made, stating “before the ink was dry on the agreement, and notwithstanding the clear language . . . mandating confidentiality, Snay violated the agreement by doing exactly what he had promised not to do.” Moreover, the court noted that the significance of confidentiality to Gulliver was evinced by the fact that the majority of the proceeds of the settlement agreement expressly hinged on compliance with the confidentiality provision.

Based on the clear and unambiguous language of the parties’ agreement and Snay’s subsequent testimony that he had, in fact, breached the confidentiality provision, the appellate court found for Gulliver and reversed the trial court’s order granting the Snays’ motion to enforce the settlement agreement.

Practice Tip:

It’s not hard to see how this happened. As parents, the Snays recognized that it was important to inform their daughter of the resolution of this matter. Not only was this settlement significant to Mr. Snay, but the news that a satisfactory resolution had been reached also was presumably intended to assist his daughter in dealing with the difficulties she had apparently encountered as a result of the dispute with Gulliver. According to Mr. Snay, these difficulties had left his daughter with “quite a few psychological scars which forced [him] to put her into therapy.” It is also not difficult to imagine that, feeling vindicated, the Snays’ college-aged daughter would do what many people that age do with big news: she posted it on Facebook.

In situations such as these, contract attorneys must take special care to provide whole-picture legal counseling to their clients, both during settlement negotiations and after. It was not unforeseeable that Mr. or Ms. Snay would inform their daughter of the settlement. Nor was it unforeseeable that she would, in turn, want to share the news with her friends. Presumably, the Snays’ daughter had not realized the importance of confidentiality.

Here, this problem might have been avoided. First, in drafting the confidentiality clause, release of the information to the daughter could have been included. Thus, Mr. Snay would not have signed an agreement that he presumably knew – as he was signing it – that he would soon violate. Second, an explicit and dire warning by the settlement attorney representing Mr. Snay should have been given to anyone privy to the settlement to lessen the chance of an inadvertent breach of the contract, for example: “You, your wife and your daughter absolutely must adhere to the provisions of the confidentiality clause or you could lose some or all of the benefits of this settlement agreement.”

March 20, 2014

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

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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

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

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

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

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

March 19, 2014

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

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

March 13, 2014

Indiana Court of Appeals Finds Noncompetition Agreement Overly Broad and Unenforceable

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Court of Appeals of Indiana has affirmed the decision of the Marion Superior Court to deny injunctive relief to Clark’s Sales & Service, Inc. (“Clark’s”) of Indianapolis, Indiana in its suit against John D. Smith (“Smith”) of Indiana and Ferguson Enterprises, Inc. (“Ferguson”) of Newport News, Virginia.

In 1998, Smith began working for Clark’s, a company that sells and services appliances in the builder-distributor market in Indiana. In 2004, after one of Clark’s high-level managers left for a competitive position at another company, Clark’s had Smith and various other employees sign a written employment agreement containing both a confidentiality clause and a noncompetition agreement.

Smith resigned his position at Clark’s on April 13, 2012 but, before doing so, he took copies of Clark’s sales records from 2010 and 2011, including customer and builder contact information, the price of materials sold and the costs and profit margins of Clark’s. On April 18, 2012, he accepted an offer of employment with Ferguson, a nearby competitor. In his new position, he solicited business from various customers of Clark’s.

Indiana attorneys for Clark’s sued to enforce the confidentiality and noncompetition provisions of the agreement entered into with Smith. The trial court concluded that the restrictive covenant that Clark’s drafted was overly broad and unreasonable, and denied Clark’s motion for a preliminary injunction. From that order, this interlocutory appeal was brought.

On appeal, Clark’s challenged the trial court’s ruling, calling it clearly erroneous. It claimed that the noncompetition agreement was not unreasonable and unenforceable. Clark’s also argued that, even if the noncompetition agreement were unreasonable and unenforceable as written, the court should apply the “blue-pencil doctrine” to make whatever modifications were necessary to render the covenant reasonable and enforceable.

The Indiana appellate court first discussed whether Clark’s had a legitimate and protectable interest, defined as “some reason why it would be unfair to allow the employee to compete with the former employer.” Indiana courts have held that “the advantageous familiarity and personal contact which employees derive from dealing with an employer’s customers are elements of an employer’s ‘good will’ and are a protectible interest which may justify a restraint.” The appellate court held that, while the trial court had not explicitly stated that it had found such a protectable interest, such a finding was implicit in its ruling. The appellate court ruled that the trial court had not erred by determining that Clark’s had established this element.

The Indiana appellate court then evaluated the reasonableness of the restrictions. Both parties agreed that the two-year limit was reasonable and valid. They disagreed, however, regarding the reasonableness of the noncompetition agreement as to the scope of activities and geographic area restricted.

The appellate court held that the one type of activities prohibited – Clark’s restrictions against contact with any of its past or prospective customers – was vague and too broad. The agreement also prohibited not merely those activities which Smith had engaged in during his tenure at Clark’s, but also prohibited him from providing any services competitive to “those offered by” Clark’s. That provision was held to be “overly broad, onerous, and an undue restriction on Smith’s economic freedom” and, thus, unenforceable.

The restrictions placed on the geographic area in which Smith could work were also evaluated. Those restrictions included working “in any state in which Gregg [Smith’s previous employer] does business, as well as working for any other entity providing services competitive to Clark’s in Marion County, any county contiguous to Marion County, any county in Indiana in which Clark’s has at least one customer, the State of Indiana, or within a fifty-mile radius of Smith’s principal office with Clark’s, which was in Castleton.” The appellate court held that it was “unquestionable that the expansive geographic scope . . . is unreasonable as written.”

Finally, the court addressed the “blue-pencil doctrine.” This doctrine allows a court to strike unreasonable restrictions in a covenant not to compete, provided that they are divisible. However, this doctrine does not extend to allow a court to create a reasonable restriction, as this would subject the parties to an agreement that they have not made.

The court held that blue pencil doctrine was inapplicable, as the terms that Clark’s proposed be stricken had been written as merely a small part of an indiscrete whole. Moreover, it held that, even if it were to strike the text that Clark’s had proposed be stricken, the restrictions would still be overly broad and in excess of what would be required to protect Clark’s legitimate business interest.

The Indiana appellate court affirmed the trial court, holding that its judgment was not clearly erroneous.

Practice Tip #1: To demonstrate the reasonableness of a noncompetition agreement, the employer must first show that it has a legitimate interest to be protected by the agreement. The employer also bears the burden of showing that the agreement is reasonable in terms of the time, activities, and geographic area restricted.

Practice Tip #2: Covenants not to compete are in restraint of trade and are not favored by the law. If a court applying Indiana law finds that portions of a noncompetition agreement are unreasonable, it may not modify the restrictions to make them reasonable. Doing so would subject the parties to an agreement they had not made. The court may, however, employ the “blue pencil” rule to “cross out” portions deemed unreasonable while leaving any separable and reasonable portions intact.

Practice Tip #3: This is at least the second time that the Indiana Court of Appeals has heard an interlocutory appeal on this non-compete litigation. In a prior appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, which had improperly concluded that the noncompetition agreement failed for lack of consideration. We blogged about that appeal here.

Practice Tip #4: While Appellant-Plaintiff here argued that broad drafting was permissible and simply a “good faith effort to provide itself the greatest level of protection allowed by law,” the Indiana appellate court did not agree. Instead, it called the practice “unsavory” and reminded Clark’s that “Indiana law strongly discourages employers’ attempts to draft unreasonably broad and oppressive covenants.”

March 12, 2014

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

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

February 3, 2014

Indiana Court of Appeals Rules in Favor of Resident’s Daughter in Nursing Facility Dispute

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Alexis Hutchison (“Hutchison”) (pictured right) appealed a small claims court (“trial court”) judgment in favor of Trilogy Health Services, LLC, d/b/a Springhurst Health Campus (“Springhurst”), on Springhurst’s claim against Hutchison and her now-deceased mother, Martha Farber (“Farber”), for payment of services provided to Farber while she was a resident at Springhurst. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed.

For a number of years, Farber was ill with cancer, requiring various trips to, and stays at, hospitals. After one of her hospital visits, and finding that she was in need of constant care, she became a resident at Springhurst, a skilled nursing facility.

When Farber was admitted to Springhurst, Hutchison signed Springhurst’s Move-In Agreement (“Agreement”) as a “Responsible Party/Agent.” This Agreement stated that, to the extent that Hutchison was authorized to “control[] or access[]” her mother’s assets, she agreed to direct her mother’s income and resources towards any financial obligations which Farber had to Springhurst. Springhurst later contended that Farber and Hutchison, as Farber’s Responsible Party/Agent, owed $1,716.90 for services rendered to Farber. Farber disputed all but a small portion of the charges and Springhurst filed suit against Farber and Hutchinson.

A trial was held. During the trial, Hutchison testified that she was not Farber’s power of attorney and that she had “no authority to use [her] mother’s income for anything.” Hutchison indicated that the only thing she could have done was point out to her mother that a bill was owed. When Hutchison cross examined Dionne Fields (“Fields”), Springhurst’s business office manager, Fields admitted that Springhurst had no documents indicating that Hutchison had any authority over her mother’s financial affairs.

Hutchison also called as a witness her husband, David Hutchison (“David”), who was present when Hutchison signed the Agreement. David testified that Hutchison had asked if signing the Agreement would make her personally financially responsible for her mother’s stay at the nursing facility. The Springhurst representative, he said, had answered with “an emphatic no.”

The trial court found the evidence – including the language of the contract, the assurances of Springhurst that Hutchison would not be held personally liable and the uncontroverted testimony that Hutchison had no power of attorney over her mother – to be unpersuasive. It rendered a general judgment in favor of Springhurst stating that “the court found the plaintiff proved the defendant liable pursuant to contract and Indiana case law for the sum of $2,610.87” but declined to specify further facts or law in support of the judgment.

Hutchison, again acting as her own attorney, appealed this ruling and the Indiana Court of Appeals held in her favor. The appellate court first cited federal limitations that have been enacted regarding the notion of imposing upon one family member financial responsibility for another family member’s care. For example, under 42 U.S.C. §§1396r(c)(5)(A)(ii) and 1395i-3(c)(5)(A)(ii), a nursing home certified as eligible for Medicare or Medicaid reimbursement “must not require a third party guarantee of payment to the facility as a condition of admission . . . to, or continued stay in, the facility.” The Indiana Administrative Code provides a similar restriction in 410 Ind. Admin. Code 16.2-3.1-16.5.

The appellate court then acknowledged that resident rights activists echoed Hutchison’s argument that an agreement to assume the status of a “responsible party,” and the personal financial liability which might accompany that, might be inconsistent with federal law and inherently illegal. The court, however, declined to decide this issue, which was apparently one of first impression in Indiana courts.

The court also declined to address the testimony that Springhurst had assured Hutchison that she would not incur personal financial liability by signing the Agreement.

Instead, the court found the provisions of the Agreement itself, in conjunction with undisputed evidence, to be dispositive. The Agreement stated that Farber “may designate” a person to act on her behalf as a Responsible Party/Agent and that, if such a designation was to be made, “the Resident shall provide the Facility with a copy of a written agreement that authorizes such individual to manage, use, control or access the Resident’s income, financial account(s) or other resources” (emphasis added by the court). It was undisputed that neither Farber nor anyone else had provided Springhurst with any such document; indeed, the unrefuted evidence had been that Springhurst did not possess any such document.

The court noted that Hutchison’s responsibilities, then, were at most “to pay the Facility the full amount of the Resident’s income and resources that the Responsible Party/Agent controls or accesses” (emphasis added by the court). As it was undisputed that Hutchison possessed neither control nor access to Farber’s income and resources, the appellate court concluded that the trial court had clearly erred. It reversed and remanded the matter with instructions to the trial court to enter judgment in favor of Hutchison.

Practice Tip #1: Cases tried before the bench in small claims court are reviewed for clear error and appellate courts are particularly deferential to the trial court in small claims actions. The appellate court, when reviewing the case, will not reweigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses but will consider only the evidence that supports the judgment and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Moreover, when a trial court’s judgment is rendered as a “general judgment,” as was the case here, that judgment will be affirmed upon any legal theory consistent with the evidence. Thus, it is very important to put on one’s best possible case to the trial court, as substantial deference is given to the trial court’s findings.

Practice Tip #2: While this case was not an Indiana intellectual property case, we include it in the Indiana Intellectual Property Law Blog to congratulate Alexis Hutchison, a valued and talented member of the Overhauser Law Offices team, on her well-deserved success in litigating this matter.

January 23, 2014

NCAA Heard in Federal Court Again on Antitrust and Right-of-Publicity Issues

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Oakland, California – District Judge Claudia Wilkin (pictured) issued a new order regarding in re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, a putative class action involving the Indianapolis-based National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”). The NCAA’s motion to dismiss on, inter alia, copyright and First-Amendment grounds was denied.

In this action, Plaintiffs, a group of twenty-five current and former college athletes who played for NCAA men’s football or basketball teams between 1953 and the present, pursued a putative class action against Defendant NCAA. They initially brought claims against Collegiate Licensing Company (“CLC”) and Electronic Arts Inc. (“EA”) as well, but agreed to settle those claims before this order was issued.

At the time of this order, four of the Plaintiffs (the “Right-of-Publicity Plaintiffs”) alleged that the NCAA misappropriated their names, images and likenesses in violation of their statutory and common law rights of publicity. In contrast, the other twenty-one Plaintiffs (the “Antitrust Plaintiffs”) alleged that the NCAA violated federal antitrust law by conspiring with EA and CLC to restrain competition in the market for the commercial use of their names, images and likenesses. This order addressed only the latter set of claims, which arise under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.

To be eligible to compete, the NCAA required student athletes to release in perpetuity all rights to the commercial use of their images. The Antitrust Plaintiffs contend that the “purposefully misleading” release forms then allowed the NCAA to sell or license the athletes’ identities to others.

In addition to the release that the athletes had signed, a price-fixing conspiracy/group boycott prevented the athletes from being able to pursue compensation for the licensing of their identities even after they stopped competing. This allegedly interfered with their ability to market “group licensing rights” for their identities in game broadcasts, rebroadcasts and video games. Because many of these Plaintiffs also went on to play professionally, such rights could be of considerable value.

Intellectual property attorneys for the NCAA argued that assertions of a right of publicity of student athletes in the context of game broadcasts were barred by the First Amendment as well as California statute. The court was not persuaded by either argument. On the First Amendment argument, the court held that, while the original broadcast might enjoy protection, “subsequent unauthorized reproductions” did not.

Likewise, the California statute cited by the intellectual property lawyers for the NCAA was not persuasive to the court. That statute provided that the athletes had no right of publicity in the “use of [his or her] name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness in connection with any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast or account.” However, the court held that such right-of-publicity restrictions did not apply to licensing in other states that lacked similar statutes.

The court also rejected the NCAA’s copyright-preemption argument on two grounds. First, this was not properly considered under the law of copyright. The athletes were not asserting intellectual property rights under copyright law but rather sought to license their personas. As a persona cannot be copyrighted, copyright preemption did not apply. Moreover, the Plaintiffs’ claims were not of simple theft of intellectual property. They also asserted a broader antitrust right – to prevent injury to competition. Citing United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 63 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the court stated, “[I]ntellectual property rights do not confer a privilege to violate the antitrust laws” and denied the NCAA’s motion to dismiss.

Practice Tip: The NCAA has been heard before on claims under the Sherman Act. NCAA v. Board of Regents, 468 U.S. 85 (1984). In that decision, the Court acknowledged that the NCAA must be given some leeway to adopt anticompetitive rules violating the Sherman Act, concluding that intercollegiate athletics is “an industry in which horizontal restraints on competition are essential if the product is to be available at all.”

January 22, 2014

Virginia District Court Awards Attorneys’ Fees to USPTO

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Alexandria, Virginia – The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held in Shammas v. Focarino that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) was entitled to recover attorneys’ fees when brought to court for a review of Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) rulings.

An examiner for the USPTO had refused to register a trademark for the term PROBIOTIC for a fertilizer on the grounds that it was a generic term for fertilizers and, in the alternative, was descriptive with no secondary meaning. Plaintiff Milo Shammas brought the matter to the TTAB, which affirmed. Shammas then asked for a review of the TTAB decision under 15 U.S.C. 1071(b)(1) in the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Summary judgment was granted in favor of the USPTO, which then moved for fees and expenses under Section 21(b)(3) of the Lanham Act. Section 21(b)(3) provides that, in cases such as these, “all the expenses of the proceeding shall be paid by the party bringing the case, whether the final decision is in favor of such party or not.”

Shammus argued that it would be improper to award attorneys’ fees, as they were not included in the statutory term “expenses.” The court was not convinced, however, and held that the plain meaning of “expenses” included both attorneys’ fees and other costs. This interpretation, the court explained, was further bolstered by Congress’s inclusion of the word “all” before “expenses.”

In determining the correct measure of fees due, the court noted that, while using market rates for legal services is appropriate when calculating “reasonable attorneys’ fees,” an award of “expenses” must be based on the actual salaries (when calculated on a per-hour basis) of the government trademark lawyers who defended the action. Thus, in this case, where the statute provided for “expenses,” attorneys’ fees were properly based on the actual hourly rate paid to the attorneys.

Practice Tip #1: The American legal system typically requires each party to bear its own litigation expenses, including attorneys’ fees, regardless of the outcome of the case.

Practice Tip #2: This fee-shifting decision was a matter of first impression regarding Section 21(b)(3) of the Lanham Act. It held that “expenses” as contemplated therein included attorneys’ fees. Moreover, ex parte plaintiffs must pay those expenses whether or not they prevail on the merits.

Practice Tip #3: Section 1071 was characterized as “arguably an odd statute” by the court. The court remarked that the statute “provides unsuccessful trademark applicants with a choice between an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the administrative record, or alternatively, an action in federal district court where the administrative record may be supplemented with new evidence. Congress’s decision to allow this choice is odd for several reasons. First, it serves to lessen the trademark applicant’s incentive to put her best evidentiary foot forward before the PTO given that if she fails before the PTO, she can supplement the record in the district court. Moreover, Congress no sooner provides this choice than it takes an energetic step to discourage its use by requiring the unsuccessful applicant who files the district court suit under § 1071(b) to pay all expenses of the district court proceeding, win, lose or draw. This could lead to an anomalous result where the applicant must pay the PTO’s expenses of the district court proceeding even where the PTO loses in the district court on the administrative record alone and no new evidence is admitted or considered. In this circumstance, there is little reason to saddle the unsuccessful applicant with the PTO’s expenses. A second anomalous result is that the statute invites forum shopping. By allowing an action to be filed in a district court in lieu of an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the statute invites an unsuccessful applicant to pick a district court in a favorable circuit because the appeal will be to the circuit in which the district court sits, not to the Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit.”

Practice Tip #4: When determining whether to use market rates or actual attorney-fee expenses in fee-shifting cases, the Seventh Circuit has reached a conclusion similar to the decision in this case. The Seventh Circuit has determined, for example, that it is incorrect to use the prevailing market rate to determine an award of attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because the statute limited fee awards to “actual expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred.” See Wisconsin v. Hotline Indus., Inc., 236 F.3d 363, 367 (7th Cir. 2000).

January 15, 2014

Indiana Tax Court Shields Orbitz from Disclosure of Trade Secrets

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. it is information;

2. that derives independent economic value;

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

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

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

Practice Tip:

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

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