New Litigation

April 11, 2019

Attorney Richard Bell Sues Hana Business Group for Copyright Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging Hana Business Group (“Hana”) conducts business in the district and infringed his rights in United States Copyright No. VA0001785115 “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo”. Bell seeks injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

Bell is an attorney and photographer who claims to have taken a photograph of the Indianapolis skyline in March 2000, which he registered with the U.S. Copyright Office August 4, 2011. Since registering his photograph, Bell claims to have used the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo in advertising to the extent that the public can identify the photo as being taken by him. Bell has also filed numerous lawsuits claiming copyright infringement of the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo since its registration.

According to the Complaint, Hana does business under the name “Cheap Party Bus Rental Indianapolis Indiana.” In 2019, Bell conducted an internet search and found that the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo was published and visible to viewers on Hana’s website. Bell claims Hana utilized the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo on its website to attract prospective customers.

April 10, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Eli Lilly And Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Back In Court Over Patent Infringement Claims

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli Lilly”) of Indianapolis, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. of Hyderabad, Telagana, India, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, (collectively “Dr. Reddy’s”) infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 7,772,209 (“the ‘209 Patent”). Eli Lilly is seeking judgment that Dr. Reddy’s has infringed the ‘209 patent; that the effective date of any FDA approval for Dr. Reddy’s NDA product be not earlier than the expiration of the ‘209 patent; and for costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, along with any other relief the court may deem just and proper.

The Complaint asserts that Eli Lilly sells ALIMTA ®, an FDA approved product used in combination with Cisplatin to treat patients with specific types of cancer. Eli Lilly claims that it is the assignee of the ‘209 patent, a method patent which was upheld as valid by the Federal Circuit in, Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., 845 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Dr. Reddy’s and Eli Lilly were engaged in a previous lawsuit concerning Dr. Reddy’s NDA No. 208297 and the ‘209 patent. According to the Complaint in this matter, the court found in the previous lawsuit that the filing of NDA No. 208297 indirectly infringed specific claims of the ‘209 patent and entered final judgment in favor of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly claims that because Dr. Reddy’s did not challenge the validity of the ‘209 patent as a counterclaim or affirmative defense in the previous litigation over the ‘209 patent and NDA No. 208297, Dr. Reddy’s is barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata from doing so in this case.

Dr. Reddy’s has filed an amendment to NDA No. 208297, and the Complaint alleges that the purpose of this amendment was to obtain approval of the product before the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Eli Lilly is claiming infringement of the ‘209 patent based on its belief that Dr. Reddy’s NDA product delivers the same active Pemetrexed moiety as the ‘209 patent. Further, Eli Lilly alleges that Dr. Reddy’s NDA product when used as directed will infringe claims 1-22 of the ‘209 patent under the doctrine of equivalents. As such, Eli Lilly is seeking judgment of infringement, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

April 3, 2019

Richard Bell Sues Kirkbooher Enterprise LLC for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed a lawsuit alleging Kirkbooher Enterprise LLC (“Kirkbooher”), a company that conducts business in Indianapolis, Indiana, who Bell alleges infringed his copyrighted photograph. Bell’s copyrighted work, Registration No. VA0001785115, was registered by the U.S. Copyright Office on August 4, 2011. Bell is seeking an order enjoining Kirkbooher and its employees from copying and using his copyrighted works; profits derived by Kirkbooher from the use of Bell’s photo; actual and/or statutory damages, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other relief as the court may deem proper.

Bell states he took the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo,” at issue in this case, in March, 2000. The complaint alleges Bell has published or licensed the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo in compliance with copyright laws. Further, Bell claims he is the sole owner of the copyright and has utilized the photograph to promote his photography business. Bell has filed numerous lawsuits to assert his rights as a copyright owner of the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo.

The complaint alleges Kirkbooher published Bell’s Indianapolis Nighttime Photo on its website created to advertise its business in Indianapolis without his authorization. Bell claims Kirkbooher used his photograph to promote its convention in Indianapolis and to attract prospective customers. Bell claims he discovered Kirkbooher’s website with his photograph using the computer program Tineye in February 2019. He also claims Kirkbooher published his photograph in 2017, but he does not yet know the exact publication date.

April 2, 2019

Apollo Design Technology, Inc. of Fort Wayne Sued for Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, IN – Rich Iwasaki of Beaverton, Oregon filed suit alleging Apollo Design Technology, Inc. (“Apollo”) of Fort Wayne, Indiana infringed his copyrighted work, Registration No. VA 2-132-257. The Complaint alleges Iwasaki’s copyrighted work, which is a photograph of skyscrapers in Chicago, Illinois (the “Photograph”) was registered by the U.S. Copyright Office on November 28, 2018. Iwasaki is seeking actual damages, Apollo’s profits, alternatively statutory damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and any other relief the court may deem proper.

Iwasaki claims he took the Photograph, added his watermark to the Photograph, and that he has always been the sole owner of the Photograph and the copyright thereto. The complaint alleges Apollo published an article on its website that included the Photograph entitled Prepared to be Wowed – the 2018 DesignScapes Product Line Has Arrived! Iwasaki claims Apollo did not have a license to publish the Photograph, nor did it have his consent or permission to use his Photograph on its website.

The Complaint alleges copyright infringement against Apollo pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501, and damages for infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b). Iwasaki also claims Apollo violated 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b) by falsifying, removing, or altering his watermark and copyright management information identifying him as the photographer. Iwasaki claims he may elect to recover the actual damages under 17 U.S.C. § 1202 or statutory damages of at least $2,500 up to $25,000 per violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1202, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1203(c)(3).

March 29, 2019

Richard Bell Files Three New Copyright Infringement Lawsuits

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed three separate copyright infringement suits against Subud Greater Seattle (“Subud”), Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”), and Quickbook Modeling Agency (“Quickbook”). Bell claims each of the Defendants infringed his photograph, the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo”, Registration No. VA0001785115, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on August 4, 2008. All three suits were filed in the Southern District of Indiana and are seeking actual and/or statutory damages, costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the court deems proper.

All three complaints state that Bell took his photograph of the Indianapolis skyline in March 2000. He claims his photograph was first published on his Web shots account on August 29, 2000. Bell also maintains that his photograph has been used in advertisements to the point that it is identifiable by the public as being his work. After registering his photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office, Bell has filed many lawsuits for infringement of the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo.

Bell further alleges that Defendant Subud conducts business in Indianapolis, Indiana and published his photograph on its website to attract customers and promote a convention taking place in Indianapolis. His Complaint asserts that while Bell discovered Subud’s use of his photograph on April 6, 2018 using Google images, Subud actually published the photograph in 2016. He claims not only did Subud not disclose the source of the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo, it willfully, recklessly, and falsely claimed to own the copyrights of every image and photograph on its website.

March 20, 2019

Richard Bell Sues Three New Defendants for Copyright Infringement of His Indianapolis Nighttime Photo

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Richard Bell of McCordsville, IN filed three separate copyright infringement suits in the Southern District of Indiana against GSE Audio Visual (“GSE”), Christy Joy Caley (“Caley”), Maryco Cleaning Service, Inc. (“Maryco”), and National Swimming Pool Foundation (“National Swimming”), alleging that each infringed Copyright Number VA0001785115. The copyrighted work, “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo,” was registered by the U.S. Copyright Office on August 4, 2011. Bell is seeking permanent injunctions, both actual and statutory damages, costs, and attorneys’ fees against Defendants in all three actions.

Plaintiff is both a photographer and attorney who is well known for filing copyright infringement lawsuits on his own behalf. GSE is alleged to have utilized the Indianapolis Nighttime Photo on its website to promote and advertise its business within Indianapolis. Bell claims to have discovered this unauthorized use on April 5, 2018.

In the Complaint filed against Maryco, Bell states it authorized Caley to create a website to promote its business. Bell further claims that Caley downloaded the “Indianapolis Nighttime Photo” and posted it on Maryco’s website without his permission. Bell discovered the use of the photo through a Google image search in December 2018, however, he asserts that unauthorized use began in 2013.

March 19, 2019

Jeff Bachner Sues USA Halloween Planet, Inc. for Copyright Infringement of His New Year’s Eve Fireworks Photograph

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, IN – Jeff Bachner of Brooklyn, New York, by counsel, filed a lawsuit alleging USA Halloween Planet, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed U.S. Copyright Registration No. VA 2-110-419 (the “Copyrighted Work”). The Copyrighted Work is entitled “01.01.13, New Years Eve, Bachner.jpg” and was registered by the U.S. Copyright Office July 12, 2018. Plaintiff is seeking damages including punitive damages, costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees.

Bachner licensed his Copyrighted Work to the New York Daily News on or about January 1, 2013 for their article titled Taylor Swift, Psy, Mayor Bloomberg help New Yorkers ring in 2013. Plaintiff was given proper credit for his Copyrighted Work appearing in the article. Defendant ran an article on their website titled Goodbye 2012 . . . Hello 2013, that utilized the Copyrighted Work without a license, permission, or consent to publish it from Bachner. Plaintiff is claiming copyright infringement and alteration or removal of identifying copyright management information. Continue reading

March 18, 2019

Indiana Based Delta Faucet Company Sues ALDI, Inc. for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Attorneys for Delta Faucet Company (“Delta”) of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit against ALDI, Inc. (“Aldi”) of Batavia, Illinois alleging that Aldi infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,360,723 (the “’723 Patent”). The ‘723 Patent, titled “Showerhead system with integrated handle,” was issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on April 22, 2008. Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction, damages including treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief deemed proper by the Court.

Delta alleges that Aldi’s “Easy Home 2 in 1 Showerhead Kit” infringes at least one claim of the ‘723 Patent. Plaintiff has an exclusive license to the ‘723 Patent from Sidus Technologies and therefore has the right to sue for the infringement of the patent. Delta is seeking damages including reasonably royalties pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 154(d). Further, Delta is claiming Aldi’s willful patent infringement justifies treble damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 and attorneys’ fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

March 7, 2019

Indiana Patent Litigation: Indiana Craft Company Sued for Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Ellison Educational Equipment of California, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Heartfelt Creations, Inc. and DOES 1-10 of Goshen, Indiana, infringed its rights in the United States Patent No. 9,079,325 (the ‘325 Patent). Plaintiff is seeking a permanent injunction, punitive damages, compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Ellison was founded in 1977 by a husband and wife who designed the first hand-operated die-cutting machine. Plaintiff has continued to provide innovations in the educational and craft markets ever since and even launched a new craft brand, Sizzix® in 2001. On July 15, 2011, Ellison filed a provisional patent application for a “Chemical-Etched Die Having Improved Registration Means.” The ‘325 Patent was issued stemming from the provisional patent application on July 14, 2015.

Heartfelt is alleged to have created patterns that are turned into chemically-etched dies and are used in conjunction with the method taught by the ‘325 Patent. Further, the company gives demonstrations on how to use the product in violation of the ‘325 Patent and teaches the public how to infringe the ‘325 Patent on Heartfelt’s YouTube channel. Ellison sent a cease and desist letter to Heartfelt based on Ellison’s beliefs Heartfelt was infringing the ‘325 Patent on December 21, 2018.

Plaintiff is claiming direct patent infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) with enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284. Second, it is claiming inducement of infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). Finally, Ellison is claiming contributory infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(c).

March 5, 2019

Indiana Trademark/Trade Dress Litigation: Baskin-Robbins Sues Indiana Company for Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Terre Haute, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC, and BR IP Holder LLC (collectively “Baskin-Robbins”), both Delaware limited liability companies, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Big Scoops Inc. and David M. Glasgow, Jr., both of Terre Haute, Indiana breached their Franchise Agreement with Baskin-Robbins by failing to pay required fees. By continuing to operate, Defendants are infringing Baskin-Robbins’ trade dress and numerous registered trademarks.

Baskin-Robbins Franchising is in the business of franchising independent businesses and people to operate Baskin-Robbins shops in the United States. The “Baskin-Robbins” trade name, trademark, and service mark are owned by BR IP Holder along with other related marks. Since October 14, 2015, Big Scoops has been the owner and operator of a Baskin-Robbins shop located in Terre Haute, Indiana pursuant to a Franchise Agreement with Baskin-Robbins. David M. Glasgow, Jr. personally guaranteed the obligations of Big Scoops under the Franchise Agreement.

Pursuant to its Franchise Agreement, Big Scoops was granted a license to use the trademarks, trade names, and trade dress of Baskin-Robbins, but only in the manner specified in the Franchise Agreement. The fees due to Baskin-Robbins from Big Scoops under the Franchise Agreement included a franchise fee equal to 5.9% of gross sales of the business, an advertising fee equal to 5.0% of gross sales of the business, late fees, interest, and costs on unpaid monies due under the Franchise Agreement, and all sums owing and any damages, interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred as a result of Big Scoops’ defaults. Under the Franchise Agreement, Big Scoops agreed that nonpayment of any of the required fees would be a default, that failure to pay within seven days after receiving written notice would be a continued default, and that receiving three notices of default within a twelve-month period would result in Baskin Robbins having the right to terminate the Franchise Agreement.

Plaintiffs sent Big Scoop three separate notices that it was in default of the Franchise Agreement for nonpayment on June 19, 2018, October 9, 2018, and December 7, 2018. As a result of these defaults and failure to cure after the December 7, 2018 notice, Baskin-Robbins sent Big Scoop a Notice of Termination with respect to the franchised business on February 12, 2019. Since receiving the Notice of Termination, Defendants have continued to operate the Baskin-Robbins shop and have used the Baskin-Robbins marks without authorization. Baskin-Robbins is claiming breach of contract, trademark infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114, unfair competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and trade dress infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125.