New Litigation

January 30, 2015

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Archetype Sues Alleging Trade Dress Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana intellectual property attorney for Archetype Ltd. (“Archetype”) of Short Hills, New Jersey sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that LTD Commodities LLC (“LTD”) of Bannockburn, Illinois infringed the trademark PathLights™.

Plaintiff Archetype contends that it has been marketing a distinctive and famous battery-operated motion-detection lighting system under the PathLights trademark since at least as early as 2009. It states that the overall look and feel of the PathLights product is non-functional and serves as a source identifier. In this Indiana lawsuit, Archetype accuses LTD of trade dress infringement, false designation of origin or sponsorship, passing off, and unfair competition.

Archetype indicates in the complaint that LTD is marketing, selling, and promoting a battery-operated motion-detection lighting product that is almost identical to Archetype’s PathLights product. It further claims that the accused LTD lights illustrated on LTD’s website are actually images of Archetype’s PathLights product and that the lighting products that consumers actually receive from LTD upon purchase of the LTD product are not an Archetype’s PathLights product but are, instead, a different, lower-quality light.

Defendant LTD is accused of “intentionally, willfully and deliberately pull[ing] a ‘bait and switch’ on consumers” and, in doing so, damaging Archetype’s sales volume and business reputation.

In this lawsuit, filed by an Indiana intellectual property lawyer for Archetype, the following counts are asserted:

• Count I: Trade Dress Infringement

• Count II: False Designation of Origin or Sponsorship and Passing Off

• Count III: False Advertising

• Count IV: Trade Dress Dilution

Archetype asks the court for judgment that LTD’s acts constitute trade dress infringement, unfair competition, false designation of origin and/or sponsorship, false advertising and trade dress dilution; for an award of LTD’s profits and actual damages, including corrective advertising, as well as trebling those damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117; for an order that all accused LTD products and other accused materials be surrendered for destruction; for an injunction; and for an award of Archetype’s attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses.

The case was assigned to Chief Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Denise K. LaRue in the Southern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00106-RLY-DKL.

January 29, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Knauf Alleges Infringement of Three Patents

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana patent attorneys for Knauf Insulation, LLC of Shelbyville, Indiana; Knauf Insulation GmbH of Iphofen, Germany; and Knauf Insulation SPRL of Visé, Belgium filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Johns Manville Corporation and Johns Manville, Inc., both of Denver, Colorado, infringed Patent Nos. 8,114,210 and 8,940,089, both for “Binders,” and D631,670 for “Insulation Material.”

Plaintiffs Knauf Insulation GmbH, Knauf Insulation SPRL, and Knauf Insulation, LLC are affiliated companies (collectively, “Knauf Insulation”). They produce and sell building materials including fiberglass insulation and related products. Defendants Johns Manville Corporation and Johns Manville, Inc., which are wholly owned subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., are stated to be direct competitors of Knauf Insulation GmbH and Knauf Insulation, LLC in the U.S. for fiberglass insulation products.

Plaintiffs Knauf Insulation SPRL and Knauf Insulation, LLC are each owners of one-half undivided interests of United States Patent Nos. 8,114,210 (“the ‘210 Patent”), 8,940,089 (“the ‘089 Patent”) and D631,670 (“the ‘670 Patent”; collectively, the patents-in-suit), which have been registered by the U.S. Patent Office.

Defendants offer for sale various bio-based binder insulation products, including “Formaldehyde Free” “Bio-based binder” insulation products. These products are marketed as “EasyFit,” “RANGE-GLAS EQ,” “SPIN-GLAS WH EQ,” “Flex-Glass EQ,” “Microlite EQ,” “Microlite L,” “ComfortTherm,” and “PEBS Blanket” insulation. Plaintiffs claim that the manufacture of these products infringes upon the patents-in-suit.

Specifically, Knauf Insulation contends that Defendants have infringed – directly, contributory and/or by inducement – various method claims of the patents-in-suit. That infringement, they claim, was willful and done with knowledge by Defendants with respect to the ‘210 and ‘670 patents. No claim of knowing or willful infringement was made with respect to the ‘089 patent, which issued on January 27, 2015, the date on which the complaint was filed. Knauf Insulation states that the patent infringement includes, in part, the manufacture of Johns Manville’s bio-based binder insulation.

In this lawsuit, Indiana patent lawyers for Knauf Insulation list three counts against the Johns Manville Defendants:

• Count I – Infringement of U.S. Patent 8,114,210

• Count II – Infringement of U.S. Patent 8,940,089

• Count III – Infringement of U.S. Patent D631,670

Knauf Insulation asks the court for a judgment of infringement of the patents-in-suit; an injunction; damages, including treble damages; an award of Defendants’ total profits, as well as other remedies under 35 U.S.C. §289 for the infringement of the ‘670 Patent; and an award of interest, fees and costs.

The case was assigned to Judge William T. Lawrence and Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore in the Southern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00111-WTL-MJD.

January 28, 2015

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Microsoft Asserts Copyright, Trademark Infringement by Ace Recycling

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana copyright and trademark attorney for Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) of Redmond, Washington sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Ace Recycling, Inc. and Kevin Cawood, both of Fort Wayne, Indiana (collectively, “Defendants”), infringed copyrighted material belonging to Microsoft. Defendants have also been accused of trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false description and representation, counterfeiting and unfair competition. Microsoft seeks damages, an accounting, the imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendants’ illegal profits, and injunctive relief.

Microsoft develops, markets, distributes and licenses computer software. Ace Recycling is engaged in the business of advertising, marketing, installing, offering, and distributing computer hardware and software, including the software at issue, which Microsoft contends is unauthorized.

Microsoft’s software products, which have been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office, include Microsoft Windows XP and Microsoft Vista, both of which are operating systems for desktop and computers.

Also at issue are the following trademarks and service marks belonging to Microsoft:

• “MICROSOFT,” Trademark and Service Mark Registration No. 1,200,236, for computer programs and computer programming services;

• “MICROSOFT,” Trademark Registration No. 1,256,083, for computer hardware and software manuals, newsletters, and computer documentation;

• WINDOWS, Trademark Registration No. 1,872,264 for computer programs and manuals sold as a unit; and

• COLORED FLAG DESIGN, Trademark Registration No. 2,744,843, for computer software.

Microsoft contends that Defendants advertised, marketed, installed, offered and distributed unauthorized copies of Microsoft software, despite Microsoft’s claims that their actions infringed Microsoft’s intellectual property rights. Specifically, Microsoft asserts that, in April 2013, Defendants distributed to an investigator refurbished computer systems with unauthorized copies of Windows XP installed on them. In response, in June 2013, Microsoft asked Defendants to cease and desist from making and distributing infringing copies of Microsoft software. Microsoft alleges that, in May 2014, Defendants again distributed to an investigator a refurbished computer system with an unauthorized copy of a Windows operating system – in that case, Windows Vista – on it.

Microsoft contends that these are not isolated incidents but, instead, indicate Defendants’ pattern of acting in reckless disregard of Microsoft’s registered copyrights, trademarks and service marks.

In this Indiana lawsuit, Microsoft’s copyright and trademark attorney makes the following claims:

• Copyright Infringement – 17 U.S.C. § 501, et seq.

• Trademark Infringement – 15 U.S.C. § 1114

• False Designation Of Origin, False Description And Representation – 15 U.S.C. § 1125 et seq.

• Indiana Common Law Unfair Competition

• For Imposition Of A Constructive Trust Upon Illegal Profits

• Accounting

Microsoft asks for a judgment of copyright infringement; of trademark and service mark infringement; that Defendants have committed and are committing acts of false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, and false or misleading representation against Microsoft, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); that Defendants have engaged in unfair competition in violation of Indiana common law; and that Defendants have otherwise injured the business reputation and business of Microsoft.

Microsoft also asks for the impoundment of all counterfeit and infringing copies of purported Microsoft products; the imposition of a constructive trust upon Defendants’ illegal profits; injunctive relief; damages, including enhanced damages; and costs and attorneys’ fees.

The case was assigned to Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins in the Northern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00032-JVB-SLC.

January 26, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Agri-Labs Asserts Infringement of Patented GPS-Enabled Soil-Analysis System

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – An Indiana patent attorney for Agri-Labs Holdings LLC of Auburn, Indiana filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that TapLogic, LLC of Murray, Kentucky infringed its patented “Soil Sample Tracking System and Method.”

At issue in this Indiana patent litigation is U.S. Patent No. 8,286,857 (the “`857 Patent” or the “Patent-in-Suit”), to which Agri-Labs claims ownership. The patent-in-suit, which was issued based upon an application filed by inventor Tony Wayne Covely, has been registered by the U.S. Patent Office. The `857 Patent generally relates to a system and method for performing soil analysis that uses smart phones, applications for smart phones, soil containers having unique identifiers, and global positioning (“GPS”).

TapLogic is accused of selling and offering for sale in the United States its “Ag PhD Soil Test,” which Agri-Labs contends infringes the patent-in-suit. To implement its soil-testing system, TapLogic provides its customers with soil containers. Customers are instructed to manually pull soil samples from a field and place them in separate containers, each of which includes a unique identifier. TapLogic’s Ag PhD test obtains a GPS coordinate reading associated with a location in the field from where the soil sample is taken and associates the GPS coordinate reading with the soil container having the customer scan the barcode contained on the soil container.

In December 2014, Agri-Labs sent a letter to TapLogic “attempting to amicably resolve this matter.” Agri-Labs indicates that it received no meaningful reply from TapLogic in response to the letter.

In this Indiana patent infringement complaint, the patent lawyer for Agri-Labs asserts a single count: Infringement of the ‘857 Patent by TapLogic. Agri-Labs asks the court to adjudge that the ‘857 Patent has been infringed and to enjoin TapLogic and its agents from directly and/or indirectly infringing the patent. Agri-Labs also asks for an award of compensatory damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, as well as enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and for an award of its costs.

January 8, 2015

Indiana Trademark Law: If You Have Been Sued for Trademark Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

How does a trademark infringement lawsuit begin?

A trademark lawsuit begins when the trademark owner files a complaint with a court alleging trademark infringement. Among other things, the complaint names the parties involved and sets forth the allegations that form the basis of the lawsuit. Trademark owners who decide to sue may file their complaint in either state court or federal court, depending on the circumstances. However, in most cases, the trademark owner, as plaintiff, will choose federal court. Even when a plaintiff chooses state court, it may be possible for the defendant to have the case “removed” to federal court.

Frequently, either before or at the time a complaint is filed, the trademark owner or the owner’s trademark attorney may send you a letter or otherwise contact you to make claims about the owner’s trademark rights and demand that you take certain actions, such as ceasing use of your mark.

January 2, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Eli Lilly Sues Sandoz Inc. Alleging Infringement of Patented ALIMTA

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – In conjunction with co-counsel, an Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement by Sandoz Inc. of Princeton, New Jersey of ALIMTA®, Patent No. 7,772,209, which was issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

ALIMTA, which is licensed to Lilly, is a chemotherapy agent used for the treatment of various types of cancer. ALIMTA is composed of the pharmaceutical chemical pemetrexed disodium. It is indicated, in combination with cisplatin, (a) for the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, or (b) for the initial treatment of locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer. ALIMTA also is indicated as a single agent for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer after prior chemotherapy. Additionally, ALIMTA is indicated for maintenance treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer whose disease has not progressed after four cycles of platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. One or more claims of the ‘209 patent cover a method of administering pemetrexed disodium to a patient in need thereof that also involves administration of folic acid and vitamin B12.

This Indiana patent infringement lawsuit arises out of the filing by Defendant of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of ALIMTA prior to the expiration of the ‘209 patent. Defendant filed as a part of that ANDA a certification of the type described in Section 505(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 55(j)(2)(A)(vii)(IV), with respect to the patent-in-suit, asserting that the claims of the patent-in-suit are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of Defendant’s ANDA products.

In its complaint, filed by an Indiana patent lawyer, Lilly states that Defendant intends to engage in the manufacture, use, offer for sale, sale, marketing, distribution, and/or importation of Defendant’s ANDA products and the proposed labeling therefor immediately and imminently upon approval of the ANDA i.e., prior to the expiration of the patent-in-suit. Lilly asserts that Defendant’s actions constitute and/or will constitute infringement of the patent-in-suit, active inducement of infringement of the patent-in-suit, and contribution to the infringement by others of the patent-in-suit.

The complaint lists a single claim: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209. Lilly asks the court for the following relief:

(a) A judgment that Sandoz has infringed the ‘209 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of the ‘209 patent;

(b) A judgment ordering that the effective date of any FDA approval for Sandoz to make, use, offer for sale, sell, market, distribute, or import Sandoz’s ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, be not earlier than the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;

(c) A preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining Sandoz, and all persons acting in concert with Sandoz, from making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing Sandoz’s ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, or the inducement of or contribution to any of the foregoing, prior to the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, inclusive of any extension(s) and additional period(s) of exclusivity;

(d) A judgment declaring that making, using, selling, offering for sale, marketing, distributing, or importing of Sandoz’s ANDA Products, or any product the use of which infringes the ‘209 patent, prior to the expiration date of the ‘209 patent, infringes, will infringe, will actively induce infringement of, and/or will contribute to the infringement by other of the ‘209 patent;

(e) A declaration that this is an exceptional case and an award of attorneys’ fees pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 285; and

(f) An award of Lilly’s costs and expenses in this action.

December 29, 2014

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Bettie Page, LLC Sues Vibes Base

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana trademark attorney for Bettie Page, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana (“BPL”) sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Vibes Base Enterprises, Inc. of El Monte, California (“Vibes Base”) committed unfair competition under federal, California and Indiana common law. BPL has asked the court for the cancellation of a federal trademark registration belonging to Vibes Base.

BLP claims that it is the exclusive owner of the name, likeness, voice, right of publicity and endorsement, worldwide trademarks, copyrights and other intellectual property related to the late model Bettie Page. Among its intellectual property holdings are trademark registrations for BETTIE PAGE, trademark numbers 2,868,613 and 2,868,614 which have been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Vibes Base develops, manufactures and markets lines of apparel products and accessories under various brand names, including “Bette Paige.” In May 1999, Sand K. Inc. obtained federal trademark registration number 2,244,182 for the mark BETTE PAIGE for women’s clothing. Sand assigned that mark to Vibes Base in 2011.

In March 2014, BPL filed a federal trademark application for the BETTIE PAGE trademark for “computerized on-line retail store services in the field of clothing…” and similar uses. The USPTO refused registration of this trademark on the grounds that a likelihood of confusion existed between BETTIE PAGE, for which Plaintiff had applied, and the trademark BETTE PAIGE, which had previously been registered.

Plaintiff contends that the registration and/or use of the BETTE PAIGE trademark is an illegal use of the Page intellectual property, including the right of publicity.

In this complaint, filed by an Indiana trademark lawyer, the following counts are asserted:

• Count I: Unfair Competition Under 15 U.S.C. §1125(A)
• Count II: Unfair Competition Under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200 et seq.
• Count III: Common Law Unfair Competition
• Count IV: Unjust Enrichment
• Count V: Right of Publicity Infringement Under Cal. Civ. Code §3344.1
• Count VI: Request for Declaratory Judgment of No Trademark Infringement
• Count VII: Declaration that Defendant’s Registration is Invalid (Non Compliance with 15 U.S.C. §1052(c))
• Count VIII: Declaration that Defendant’s Registration is Invalid (False Designation of Origin, Sponsorship or Endorsement)

BPL asks the court to cancel Vibes Base’s BETTE PAIGE trademark; for an award of actual damages; for treble damages for willful and/or intentional use of an unauthorized trademark; for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses; to order Vibes Base to destroy or surrender to BPL all unauthorized products, including all products that Vibes Base is able to recall; and, in the alternative, to declare that BPL’s trademark, as contained in its trademark application, is not confusingly similar to the BETTE PAIGE trademark.

December 23, 2014

Indiana Patent Litigation: Lilly Sues Amneal on Allegations of Patent Infringement of Axiron

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – In conjunction with co-counsel, an Indiana patent attorney for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, Eli Lilly Export S.A. of Geneva, Switzerland (collectively, “Lilly”) and Acrux DDS Pty Ltd. of West Melbourne, Australia sued for patent infringement in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC of Bridgewater, New Jersey, infringed its patented product Axiron®, for which Plaintiffs claim patent protection under Patent Nos. 8,435,944; 8,419,307; 8,177,449 and 8,807,861, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

Lilly is engaged in the business of research, development, manufacture and sale of pharmaceutical products. Acrux is engaged in the development and commercialization of pharmaceutical products. They sell their products worldwide. Amneal is a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, markets and distributes generic pharmaceutical products for sale in the United States.

Lilly is the holder of approved New Drug Application No. 022504 for the manufacture and sale of a transdermal testosterone solution made at a concentration of 30 mg/1.5L, which it markets under the trade name “Axiron®.” This drug is used to treat males for conditions associated with a deficiency or absence of endogenous testosterone.

This action relates to the Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) submitted by Amneal to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for approval to market a generic version of Lilly’s Axiron product. Defendant certified to the FDA that, in its opinion, the patents-in-suit were invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of the generic version of Axiron described in the ANDA.

Plaintiffs contend that the submission of the ANDA to the FDA constitutes infringement by Defendant of the patents-in-suit. In the complaint, patent lawyers for Lilly and Acrux assert sixteen separate counts related to patent infringement. Among the allegations listed for the patents-in-suit are counts of “Direct Infringement,” “Inducement to Infringe,” “Contributory Infringement” and for declaratory judgment.

The complaint asks for an injunction to stop Defendant from producing the generic version of Axiron until the expiration of Lilly’s patents-in-suit. In addition, Lilly asks that the court declare the patents to be valid and enforceable; that Defendant infringed upon all of the patents-in-suit by, inter alia, submitting Defendant’s ANDA to obtain approval to commercially manufacture, use, offer for sale, sell or import its generic version of the drug into the United States; that Defendant’s threatened acts constitute infringement of the patents-in-suit; that FDA approval of Defendant’s generic drug be effective no sooner than the expiration date of the patent-in-suit that expires last; and that this is an exceptional case. Plaintiffs also ask for costs and attorneys’ fees.

December 22, 2014

Indiana Trademark Litigation: Zip-A-Tee Sues for Declaration of Non-Infringement and Damages

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – James Cross acting pro se, and Zip-A-Tee Inc. of Michigan City, Indiana sued in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Coalition to Advance the Protection of Sports Logos (“CAPS”) of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho wrongfully interfered with Plaintiffs’ use of Plaintiffs’ intellectual property, including both trademark and patent protection. Also named as Defendant is Debevoise & Plimpton LLP of New York City.

Zip-A-Tee owns Trademark Registration No. 4,343,916, which was registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Patent Nos. D580,633 and D581,136, which were also issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

In 2012 and 2013, CAPS sent several letters to Zip-A-Tee claiming trademark infringement and counterfeiting by Plaintiffs of various trademarked sports logos. Among CAPS’ assertions was that Cross and/or Zip-A-Tee had offered for sale jerseys bearing “Lakers” and “Bulls” trademarks. CAPS also contacted GoDaddy.com and other website-hosting companies asserting that CAPS’ intellectual property had been infringed. In response, those companies apparently suspended Zip-A-Tee’s websites.

Cross, acting as his own Indiana trademark counsel, has sued Defendants on behalf of himself and the corporation. He makes the following claims for relief:

• Declaratory Relief of Non-Infringement of Trademark

• Preliminary and Permanent Injunction

Plaintiffs ask for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs also ask to be awarded statutory damages of $700 million “for each website removed by CAPS member Infringement request and claims [sic]” as well as $500,000 “per domain name change.” Additionally, Plaintiffs request an award of punitive damages of $5 billion due to the “willfully [sic], wanton, egregiously [sic] and insidious” nature of Defendants’ conduct.

December 5, 2014

Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation: DirecTV Sues Alleging Illegal Satellite Signal Interception

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An intellectual property lawyer for DirecTV, LLC of El Segundo, California has sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging the illegal use of DirecTV’s satellite signal. Named as Defendants in the complaint are Rodolpho Flores, who has been sued as an individual and also as an officer, director, shareholder, and/or principal of Mexico City Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Mexico City Grill, and Mexico City Restaurant, Inc., d/b/a Mexico City Grill (collectively, “Defendants”). DirecTV claims that Defendants are located in Fishers and Indianapolis, Indiana. DirecTV seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as damages for the improper receipt, transmission and exhibition of its satellite programming signals.

DirecTV distributes satellite programming throughout the United States. Through its operations, DirecTV provides this programming via specialized satellite-signal receiving equipment to subscribers who purchase a programming license by paying a subscription fee.

In its intellectual property complaint, DirecTV acknowledges that it granted a license for commercial service at the Mexico City Grill located on Fishers Station Drive. However, it claims that the DirecTV receiver authorized for the Mexico City Grill on Fishers Station Drive was, in fact, used at a second Mexico City Grill located on Emerson Avenue without the proper authorization from DirecTV.

This intellectual property lawsuit was brought under the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984, 47 U.S.C. §521, et seq. DirecTV also asserts that Defendants’ conduct violates several federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. §§2511 and 2512, and 47 U.S.C. §605, and laws of the State of Indiana. The complaint further alleges that Defendants’ use of an authorized commercial subscription to DirecTV in a commercial establishment for which it was not authorized was willful and unlawful.

The complaint, filed by an intellectual property lawyer for DirecTV, lists three causes of action:

Count One: Damages for Violations of Cable Communications Policy Act under 47 U.S.C. §605(e)(3)(c);
Count Two: Damages for Violations of 18 U.S.C. §2511; and
Count Three: Civil Conversion.

DirecTV asks for the following: a declaration that Defendants’ use of DirecTV was a violation of 18 U.S.C. §2511 and 47 U.S.C. §605 and that such violations were willful and for the purpose of commercial advantage; an injunction against further violations; statutory damages under 18 U.S.C. §2511; statutory damages under 47 U.S.C. §605; punitive damages; costs; attorney’s fees and interest.