New Litigation

May 18, 2020

Texas Photographer Sues Gray Television for Alleged Copyright Infringement

South Bend, Indiana – Kevin Jairaj (“Jairaj”), the Plaintiff, claims to be a professional photographer in the business of licensing his photographs including one of Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney (the “Photograph”). Jairaj claims to have registered the Photograph with the U.S. Copyright Office and granted Copyright Registration No. VA 2-112-984. According to the Complaint, Defendant Gray Television ran multiple articles on its websites regarding the alleged sexual abuse of McKayla Maroney featuring the Photograph without a license. Jairaj is seeking damages and statutory relief for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. §§ 106 and 501 and intentionally removing copyright management information pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 1202.

The case was assigned to District Judge Robert L. Miller, Jr., and Magistrate Judge Michael G. Gotsch, Sr. in the Northern District and assigned Case 3:20-cv-00156-RLM-MGG.

Complaint

May 8, 2020

Photographer Seeks Damages for Alleged Copyright Infringement of Horse Photograph

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana – George Matula (“Matula”), the Plaintiff, claims to be a professional photographer in the business of licensing his photographs for a fee. Matula allegedly photographed a horse and registered the photograph as U.S. Copyright No. VA 2-154-421 (the “Photograph”) in 2018. According to the Complaint, Defendant Triple H Magazine ran the Photograph in its publication without licensing the Photograph from Matula in violation of the U.S. Copyright Act. Therefore, Matula is seeking damages for copyright infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 504(b).

The case was assigned to District Judge Holly A. Brady and Magistrate Judge Susan L. Collins in the Northern District and assigned Case 1:20-cv-00071-HAB-SLC.

Complaint

April 21, 2020

Gary Indiana Venue Sued for Alleged Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Broadcast Music, Inc. (“BMI”), along with eleven other Plaintiffs (the “Copyright Owners”), filed suit against Backstage of Indiana, LLC d/b/a Backstage on Broadway (“Backstage”) and Marcell Jackson (“Jackson” and collectively “Defendants”) alleging copyright infringement of six different musical compositions. BMI alleges it has licensing rights to the six musical compositions at issue which are owned by the eleven Copyright Owners. Jackson is allegedly an owner of Backstage and is responsible for the operation and management of the establishment including the public performance of musical compositions. BMI and the Copyright Owners are seeking damages for six claims of willful copyright infringement after allegedly reaching out to Defendants over seventy times in an effort to educate them on the Copyright Act and license the musical compositions to Defendants.

The case was assigned to Northern District Judge Philip P. Simon and Magistrate Judge Joshua P. Kolar in the Northern District and assigned Case 2:20-cv-00010-PPS-JPK.

BMI-Complaint

April 9, 2020

Car Seat Manufacturer Sued Again for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiffs, Esther A. L. Verbovszky (“Verbovzsky”) and Hug Me Joey, LLC (“Hug Me Joey”), less than a year after voluntarily dismissing a similar lawsuit, have once again filed a complaint against Defendant Dorel Juvenile Group, Inc. d/b/a Maxi-Cosi (“Dorel”) claiming patent infringement. According to the Complaint, Verbovzsky strives to design and invent products to abate breathing and digestive issues in small infants during transport. Verbovzsky further claims to be the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,467,840 (the ‘840 Patent”) for “Child’s Car Seat Insert.” As the founder and CEO of Hug Me Joey, Verbovzsky allegedly licensed the ‘840 Patent to Hug Me Joey for the manufacturing of the Hug Me Joey child’s car seat insert (the “HMJ Insert”).

Apparently Dorel manufactures car seats, including 22 models that were nam ed in the Complaint as the “Accused Products”. Plaintiffs claim each of the Accused Products that are manufactured and/or sold by Dorel infringe the ‘840 Patent due to the “infant insert”, “insert cushion(s)”, “insert pillow”, “body pillow”, or “body insert pillow” that is stated to come with each car seat. The Plaintiffs believe the infringement by Dorel to be willful and knowingly. Threfore, they are seeking treble damages and a finding that this is an exceptional case pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285, respectively.

The case was assigned to District Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman in the Southern District and assigned Case 1:20-cv-00061-RLY-MPB.

April 8, 2020

Competing Jewelry Companies in Court Again over Alleged Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Sheryl Lutz-Brown (“Sheryl”), the principal for Plaintiff, Corlinea, is a graphic designer and creator of copyrighted jewelry designs. In 2016, Sheryl claims to have developed a unique work entitled “HEARTY LOVE Design” that incorporated the word “love” into a heart shape design with one continuous line. Shortly after the “HEARTY LOVE Design”, it appears Sheryl created the “Heartlines Love Pendant” which was a heart-shaped pendant with the word “love” incorporated into the design with a continuous line. Sheryl registered both of these designs and they were assigned U.S. Copyright Registration Nos. VAu 1-301-361 and VAu 2-093-049 (the “Registered Copyrights”), respectively. Corlinea claims to own both of the Registered Copyrights by assignment.

Corlinea and Defendant, Shah Diamonds, Inc. d/b/a Shah Luxury (“Shah”), are no strangers in litigation as Corlinea previously sued Shah in a similar lawsuit in 2018. The parties in that case entered into a confidential Settlement Agreement and Release and the case was voluntarily dismissed. Less than one year after Shah signed the previous Settlement Agreement and Release, Corlinea claims it discovered Shah was once again offering infringing jewelry for sale on its website.

Corlinea claims Defendants, Spath Jewelers, Inc. and Showcase Jewelers, LTD are also offering infringing jewelry for sale on their respective websites. Due to the allegedly intentional copying of the Registered Copyrights, Corlinea is seeking damages for Federal Copyright Infringement pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 501 and breach of the Settlement Agreement and Release from the 2018 lawsuit.

March 10, 2020

Tatuyou Sues Indiana-Based One Ink Seven for Alleged Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Tatuyou, L.L.C. (“Tatuyou”) of Hastings, Minnesota, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, One Ink Seven LLC (“One Ink”) of Goshen, Indiana and Robert F. Smead (“Smead”), infringed its rights in its intellectual property portfolio. Tatuyou is seeking damages,costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Tatuyou claims to be in the business of selling products to be used in the tattoo industry with an intellectual property portfolio all relating to its sales business. According to the complaint, Tatuyou is the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 9,546,281 (the “‘281 Patent”) entitled “Tattoo Stencil Composition and Method for Manufacturing.” Tatuyou also claims to be the owner by assignment of U.S. Patent No. 8,545,613 (the “‘613 Patent”) entitled “Tattoo Transfer Pattern Printed by an Ink Jet Printer.”

According to the complaint, One Ink does business as “Electrum Supply” and owns and operates a website with the domain name: http://www.electrumsupply.com. Tatuyou claims that One Ink is infringing, actively inducing infringement, and contributorily infringing both the ‘281 Patent and the ‘613 Patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by offering for sale products named “Electrum Premium Tattoo Stencil Primer,” “Electrum Gold Standard Tattoo Stencil Primer,” “NOX Violet,” and “Eco Stencils.” Tatuyou’s attorney allegedly sent One Ink a letter on December 20, 2018 informing One Ink of the alleged infringement of the ‘281 Patent and a subsequent letter on June 12, 2019 to inform One Ink of the alleged infringement of the ‘613 Patent.

March 4, 2020

Brightlamp, Inc. of Indianapolis Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, NeurOptics, Inc. (“NeurOptics”) of Laguna Hills, California, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Brightlamp, Inc. (“Brightlamp”) of Indianapolis, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent Nos. 6,820,979 (the “‘979 Patent”) and 9,402,542 (the “‘542 Patent” and collectively the “Asserted Patents”). NeurOptics is seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

Click Image for larger size

NeurOptics claims to be an industry leader for the design, manufacture, and sale of pupilometer products. According to the Complaint, NeurOptics owns the Asserted Patents that are both entitled “Pupilometer with pupil irregularity detection, pupil tracking, and pupil response detection capability, glaucoma screening capability, intracranial pressure detection capability, and ocular aberration measurement capability.” Brightlamp is allegedly a manufacturer and distributor of pupilometer products.

As claimed in the Complaint, Brightlamp’s “Reflex” Mobile Pupillometer Application (“Accused Product”) is available for download and use by certified medical professionals and the use of that application results in direct infringement of the Asserted Patents. NeurOptics also stated it believes Brightlamp has infringed various claims from other patents owned by NeurOptics and the Complaint is likely to be amended as it completes its investigation. NeurOptics claims it sent a cease and desist notice in writing to Brightlamp prior to filing the Complaint, but Brightlamp continued the alleged infringement. Therefore, NeurOptics is seeking damages for infringement of the ‘542 and ‘979 Patents pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271 with willful damages, fees, and costs pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §§ 284 and 285.

February 19, 2020

Urschel Laboratories, Inc. of Chesterton, Indiana Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Hammond, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, FAM N.V. (“FAM”) of Belgium, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Urschel Laboratories, Inc. (“Urschel”) of Chesterton, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. D730,703 (the “D‘703 Patent”) entitled “Knife Holder”. FAM is seeking judgment, consequential and compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

FAM claims to be a world leader in designing, developing, and manufacturing of cutting solutions for the food industry. According to the Complaint, the D’703 Patent was issued to Brent L. Bucks on June 2, 2015 and was later assigned to FAM. FAM alleges the “25883 Urschel® USA” product is an example of a knife holder that has infringed the D’703 Patent. Further, FAM claims Urschel’s alleged infringement of the D’703 Patent is “willful, deliberate, and objectively reckless.” As such, FAM is seeking damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284 or 35 U.S.C. § 289, and is requesting the case be considered “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285.

February 18, 2020

Indiana Trademark Litigation:Harley-Davidson Sues Harley Life, LLC for alleged Trademark and Copyright Infringement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Terre Haute, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, H-D U.S.A., LLC and Harley-Davidson Motor Company Group, LLC (collectively “Harley”), both of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Harley Life, LLC (“Harley Life”) and Bill Lemon (“Lemon” and collectively “Defendants”), both of Vincennes, Indiana, infringed their rights in U.S. Copyright Reg. No. VA 1-987-746 and the United States Trademark Registrations below (collectively “Harley’s Intellectual Property”).

Mark	Reg. No.	Goods and Services
HARLEY	1406876	Clothing; namely—tee shirts for men, women and children; knit tops for women and girls; and children’s shirts
HARLEY	1683455	Shirts, tank tops, boots and sweatshirts
HARLEY	1708362	Embroidered patches for clothing
HARLEY	1352679	Motorcycles
HARLEY	3818855	Non-luminous, non-mechanical tin signs, non-luminous, non-mechanical metal signs
	4465604	Clothing, namely, shirts, hats, caps, belts, jackets, gloves, sweatshirts, lounge pants, wrist bands
	3525970	Jackets, coats, gloves, shirts, shorts, caps, hats, headwear, knit hats, belts, neckties, pants, sweatshirts, T-shirts, leather clothing, namely, leather jackets, leather gloves, footwear, namely, boots and vest extenders

February 7, 2020

Indiana-Based Orthotict Sued for Alleged Patent Infringement and Patent False Marking

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, ERMI LLC (“ERMI”) of Atlanta, Georgia, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Clyde Peach, Jr., (“Mr. Peach”) d/b/a Indiana Brace Co Inc., d/b/a, Clyde Peach LLC, d/b/a Peach Medical, LLC of Indianapolis, Indiana, willfully infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 6,669,660 (the “‘660 Patent”) for “Orthotic Apparatus and Method for Using Same.” ERMI is seeking damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and any other relief the Court deems proper.

According to the Complaint, Dr. Thomas P. Branch (“Dr. Branch”) while practicing as a board certified orthopedic surgeon with TREX Orthopedics, P.C., invented the orthotic apparatus claimed in the ‘660 Patent. Dr. Branch allegedly assigned all rights to the continuation patent application that led to the issuance of the ‘660 Patent to ERMI. The ‘660 Patent expired on August 10, 2019. ERMI claims it produces and sells the ERMI Knee Extensionater® device that is covered by the claims of the ‘660 Patent and marked with the ‘660 Patent number.

ERMI claims Mr. Peach filed a provisional followed by a non-provisional patent application (the “Peach ‘028 Application”) for a Knee Extension Therapy Device in July 2010 and July 2011, respectively. The Peach ‘028 Application was allegedly rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office on August 2, 2013 citing a number of patent references including the ‘660 Patent. ERMI claims the Peach ‘028 Application became abandoned on September 11, 2014 and that “Mr. Peach had actual notice of the ‘660 Patent no later than August 2, 2013.”