Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

October 10, 2011

Home Depot Successfully Defends Copyright Infringement Suit in Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Chicago, IL — Copyright lawyers for Home Depot successfully defended a copyright infringement lawsuit that had been appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Edgenet, Inc. of Waukesha, Wisconsin had filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Wisconsin alleging that Home Depot of Atlanta, Georgia infringed the copyrighted work BIG HAMMER MASTER COLLECTION TAXONOMY , which has been registered by the US Copyright Office.

Home Depot had contracted with Edgenet to develop a “taxonomy” which is essentially a method of categorizing different types of products. The parties successfully worked together for several years, but at some point Home Depot decided to develop their own taxonomy in-house that was built upon Edgenet’s system. At that point, Edgenet caught wind and filed to copyright its taxonomy, calling it Big Hammer Master Collection Taxonomy. Home Depot offered Edgenet $100,000 for a perpetual license and informed Edgenet that it would discontinue using its services. Edgenet, however, declined the check and filed suit alleging copyright infringement. In an opinion by Judge Easterbrook, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals found that Home Depot had not infringed the copyrighted work. The court found Home Depot had a right to use the intellectual property pursuant the parties’ contract, which did not limit types of uses.

Practice Tip: In this case, the Court of Appeals asked for supplemental briefing because it was not sure whether the federal courts would have jurisdiction over the case. The court noted that federal jurisdiction is available if the case involves a federal question (28 U.S.C. 1331) or if there is diversity of citizenship. Since both corporations were registered in Delaware, diversity of citizenship was not available. The question the court was concerned with was whether this was simply a contract dispute, which would be a state law question, or whether the controversy was really copyright infringement, a federal question. The court noted the T.B. Harms doctrine, which states that “the fact that a copyright is a contract’s subject matter does not change the status of a claim that arises under the contract.” According to the court, the supplemental briefs confirmed that the controversy was a copyright infringement claim.
Continue reading

October 8, 2011

Coach, Inc. Wins Default Judgment of $30,000 in Trademark Infringement Suit Against Tom’s Treasure Chest of Gary, Indiana

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Chief Judge Philip P. Simon of the Northern District of Indiana has award a default judgment and $30,000 in damages to Coach, Inc. of New York, New York in a trademark infringement case over the sale of knock-off Coach purses against a Gary, Indiana business.

In June 2010, trademark attorneys for Coach filed a trademark infringement lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Tom’s Treasure Chest of Gary, Indiana infringed 48 trademarks registered with the US Trademark Office. Coach also alleged Tom’s Treasure Chest infringed the copyrighted works of Registration No. VAu000704542, LEGACY STRIPE, Registration No. VA0001228917, SIGNATURE C DESIGNS, Registration No. VAu1-046658, COACH 70^th ANNIVERSARY SNAPHEAD PRINT AND Registration No. VA1-010-918, COACH CLOVER DESIGN which have been registered by the US Copyright Office. The complaint alleged that a Coach representative purchased two handbags labeled “Coach” at Tom’s Treasure Chest store in Gary on May 12, 2010. The purchased handbags were not genuine Coach products, rather they were knock-off products. The complaint made claims of trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin and false advertising, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, unfair competition, criminal forgery, and criminal counterfeiting.

Since Tom’s has failed to respond to the lawsuit in anyway, Coach filed a motion for default judgment. The court in its opinion granted the default judgment. The court then turned to the issue of damages. Coach sought statutory damages of $100,000 per violation, which would total $600,000 and argued that these damages were reasonable since Coach could have sought up to $12,000,000 under the statute. The court, however, found this amount was unreasonable. The court noted the only allegation was the sale of two infringing handbags and that Coach had not presented evidence of actual damages in this range. The court concluded that damages in the amount of $5,000 per violation for a total of $30,000. The court also awarded attorney fees and costs.

Practice Tip: Coach filed a nearly identical complaint against J & J.S. Petroleum just a few days ago. Indiana Intellectual Property Law News blogged about case here.

This case illustrates the importance of seeking legal counsel from a trademark infringement lawyer who will properly respond to a lawsuit if you are served with a similar complaint and summons. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b)(2) governs default judgment and allows the court to enter a default judgment after considering numerous factors. Here, the court gave great weight to the fact that the lawsuit was filed in June 2010 and Tom’s had not filed any type of response. The court also considered that “it’s in the public’s interest to protect intellectual property from trademark infringement.”
Continue reading

October 7, 2011

Indiana Court issues Markman Ruling in GS Cleantech v. Big River for Ethanol Processing Patents.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Senior Judge Larry J. McKinney of the Southern District of Indiana has issued a claim construction order in a patent infringement lawsuit. Patent attorneys for GS Cleantech Corporation of New York, New York, filed a patent infringement suit regarding patent no. 7,601,858, Method of processing ethanol byproducts and related subsystems which has been issued by the US Patent Office.

The ‘858 patent is directed to “a method of processing a concentrated byproduct of a dry milling process for producing ethanol. In its most basic form, the method comprises of recovering oil from the concentrated byproduct.” Id. col.2 l.18-22. The specification of the patent repeatedly refers to the invention as a two-step process comprised of a concentration step and a recovery step. Plaintiffs accuse Defendants’ methods of infringing “The Concentrate Terms” of the ‘858 patent.

In the order the Court construed the following terms:

Claim Term	Construction
“concentrate”/”concentrated byproduct”/ “concentrated thin stillage”.	“syrup containing water, oil, and solids resulting from the concentrating or evaporating process”.
“mechanically processing”	“to subject to a mechanical device (or devices) to effect a particular result”.
“heating and mechanically processing the concentrate/ concentrated byproduct/concentrated thin stillage to separate the oil from the concentrate/concentrated byproduct/concentrated thin stillage”	“the Concentrate Term (as construed by the Court in this Order) subjected to heat and a mechanical device (or devices) to extract a product that is substantially oil from the Concentrate Term (as construed by the Court in this Order)”.
“centrifuging the concentrate to recover oil “.	“processing the concentrate (as defined by the Court in this Order) with a centrifuge to separate the oil from the concentrate so that the oil stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially oil and the remaining concentrate stream coming out of the centrifuge is substantially free of oil”

Practice Tip:Previous articles about this litigation have posted many times by Indiana Intellectual Property Law News including:

GS Cleantech Files Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Flottweg in Indiana

Multiple Patent Infringement Suits Brought by Greenshift Consolidated in Indiana

GS CleanTech Sues Iroquois Bio-Energy for Patent Infringement

Cardinal Ethanol Sued by GS Cleantech for Patent Infringement

October 6, 2011

Southern District of Indiana Denies John Doe’s Motion to Quash Subpoena Seeking to Reveal the Identity of an IP Address That Allegedly Downloaded Adult Video in Copyright Infringement Suit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

New Albany, IN – Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann of the Southern District of Indiana has denied a Motion to Quash Subpoena filed by Defendant Doe No. 2 in First Time Video v. Indiana John Does 1-18. A copyright infringement attorney had filed a motion to quash subpoena on behalf of John Doe Number 2. Copyright lawyers for First Time Video did not know the names and addresses of the person who allegedly committed copyright infringement by downloading adult videos and had named 18 “John Does” when the suit was filed. First Time Video then served subpoenas on the internet service providers seeking the names and addresses of certain IP addresses which were alleged to have downloaded the copyrighted works. John Doe 2’s copyright attorney argued that the internet service provider subpoena should be quashed because it sought protected information and the subpoena was unduly burdensome.

The court’s order denied the motion to quash, meaning the internet service providers can be expected to turn over the names and addresses of the subscribers with the IP addresses that First Time has identified. The court’s order also reveals that John Doe 2 claims to be a woman who denies downloading the adult video. While denying the motion to quash, the Court made a very interesting notation at the end of the order:

The Magistrate Judge notes Doe No. 2’s concerns that the disclosure of her identity can lead to unwarranted embarrassing public disclosures, extortion-like attempts to force settlements, or lawsuits brought against defendants who have no liability. Those concerns are not far-fetched. However, the Rules of Professional Responsibility and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure stand as barriers to such conduct. Plaintiff’s attorneys are admonished to carefully consider these rules before determining what use to make of the information garnered from the Subpoena.

This case was previously blogged about by Indiana Intellectual Property Law News when it was filed. This is one of three suits currently pending in the Southern District of Indiana that are copyright infringement suits alleging infringement of adult videos by Indiana John Does using the BitTorrent “distribution protocol”.

Practice Tip: Pursuant Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3), the Court could quash a subpoena if it requests protected information or if it is unduly burdensome. The court here noted “there is no expectation of privacy in Internet subscriber information because it has already been exposed to a third party, the Internet Service Provider.” Regarding the undue burden argument, the court noted “Courts that have addressed this issue have concluded that the issuance of a subpoena to the Internet Service Provider of putative defendants does not create an undue burden on the putative defendants because they are not required to produce anything.”

October 5, 2011

Indiana Patent Attorneys Obtain 105 Patents for Indiana Companies in September, 2011

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indiana patent attorneys obtained issuance of the following 105 patents from the US Patent Office to persons and businesses in Indiana in September, 2011:

	PAT. NO.	Title
1	D645,908	Wall mounted sign
2	D645,906	Literature holder
3	D645,905	Literature holder
4	8,026,822	Networked pest control system
5	8,026,821	System for monitoring caregivers and equipment at a patient location

October 4, 2011

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Consider Several Intellectual Property Cases

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, DC – On Monday, October 3, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court opened its session and refused to review several appellate decisions in patent, trademark and copyright cases. These included the following cases:

Lockwood v. Sheppard, Mullin, Richter, & Hampton, LLP., U.S., No. 10-1339.

The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed a district court dismissal of a patent owner’s malicious prosecution suite against the patent attorney that requested the USPTO to reexamine his patents. The patent owner had alleged, among other things, that the law firm filed a sham reexamination request with misrepresentations of the prior art. The district court held that the state law claims were essentially allegations of fraud and bad faith before the USPTO, preempted by federal law under Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (2001). The district court also found the claims over the 2003 reexamination request barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

October 3, 2011

Southern District of Indiana Issues Discovery Order in Copyright Infringement Suit Over Our Lady of America Works

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch of the Southern District of Indiana has issued a decision in a discovery dispute in a copyright infringement lawsuit. Intellectual property attorneys for Kevin B. McCarthy of Indianapolis, Indiana, Albert H. Langsenkamp, Carmel, Indiana and BVM Foundation, Inc. of Batesville, Indiana had filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana making several claims against that Patricia Ann Fuller, also known as Sister Joseph Therese of Fostoria, Ohio and John Doe of Ohio. Ms. Fuller apparently has counterclaimed claiming trademark and copyright ownership of the copyrighted work OUR LADY OF AMERICA. Ms. Fuller apparently operates the website www.ourladyofamerica.com.

The Our Lady of America copyrighted works are drawings and statutes based upon a nun’s visions of the Virgin Mary that began in the 1950s. According to the complaint filed in the case, Ms. Fuller claims she owns the copyright to one of the Our Lady of America statute and the parties dispute the ownership. The plaintiffs disagree and believe Ms. Fuller is making numerous misrepresentations regarding the works and is fraudulently representing herself as the owner of the works and marks. In the original complaint, the plaintiffs made claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, fraud, deception, theft, criminal conversion, and civil conspiracy. It appears that Ms. Fuller is claiming copyright and/or trademark rights to the images and statutes. The court’s discovery orders require her to disclose information such as “how the representation of the Virgin Mary was being used as a trademark in 1960.

Practice Tip: It appears that Ms. Fuller provided vague answers to numerous interrogatories sent to her. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)(1)(A) requires parties to supplement their answers to discovery questions when the party learns that an answer provided is incomplete or incorrect.
Continue reading

September 30, 2011

133 Trademark Registrations Issued to Indiana Companies in September, 2011

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

The US Trademark Office issued the following 133 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in September, 2011, based on applications filed by Indiana Trademark Attorneys:

	Reg. Number	Mark	Click to View
1	4,031,780	THE HOOSIER FARMER	LIVE
2	4,032,934	CLASSKIT	LIVE
3	4,031,704	SHORT CIRCUITS	LIVE
4	4,031,695	VIRGINITY ROCKS	LIVE
5	4,032,917	SMART POWER BLOCK	LIVE

September 29, 2011

Coach, Inc. Files Federal Trademark and Copyright Infringement Lawsuits Against Indiana Company J & JS Petroleum, Inc. for Infringements of Handbags

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Trademark lawyers for Coach, Inc. of New York, New York have filed a trademark infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging J & JS Petroleum, Inc. of Indianapolis, Indiana infringed the forty-eight trademarks registered with the US Trademark Office. In this suit, Coach also alleges J & JS infringed the copyrighted works of Registration No. VAu000704542, LEGACY STRIPE, Registration No. VA0001228917, SIGNATURE C DESIGNS, Registration No. VAu1-046658, COACH 70^th ANNIVERSARY SNAPHEAD PRINT AND Registration No. VA1-010-918, COACH CLOVER DESIGN which have been registered by the US Copyright Office.

The complaint against J & JS alleges that the company operates a gas station and convenience store at 9025 Brookville Road in Indianapolis where a Coach representative purchased a purse labeled “Coach” on August 21, 2011. The knock-off purse was purchased for $59.99, rather than the normal retail price of the Coach purse of approximately $298. Coach had not authorized the use of the “Coach” mark on the purse sold. The Coach representative viewed additional product labeled “Coach” for sale in the store. The complaint makes claims of trademark counterfeiting, trademark infringement, trade dress infringement, false designation of origin and false advertising, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, unfair competition, criminal forgery, and criminal counterfeiting.

Practice Tip: Coach has recently been very aggressively defending its intellectual property rights in Indiana. Indiana Intellectual Property Law News has previously reported on several cases here:

Coach Files Two Trademark and Copyright Infringement Lawsuits in Northern District Over Knock-Off Coach Items

Coach, Inc. Sues Chaos of Muncie and Angelina’s Unique Boutique for Trademark and Trade Dress Infringement For Sale of Coach Knock-Off Products

Coach, Inc. and Coach Services, Inc. Sue Diggz Clothing LLC and Lori Harth for trademark and trade dress infringement
Continue reading

September 27, 2011

The Court of Appeals for Indiana Dismisses Counterfeiting, Theft and Corrupt Business Criminal Charges Based On Alleged Trademark Infringement Suit Involving Sale of Toy Guns.

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, IN – Chief Judge ROBB of the Court of Appeals for Indiana has issued an opinion regarding An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin Houston, Texas; who were charged with counterfeiting, theft, and corrupt business influence Huntington County, Indiana Circuit Court based upon the sale of toy guns that allegedly infringement federally registered trademarks.

Defendant Lin operates a business in Houston, Texas called Generation Guns, which imports toy guns from Taiwan and sells the toy guns to the public, including the GA-112 Airsoft gun. Defendant Yao is the vice-president of a Houston bank and is a friend of Lin who allegedly occasionally helps Lin with the Generation Guns business. In 2009, firearms manufacturer Heckler & Koch engaged Continental Enterprises of Indianapolis, to investigate possible trademark infringement claims of H&K’s federally registered trademarks. Continental Enterprises placed orders with Generation Guns for several guns that it believed to infringe H&K’s trademarks and had the products delivered to addresses in Huntington County, Indiana. Continental Enterprises then filed a report with the Indiana State Police. The prosecuting attorney in Huntington County then charged Lin and Yao each with three counts of counterfeiting, three counts of theft, and one count of corrupt business influence “based upon the similarities between the GA-112 airsoft guns and H&K’s firearm.”

The defendants had filed a motion to dismiss in the trial court arguing that the court did not have jurisdiction since all the alleged act occurred in Texas and also argued that the toy gun was not a “written instrument” for the purposes of the counterfeiting crime. The trial court found that it did have jurisdiction, but dismissed the counterfeiting claim, finding that toy was not a “written instrument.” In this interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the trial court should have dismissed the case since Indiana did not have territorial jurisdiction. The court looked to Indiana Code 35-41-1-1(b), which states that Indiana has jurisdiction if conduct or a result that is an element of the crime occurred in Indiana. The court noted that jurisdiction in a criminal case is a factual issue for the jury to determine. However, the court noted that there was no factual dispute about whether the acts occurred in Texas, and therefore, the case should have been dismissed as a matter of law. The court did not address the claim that the toy gun was not a written instrument.

Practice Tip: This case is interesting to Indiana intellectual property attorneys for a number of reasons. First, it involves Continental Enterprises, a frequent litigant in Indiana intellectual property lawsuit. Indiana Intellectual Property Law News has previously blogged about Continental Enterprises cases here.

Secondly, this case addresses the unique issue of territorial jurisdiction for criminal actions. In this case the court looked to Indiana Code 35-41-1-1(b), which states that Indiana has jurisdiction if conduct or a result that is an element of the crime occurred in Indiana. The court noted that jurisdiction in a criminal case is a factual issue for the jury to determine. However, the court noted that there was no factual dispute about whether the acts occurred in Texas, and therefore, the case should have been dismissed as a matter of law. This is a different standard than Indiana courts’ personal jurisdiction for purposes of civil liability.

Finally, the Court of Appeals decided that the trial court did not have jurisdiction, there by evading the issues of how a “product” like a toy gun, can be a “written instrument” for purposes of counterfeiting criminal offense. Another recent Court of Appeals opinion addressed the definition of a written instrument.
Continue reading