By

This case, originally filed by Barrington Music Products, Inc. in the Northern District of Indiana, was brought on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. After the Northern District awarded Barrington a mere $3,228.00 in damages, Barrington filed aVento-photo-300x120 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion asking the court to amend the damages awarded to $4,947,200.00. The Northern District denied the 59(e) motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Barrington’s attorney, Sean Quinn, frequently appears before the Northern District of Indiana for intellectual property infringement litigation cases such as this one. In this case, Guitar Center, Music & Arts, and Woodwind were each named as separate defendants. The jury found the sales by Guitar Center Ventus-Photo2were the only infringing sales and awarded the $3,228.00 accordingly.

After the case concluded, Barrington claims it discovered Music & Arts and Woodwind were divisions of Guitar Center and not distinct and separate entities. The Court of Appeals found that the judgment was rationally supported by the evidence and that there is no reason to conclude that the damages awarded would have been different had Guitar Center been the sole defendant. In support of this finding, the Court of Appeals pointed out that the original damages were awarded because the jury did not find that Music & Arts and Woodwind infringed on the “Ventus” mark.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Broadcast Music, Inc. of New York, New York, UniversalBMI2 Millhouse Music, Combine Music Corp., Rondor Music International, Inc. d/b/a Irving Music, Dandelion Music Co., Groper Music, Rhythm Wrangler Music, Songs of Universal, Inc., Get Loose Music, Inc., Tremonti Stapp Music, Reservoir Media Management Inc. d/b/a Reservoir 416 a/k/a Reservoir One America, Barbara Nicks Music, and Concord Music Group, Inc. d/b/a Jondora Music filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Dman Incorporated d/b/a The Grove Sports Bar & Eatery, James D. Pettigrew, and Deann Hensley all of Beech Grove, Indiana infringed its rights in many United States Copyright Registrations of musical compositions as stated below.

Musical Composition

 Registration and Date of Registration
Beat It PAu 456-334, PA 158-771, November 16, 1982, December 27, 1982
Don’t Tell My Heart a/k/a Achy Breaky Heart PA 534-864, July 29, 1991
Me and Bobby McGee Ep 260746, July 18, 1969
Seven Bridges Road Eu 106284, PA 104-190, March 21, 1969, April 13, 1981
She’s Some Kind of Wonderful a/k/a Some Kind of Wonderful Ep 232189, June 5, 1967
Trashy Women PAu 1 150 124, October 17, 1988
What’s Your Name Eu 853395, PA 13-433, December 7, 1977, July 3, 1978
My Own Prison PA 966-903, October 4, 1999
Silver Springs RE 905-601, Eu 713078, December 10, 2004, August 31, 1976
Proud Mary EU 91333, Ep 260526, December 27, 1968, July 11, 1969
Paradise Eu 785460, PA 13-430, May 13, 1977, September 18, 1978

Plaintiffs are seeking statutory damages, cost, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief the Court deems appropriate.

Continue reading

By

The U.S. Patent Office issued the following 197 patent registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in May 2019, based on applications filed by Indiana patent attorneys:

Overhauser Law Offices, the publisher of this site, assists with US and foreign patent searches, patent applications and assists with enforcing patents via infringement litigation and licensing.

Patent No. Title
1 RE047403 Calibration of sensors or measuring systems
2 D0849690 Electrical connector housing
3 D0849599 Truck dump body
4 D0849458 Merchandising display
5 D0849423 Recognition award

Continue reading

By

The U.S. Trademark Office issued the following  222 trademark registrations to persons and businesses in Indiana in May 2019 based on applications filed by Indiana trademark attorneys:

Registration No. Word Mark
5766181 GOSPEL STORY-ARC
5763604 VET UP!
5763172
5763170 WISHBONE
5762999 THE INVITATION

Continue reading

By

Hammond, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, New Berry, Inc., d/b/a Berry Metal Company (“New Berry”) of Harmony, Pennsylvania filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Todd G. Smith (“Smith”) of Grove City, Pennsylvania, and Allan J. MacRae (“MacRae”), and MacRae Technologies, Inc. blogphoto-194x300(“MacRae Technologies”), both of Hayward, California, infringed its rights in United States Patent No. 10,222,124 (the “‘124 Patent”) for “Stave with External Manifold” and United States Patent No. 9,121,076 (the “‘076 Patent”) for “Stave and Brick Constrictions Having Refactory Wear Monitors and in Process Thermocouples.” New Berry is seeking actual, compensatory, exemplary, and punitive damages, pre and post judgment interest, and attorneys’ fees.

According to the complaint, New Berry is the owner and assignee of both the ‘124 Patent, which was filed February 1, 2013 and issued on March 5, 2019, and the ‘076 Patent, which issued on September 1, 2015. New Berry claims that Smith signed an Employment Agreement with New Berry in 1996, which among other things assigned all of Smith’s inventions during his employment to New Berry and prohibited Smith from using or disclosing any trade secrets that pertain to New Berry’s products and services. Smith is listed as the inventor of the ‘124 Patent and a co-inventor of the ‘076 Patent.

New Berry claims that Smith, who left New Berry in 2015, is collaborating with MacRae and MacRae Technologies and has shared New Berry’s trade secrets with them. MacRae filed a patent application November 16, 2017 that issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,963,754 (the “’754 Patent”) on May 8, 2018. The complaint alleges MacRae assigned the ‘754 Patent to MacRae Technologies on March 6, 2019. New Berry claims that the “‘124 Patent reads on the staves comprising center manifold technology described and claimed in the ‘754 Patent.”

Continue reading

By

Judges in the Indiana Court of Appeals issued their Opinion in the case of Neptune Generics, LLC, and Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (collectively Lilly-v-Adocia-photo-300x170“Petitioners”) versus Eli Lilly and Company. The Patent Trial and Appeals Board (the “Board”) previously held in its inter partes review (“IPR”) that claims 1-22 of Eli Lilly’s U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the “’209 Patent”) were not unpatentable for obviousness. The Court of Appeals held the Board did not err in its analysis, that substantial evidence supported underlying fact findings and therefore the Board’s decision was affirmed.

The ‘209 Patent “relates to administering folic acid and a methylmalonic acid (“MMA”) lowering agent, such as vitamin B12, before administering pemetrexed disodium, a chemotherapy agent, in order to reduce the toxic effects of a pemetrexed, an antifolate.” There were three petitions for IPR relating to the ‘209 Patent for obviousness over various patents, patent applications, and articles. In each IPR, the Board found that the claims were not unpatentable for obviousness.

According to the Opinion, the Board found that it was known that pretreatment with folic acid reduces the toxicity relating to the administration of an antifolate, but there was not a reason to pretreat with Vitamin B12 in addition to folic acid before administering pemetrexed for cancer treatment. Further, the FDA, along with others, were skeptical of the treatment that supported their decision for nonobviousness.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Trade Design Studio LLC (“TDS”) of Indianapolis,Photo2 Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, 1824 Carrollton LLC of Fishers, Indiana, T.A.K.E 3 Investments LLC of Camby, Indiana, and Tena Allen of Camby, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Copyright Registration No. VA 2-142-029. Plaintiff is seeking judgment, damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and any other appropriate relief.

According to the complaint, TDS is a residential architectural design firm that has designed homes for clients primarily in Herron Morton Place, Fall Creek Place, and Kennedy King neighborhoods in downtown Indianapolis since 2006. TDS claims that no two of its homes are exactly alike. TDS alleges it drafted technical drawings (the “Technical Drawings”) for a new home to be built at 2134 N. New Jersey Street, Indianapolis, Indiana in 2017 (the “TDS Home”). According to TDS, the home was completed in April 2018 and sold for $700,000 in May 2018.

After the home sold, TDS applied for Certificates of Copyright Registration for the Technical Drawings, Registration No. VAu 1-350-598, and the Architectural Work, Registration No. VA 2-142-029. TDS claims they were informed of a home being built at 1824 Carrollton Avenue (the “Carrollton Home”) in the Kennedy King Neighborhood that was very similar to the TDS Home around February 28, 2019. Once TDS accessed and reviewed the construction permits and drawings for the Carrollton Home, it claims they were virtually identical to those for the TDS Home.

According to the publicly accessible information TDS found, it believes Tena Allen and T.A.K.E. 3 Investments applied for the construction permits and submitted the technical drawings for the Carrollton Home. Further, TDS believes 1824 Carrollton LLC is the current owner of the property for the Carrollton Home. TDS alleges it sent Defendants a cease and desist letter on March 28, 2019 and after a short suspension of construction to explore negotiations, Defendants resumed construction on or about April 8, 2019.

TDS is seeking damages for copyright infringement, conversion, and criminal conversion pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victims Recovery Act.

Continue reading

By

HerffJones-BlogPhoto-300x114Indianapolis, Indiana – Herff Jones, based in Indianapolis, Indiana won a multimillion-dollar case against its largest competitor, Jostens Inc., headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Herff Jones also won significant judgments against John Wiggins and Chris Urnis, former employees of Herff Jones distributor, Brent Gilbert of GradPro Recognition Products in the same case.

Jostens began negotiating employment agreements with Wiggins and Urnis prior to their leaving GradPro, despite their having strict noncompete agreements with GradPro, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit further claimed one of Jostens authorized representatives took at least five employees from GradPro in an effort to take away business from Herff Jones.

Jostens lost the suit as the jury found it conspired and stole confidential and trade secret information and interfered with Herff Jones’ employment contracts. The jury awarded nearly $1.9 million in compensatory damages against Jostens, Wiggins, and Urnis to Herff Jones, and another $580,000 to Brent Gilbert of GradPro. Punitive damages in the amounts of $650,000, $25,000, and $10,000 were also assessed against Jostens, Wiggins, and Urnis, respectively.

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorney Richard Bell of McCordsville, Indiana filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Cision US, Inc. (“Cision”), conducts business in the district, and infringed his rights in Cision-BlogPhoto2-300x135United States Copyright No. VA0001785115, the “Indianapolis Photo”. Bell is seeking actual and statutory damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and any other relief as is just and proper.

Bell, who has filed numerous copyright infringement lawsuits over the Indianapolis Photo, claims Cision published the Indianapolis Photo on its website without his permission beginning in or around 2018. The Complaint asserts Plaintiff’s claim that Cision took or downloaded the Indianapolis Photo without his permission prior to publishing the photo on its website. The Complaint further alleges Cision falsely represented that it owned the rights to publish the Indianapolis Photo by adding a copyright notice to the bottom of each page of its website.

Per the Complaint, Cision has not agreed to be enjoined from using the Indianapolis Photo. Plaintiff states Cision refuses to pay for the unauthorized use of the Indianapolis Photo and that it has allowed third parties to access its website and the Indianapolis Photo. As such, Bell is seeking damages for copyright infringement and vicarious liability for each copy downloaded by a third-party user.

Continue reading

By

HBrady-BlogPhoto-300x297Fort Wayne, Indiana – Former Attorney Holly Brady has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as judge in the Northern District of Indiana. Brady is only the second woman to serve as judge in the Northern District and the first judge to join the court in nine years. Brady will take the seat vacated in September 2017 by Judge Joseph Van Bokkelen.

Brady, a native Hoosier, received her undergraduate degree from Indiana University and went on to attend Valparaiso University School of Law. After graduating, Brady has worked in multiple Fort Wayne law firms in the fields of labor and employment law. Brady’s history of a strong federal practice made her a good candidate for the vacancy and she is expected to have a formal swearing-in ceremony in August.

Contact Information
Indiana Intellectual Property: IP Litigation, Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights
  • Seventh Circuit
  • Northern District of Indiana
  • Southern District of Indiana
Paul B. Overhauser
Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Greenfield
18 E Main St #202
Greenfield, IN 46140
Phone: 317.467.9100
Fax: 866.283.8549
Indianapolis
101 W Ohio St #2000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.891.1500
Fax: 866.283.8549

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design