Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

April 29, 2015

Indiana Patent Litigation: Eli Lilly Again in Federal Court Asserting Patent Infringement

Indianapolis, Indiana – An Indiana patent lawyer for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana; Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan; Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. of Parsippany, New Jersey; and Ube Industries, Ltd of Yamaguchi, Japan (collectively “Lilly”) sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Lupin Ltd. of Mumbai, India and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland infringed Patent Nos. 8,569,325, titled Method of Treatment with Coadministration of Aspirin and Prasugrel and 8,404,703, titled Medicinal Compositions Containing Aspirin, which have been issued by the U.S. Patent Office.

This lawsuit adds another two new Defendants, Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively “Lupin”), to Lilly’s Indiana patent litigation efforts. In these “Effient” patent-infringement lawsuits, the Lilly group of Plaintiffs alleges infringement of its pharmaceutical product Effient. The patents at issue in the Lupin litigation are Effient-related patents 8,404,703 “Medicinal Compositions Containing Aspirin,” (the “‘703 patent”) and 8,569,325 “Method of Treatment with Coadministration of Aspirin and Prasugrel” (the “‘325 patent”).

This complaint asserts patent infringement arising out of the filing by Lupin of an Abbreviated New Drug Applications (“ANDA”) with the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell generic versions of two pharmaceutical products – Effient 5mg and Effient 10mg tablets – prior to the expiration of the ‘703 patent and the ‘325 patent. These patents cover two Effient products and/or methods of using Effient products and for which Lilly claims an exclusively license.

Effient products were approved by the FDA for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in certain patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who are to be managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, or angioplasty). Effient products contain prasugrel hydrochloride, which is also known as 5-[(1RS)-2-cyclopropyl-1-(2-fluorophenyl)-2-oxoethyl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridin-2-yl acetate hydrochloride or 2-acetoxy-5-(alpha-cyclopropylcarbonyl-2-fluorobenzy1)-4,5,6,7-tetrahydrothieno[3,2-c]pyridine hydrochloride, and is covered by the ‘726 patent.

The instructions accompanying Effient products state that patients taking Effient products should also take aspirin. The use of Effient products in combination with aspirin for the reduction of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with ACS who are to be managed with PCI is allegedly covered by the claims of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.

Lupin is accused of planning to infringe the patents-in-suit by including with its products instructions for use that substantially copy the instructions for Effient products, including instructions for administering Lupin’s products with aspirin as claimed in the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.

Plaintiffs contend that Lupin knows that the instructions that Lupin intends to include with its products will induce and/or contribute to others using those products in the allegedly infringing manner set forth in the instructions. Moreover, the Lilly Plaintiffs also contend that Lupin specifically intends for health care providers, and/or patients to use Lupin’s products in accordance with the instructions provided by Lupin and that such use will directly infringe one or more claims of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents. Thus, state Plaintiffs, Lupin’s actions will actively induce and/or contribute to infringement of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents.

The complaint, filed by an Indiana patent attorney, lists four counts:

• Count I: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703
• Count II: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,404,703
• Count III: Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,569,325

• Count IV: Declaratory Judgment of Infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,569,325

Plaintiffs ask the court for judgment:

• That Lupin has infringed the ‘703 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of one or more claims of the ‘703 patent;

• That Lupin has infringed the ‘325 patent and/or will infringe, actively induce infringement of, and/or contribute to infringement by others of one or more claims of the ‘325 patent;

• That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(B), Lupin be permanently enjoined from making, using, selling or offering to sell any of its accused products within the United States, or, where applicable, importing accused products into the United States prior to the expiration of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents;

• That, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(4)(A), the effective date of any approval of the Lupin ANDA under § 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 355(j)) shall not be earlier than the later of the expiration dates of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions;

• If Lupin commercially makes, uses, sells or offers to sell any accused product within the United States, or, where applicable, imports any accused product into the United States, prior to the expiration of either of the ‘703 and ‘325 patents, including any extensions, that Plaintiffs be awarded monetary damages for those infringing acts to the fullest extent allowed by law and be awarded prejudgment interest based on those monetary damages;

• That the case be deemed exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285;

• That the ‘703 patent remains valid and enforceable;

• That the ‘325 patent remains valid and enforceable; and

• That Plaintiffs be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees, costs and expenses.

April 28, 2015

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Magistrate Rejects Malibu Media’s Request for Fees and Sanctions

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore recommended that Judge William T. Lawrence deny Malibu Media’s motion for fees and sanctions against two Defendants and copyright lawyer Jonathan Phillips.

This Indiana federal lawsuit involves allegations of the use of BitTorrent to illegally download copyrighted adult films. Plaintiff Malibu Media, LLC of Malibu, California initiated copyright litigation in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Charles and Kelley Tashiro, husband and wife, violated its intellectual property rights by downloading copyrighted videos without authorization.

On the morning of a scheduled evidentiary hearing in the matter, attorney Phillips, who at the time represented both husband and wife, learned of Mr. Tashiro’s intent to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights to avoid testifying about certain matters. The defense attorney for the Tashiros advised the court that, as a result, a conflict of interest between husband and wife had arisen and that he would be withdrawing as the defense attorney for Mr. Tashiro. As a result, the court postponed that day’s hearing.

Malibu Media subsequently filed a motion asking the court for sanctions, seeking to hold Mr. Tashiro and his copyright attorney jointly and severally liable for the costs and fees incurred in its preparations for the postponed hearing. Malibu Media contended that the defense lawyer’s failure to recognize the conflict of interest between the two Defendants in a timely manner had required Malibu Media to incur unnecessary expenses for the evidentiary hearing. More specifically, Malibu Media contended that it incurred several thousand dollars in unnecessary fees, travel expenses, and other costs. It sought to recover those fees, expenses, and costs 1) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37; 2) under 28 U.S.C. § 1927; 3) through an exercise of the court’s inherent authority; and 4) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16.

Magistrate Judge Dinsmore first concluded that FRCP 37 was inapplicable, as it was generally appropriate for “disputes or misconduct during discovery” and the delay of the evidentiary hearing had not resulted from discovery misconduct.

Plaintiff’s claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 was also rejected. That section provides that the court may order costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees incurred as a result of an attorney’s unreasonable or vexatious expansion of the proceedings in litigation.

Malibu Media asserted that this section applied because the copyright attorney’s failure to timely recognize a conflict of interest between the husband-and-wife Defendants failed to meet the standard of care required of attorneys. The court disagreed, stating that the case had involved no incompatibility of the copyright Defendants’ positions, as both had steadfastly asserted that neither had infringed any of Malibu Media’s copyrighted material and that no evidence had been destroyed. Consequently, the defense attorney’s belief that he could provide concurrent representation to both Defendants was neither unreasonable nor vexatious and, thus, relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 was unavailable.

Moreover, the court explained, even had § 1927 applied, it provided recompense only for the excess costs and fees incurred – those that would not have been otherwise necessary. Because much of the material prepared by intellectual property counsel for Malibu Media would likely prove useful later in the litigation, those costs and fees had not been incurred unnecessarily.

Magistrate Judge Dinsmore also rejected Malibu Media’s argument that the court should sanction Mr. Tashiro and the defense attorney under the inherent authority that the court holds to manage its affairs through the sanctioning of a party that has abused the judicial process. The court had already determined during its analysis under § 1927 that the defense attorney had acted neither unreasonably nor vexatiously. Thus, a sanction against the defense attorney for abuse of process was similarly found to be improper. The court also declined to hold that Mr. Tashiro’s decision to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights was an abuse of judicial process.

The court then addressed Malibu Media’s contention that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 authorized sanctions in this case. It concluded that, as the rule authorized the imposition of sanctions only in matters regarding scheduling conferences or other pre-trial conferences, it did not apply to the evidentiary hearing at issue in this request for sanctions.

Finally, Magistrate Judge Dinsmore recommended to Judge Lawrence that Malibu Media’s motion, which had been filed without the required statement showing that Plaintiff’s attorney made reasonable efforts to confer with opposing counsel prior to filing the motion for sanctions, be denied for failure to comply with Local Rule 7-1(g).

April 24, 2015

USPTO Offers New Tool to Receive Email Alerts When Patent Applications Publish

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently announced the release of the Patent Application Alert Service. This system provides customized email alerts to the public for free when patent applications of interest are published. Additionally, the system offers direct access to the published applications that meet users’ search criteria.

After receipt of these customized email alerts, the public may identify prior art for “pre-issuance” submission into these applications. The pre-issuance submission process was established under the America Invents Act and, to date, the Office has received more than 2,600 submissions across all technologies. More information on the pre-issuance submission program and how members of the public can participate can be found here.

The idea for the patent application alert service came from a public roundtable held at the USPTO in April 2014 where the USPTO solicited input regarding the use of crowdsourcing and pre-issuance submissions to identify relevant prior art. The USPTO expects that this new service may be used to enhance the quality of examination and issued patents.

April 23, 2015

USPTO Announces Patents for Humanity Winners

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Commerce Department’s United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently announced the latest winners of the Patents for Humanity program. The Patents for Humanity program was launched by the USPTO in February 2012 as part of an Obama administration initiative promoting game-changing innovations to solve long-standing development challenges.

“As innovation and economic progress have made the world increasingly connected, more and more industries are realizing that their technologies can improve lives everywhere,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office Michelle K. Lee. “The experiences of businesses across industries have shown that helping the less fortunate can go hand in hand with developing commercial markets, and that humanitarian entrepreneurship provides new opportunities for those with vision to pursue them.”

The Patents for Humanity Award is the top award for applicants best representing the Patents for Humanity principles. Award recipients will receive public recognition at an award ceremony sponsored by the USPTO. They will also receive a certificate to accelerate certain matters before the USPTO: a patent application, ex parte reexam, or an ex parte appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Inter partes matters and other post-grant proceedings may not currently be accelerated. Honorable mentions will receive accelerated examination of one patent application and a featured write-up on the USPTO website. A portion of honorable mentions may be awarded for the best up-and-coming technologies.

April 22, 2015

Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation: G & G Files Another Illegal Interception Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An intellectual property attorney for G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC (“G & G”) of Campbell, California initiated a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Elsa Valdez and Tikal #2, Inc., both of Indianapolis, Indiana, illegally intercepted and broadcast the Saul Alvarez v. Austin Trout fight program (the “Program”).

G & G states that it holds exclusive nationwide rights to the commercial, closed-circuit distribution of the Program. It has sued Elsa Valdez and Tikal #2, both individually and doing business as Sabor Latino Bar a/k/a Johnny’s Park Inn Restaurant & Bar, under the Communications Act of 1934 and the Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

As in another recent lawsuit brought by G & G alleging interception, Defendants have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the Program on Saturday, April 20, 2013 without an appropriate license. Regarding the claim under 47 U.S.C. §605, G & G’s Indiana federal complaint alleges that with “full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted…[and] exhibited” without authorization, “each and every one of the above named Defendants . . . did unlawfully … exhibit the Program” for the purpose of commercial advantage and/or private financial gain. A count of conversion is also included. The complaint asserts that Defendants’ acts were “willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff.”

In the complaint, the intellectual property lawyer for G & G listed the following counts and requests for redress:

• Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605. For this count, G & G states that it is entitled to (a) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount of $100,000, and (b) the recovery of all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Later in the complaint, the intellectual property attorney for G & G requests statutory damages of $110,000.
• Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 553. For this count, G & G asks the court for (a) statutory damages of $60,000 for each willful violation; (b) the recovery of all costs; and (c) and in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorneys’ fees.

• Count III: Conversion. For this count, the court is asked to order both compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants as the result of the Defendants’ allegedly egregious conduct, theft, and conversion of the program and deliberate injury to Plaintiff. G & G also seeks costs and attorneys’ fees under this count.

April 20, 2015

Indiana Intellectual Property Litigation: G & G Sues for Illegal Interception of Championship Fight

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – An intellectual property attorney for G & G Closed Circuit Events, LLC (“G & G”) of Campbell, California filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Zeferino Alvarez and Sabor Bohemio, LLC, both d/b/a El Bohemio Bar of Indianapolis, Indiana illegally intercepted and broadcast the Saul Alvarez v. Austin Trout fight program (the “Program”).

G & G states that it holds exclusive nationwide rights to the commercial, closed-circuit distribution of the Program. It has sued Zeferino Alvarez and Sabor Bohemio, LLC, both individually and doing business as El Bohemio Bar under the Communications Act of 1934 and The Cable & Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992.

Specifically, Defendants have been accused of violating 47 U.S.C. § 605 and 47 U.S.C. § 553 by displaying the Program at issue on Saturday, April 20, 2013 without an appropriate license. Regarding the claim under 47 U.S.C. §605, the Complaint alleges that with “full knowledge that the Program was not to be intercepted…[and] exhibited” without authorization, “each and every one of the above named Defendants . . . did unlawfully … exhibit the Program” for the purpose of commercial advantage and/or private financial gain. A count of conversion is also included. The complaint asserts that Defendants’ acts were “willful, malicious, egregious, and intentionally designed to harm Plaintiff.”

In the complaint, the intellectual property lawyer for G & G listed the following counts and requests for redress:

• Count I: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 605. For this count, G & G requests (a) statutory damages for each willful violation in an amount to $100,000.00, and (b) the recovery of all costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.

• Count II: Violation of Title 47 U.S.C. § 553. For this count, G & G asks the court for (a) statutory damages of $60,000 for each willful violation; (b) the recovery of all costs; and (c) and in the discretion of the court, reasonable attorneys’ fees.

• Count III: Conversion. For this count, the court is asked to order both compensatory and punitive damages from Defendants as the result of the Defendants’ allegedly egregious conduct, theft, and conversion of the program and deliberate injury to G&G.

April 16, 2015

Indiana Trade Secret Law: Think Tank’s Information Was Not a Trade Secret as a Matter of Law

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the directed verdict of Special Judge William E. Alexa of Porter Superior Court. Writing for the Indiana appellate court, Judge John Baker concluded that the trial court had not erred in ruling that Defendants’ information was insufficiently private to constitute trade secrets.

Appellant-Plaintiff Think Tank Software Development Corporation, d/b/a Think Tank Networking Technologies Group and Think Tank Information Systems (“Think Tank”) is engaged in computer-related business activities, including systems and network engineering, problem solving, systems design, implementation, sales, client training, and computer maintenance. During 2001 and 2002, multiple employees left Think Tank and joined its competitor, Chester, Inc.

In 2002, Think Tank sued Chester as well as former Think Tank employees Mike Heinhold, John Mario, Joel Parker, Thomas Guelinas, Jon Meyer, Daniel Curry, Eric M. Wojciechoswki, Michael Gee, Philip Ryan Turner and Carl Zuhl alleging: 1) breach of the covenant not to compete, 2) breach of the confidentiality clause, 3) breach of the agreement not to solicit its employees for other work, 3) tortious interference with contracts, 4) misappropriation of trade secrets, 5) tortious interference with business relationships, 6) unjust enrichment, and 7) defamation. Think Tank also included a claim for unfair competition against Chester.

After much litigation, including two prior appeals to the Indiana Court of Appeals, this Indiana trade secret lawsuit was again heard by the trial court on the remaining claims: misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with contracts, and breach of the covenant not to compete and confidentiality provisions.

The most interesting of the claims in this lawsuit is Think Tank’s assertion of misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants moved for a directed verdict on that count, as well as all other claims against them. The trial court granted the directed verdict on Think Tank’s claim for misappropriation of trade secrets, reasoning that, “[it] is a question of law for the Court relative to what is and what is not a trade secret. Plaintiff has failed to show that the information obtained was ever, in law, a trade secret.”

Shortly after this ruling, Think Tank sought review a third time from the Indiana Court of Appeals. It claimed that its trade secrets included: 1) the nature and design of its technical solutions; 2) the design of its customers’ computer systems; 3) pricing; and 4) customer identities. Think Tank further argued that the trial court could not determine as a matter of law whether information was a trade secret under Indiana Code section 24-2-3-2, which defines a trade secret as:

information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:

(1) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and

(2) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

The Indiana appellate court declined to address Think Tank’s argument whether a trial court could determine as a matter of law whether information was a trade secret under Indiana law. However, it concluded that Think Tank had failed in its burden to avoid the directed verdict: “as a matter of law, Think Tank failed to produce enough evidence to allow a reasonable fact finder to determine that the proffered information was trade secrets.” Specifically, it found that Think Tank failed to show that any of the information alleged to be trade secrets was not generally known to or ascertainable by the public.

The appellate court agreed with the Indiana trial court that: 1) the computer certifications and intellectual capital that Think Tank possessed was readily available information; 2) knowledge of customers’ computer systems and current or future needs was readily ascertainable, as such information belonged to the customers in question; and 3) pricing information did not constitute a trade secret, as it too was readily available from the customers. Thus, the information was not a trade secret.

The Indiana appellate court continued that Think Tank appeared not to be trying to protect its trade secrets, but instead to prevent competition. Such a goal, the court said, might be effectuated by a non-competition agreement. However, the use of Indiana legislation designed to protect trade secrets could not properly be stretched to hinder the use of information that appeared to be generally known or readily obtained from another source.

April 15, 2015

Patent Law: EFF Busts Podcasting Patent, Invalidating Key Claims at Patent Office

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

San Francisco, California – The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) invalidated key claims in the so-called “podcasting patent” last week after a petition for review from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”). This decision significantly curtails the ability of a patent troll to threaten podcasters big and small.

“We’re grateful for all the support of our challenge to this patent. Today is a big victory for the podcasting community” said EFF Staff Attorney Daniel Nazer, who also holds the Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents. “We’re glad the Patent Office recognized what we all knew: ‘podcasting’ had been around for many years and this company does not own it.”

The “podcasting patent” became big news in 2013, when a company called Personal Audio, LLC, began demanding licensing fees from podcasters including comedian Adam Carolla and three major television networks. Personal Audio doesn’t do podcasting itself, but instead used its patent to claim infringement and collect payouts from actual creators.

In petitions filed with Patent Office, EFF showed that Personal Audio did not invent anything new before it filed its patent application, and, in fact, other people were podcasting for years previously. Earlier examples of podcasting include Internet pioneer Carl Malamud‘s “Geek of the Week” online radio show and online broadcasts by CNN and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

“We have a lot to celebrate here,” said EFF Staff Attorney Vera Ranieri. “But unfortunately, our work to protect podcasting is not done. Personal Audio continues to seek patents related to podcasting. We will continue to fight for podcasters, and we hope the Patent Office does not give them any more weapons to shake down small podcasters.”

EFF partnered with attorneys working pro bono and the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard‘s Berkman Center for Internet and Society to craft the petition for review with the USPTO.

This edited article was provided by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit group which advocates for innovators and users of technology. The article has been licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.

This should not be taken as legal advice specific to any individual network operator. If you want such advice, please consult a copyright attorney.

April 13, 2015

Indiana Copyright Litigation: Court Grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Copyright Lawsuit

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Indianapolis, Indiana – Indiana copyright attorneys for Redwall Live Corporation (“Redwall”) of Indianapolis, Indiana asked the Southern District of Indiana to dismiss Redwall’s own copyright litigation. Redwall’s complaint alleged that ESG Security, Inc. (“ESG”), also of Indianapolis, Indiana, infringed the logo that Redwall had designed for ESG. That logo has been registered by the U.S. Copyright Office. The court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Redwall will be permitted to refile the non-copyright counts in Indiana state court but the copyright count was dismissed with prejudice.

Redwall is a consulting and design-services firm engaged in the business of strategic branding and advertising. Its services include developing a clear message and a unique visual image as well as developing brand value for its clients.

In its 2013 complaint against ESG, Redwall stated that it had been hired by ESG to reinvent ESG’s brand. As part of this project, it created a new logo design for ESG, which was copyrighted under Registration No. VA 1-874-872. Redwall asserted that ESG had failed to pay Redwall in full for the work done and that ESG nonetheless had continued to use Redwall’s copyrighted logo on a variety of items. Indiana copyright lawyers for Redwall sued for copyright infringement under federal law, as well as breach of contract and unjust enrichment under Indiana state law.

Redwall later decided that pursuing the copyright portion of the claim was not worth the expense. As the Judge Sarah Evans Barker put it, they concluded that “the game is not worth the candle.” Copyright attorneys for Redwall asked the court to dismiss the copyright complaint without prejudice. Attorneys for ESG asked the court instead to dismiss Redwall’s copyright claim with prejudice.

In evaluating Redwall’s motion to dismiss, the court cited its discretion to attach conditions to the dismissal of a lawsuit – “the quid for the quo of allowing the plaintiff to dismiss his suit without being prevented by the doctrine of res judicata from bringing the same suit again.” The court noted that Redwall seemed to have added a less-than-robust copyright claim as leverage to obtain its true goal of payment under its contract with ESG. Judge Barker concluded that to allow Redwall to withdraw that copyright claim without any res judicata consequences would reward that gamesmanship. The court determined that, as a proper exercise of its discretion, it would dismiss Redwall’s copyright claim with prejudice but permit Redwall’s remaining state-law claims to be refiled in state court.

Practice Tip: Filing a copyright lawsuit can be perilous, as the plaintiff may later be unable to dismiss that litigation without incurring liability for the defendant’s attorney fees. As the Seventh Circuit held in Riviera Distribs., Inc. v. Jones, a voluntary dismissal of a copyright claim by the plaintiff – if that claim is dismissed with prejudice – is sufficient to trigger the duty of the plaintiff to pay the attorney’s fees incurred defending against the allegations of copyright infringement: “[Defendant] Midwest obtained a favorable judgment. That this came about when [Plaintiff] Riviera threw in the towel does not make Midwest less the victor than it would have been had the judge granted summary judgment or a jury returned a verdict in its favor. Riviera sued; Midwest won; no more is required.” Similarly here, ESG qualifies as a “prevailing party” under the Copyright Act and is thus presumptively entitled to attorneys’ fees for the litigation of that claim under 17 U.S.C. § 505.

April 10, 2015

Indiana Trade Secret Litigation: College Retailers Sue for Full Access to Purdue-Amazon Agreement

By Overhauser Law Offices, LLC

Tippecanoe County, Indiana -An Indiana trade secret attorney for the National Association of College Stores Inc. (“NACS”), an Ohio-based organization, sued Purdue University of West Lafayette, Indiana in Tippecanoe Superior Court seeking full disclosure of an agreement between Purdue and Amazon.com Inc.

Earlier this year, Amazon opened its first brick-and-mortar store on the campus of Purdue University. This store, which allows merchandise to be both picked up and dropped off, was promoted as a way to save Purdue students money. Initial estimates suggest that the Purdue-Amazon partnership has resulted in savings of more than 40% for students.

In response to this addition to Purdue’s campus, NACS requested a copy of the agreement between Amazon and Purdue under Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”), codified as Ind. Code § 5-14-3-1 et. seq. Purdue released only a redacted copy, stating that Amazon considered the omitted material to be protectable as trade secrets, which are defined under APRA as: