Cox Suit Reveals Collectors' Script: Intellectual Property

  • Cornerstone sued over `Whatever,' `Love Forever,' T-shirts
  • PACCAR accused of infringing backup alarms' trade dress

A court filing in a copyright suit against Cox Enterprises Inc. revealed the script that agents for Santa Monica, California’s Rightscorp Inc. are using as part of efforts to collect money damages from alleged illegal downloaders.

(To be sent this column daily, click SALT IPREPORT.)

The suit, filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, in November 2014, asked a court to order Cox to forward infringement notices to its Internet service subscribers, and for money damages for allegedly enabling copyright infringement.

The filing containing the script was one of the exhibits filed in connection with Cox’s Sept. 21 request for dismissal of the case. Cox argued that the infringement notices contained “extortionate language” and that is why the Atlanta-based communications company had refused to process the notices.

The script specifies that the agent is to tell the accused infringer that in order to cancel the claims, the subscriber needs a police report. The agent then, according to the script, warns that “the police may take your devices” and hold them for five days to investigate the matter.

Cox also claimed that Rightscorp “targets elderly and disabled consumers who are incapable of committing the infringements and who vehemently deny wrongdoing.” Cox said that review of the software that is used for automating notifications “shows that it suffered from substantial errors and faults.”

BMG, the music company that filed the suit and for which Rightscorp is acting as an agent, has asked the court to sanction Cox for what it says is a deliberate destruction of evidence identifying infringing subscribers by name. A hearing on that motion will take place Oct. 2, according to the court docket.

Cox’s motion for dismissal of the case will be the subject of an Oct. 30 hearing.

The case is BMG Rights Management v. Cox Enterprises Inc., 1:14-cv-01611, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).

Cornerstone Apparel Accused of Selling Clothing that Infringes Copyrights

Cornerstone Apparel Inc., a Los Angeles-based producer of junior and petite-sized clothing, was sued for copyright infringement by a California designer.

Beom Ski Kim claims in a Sept. 25 court filing in Los Angeles federal court that Cornerstone is selling clothing that infringes two designs, “Whatever,” and “Love Forever.” According to the complaint, the garments are virtually identical in design to those covered by Kim’s copyright.

Kim claims to be harmed by the actions and accuses Cornerstone, which does business as Papaya, of deliberately infringing the copyrights.

The clothing designer is seeking an award of all of Cornerstone’s profits attributable to the alleged infringement, as well as money damages, attorney fees and litigation costs.

Cornerstone didn’t respond immediately to an e-mailed request for comment.

The case is Kim v. Cornerstone Apparel Inc., 2:15-cv-07559, U.S. District Court, Central District of California (Los Angeles).

For more copyright news click here.


PACCAR Is Sued for Trademark Infringement by Maker of Backup Alarm Systems

PACCAR Inc., manufacturer of the Peterbilt and Kenworth heavy trucks, was sued for trademark infringement by a maker of emergency warming equipment for motor vehicles.

Electronic Controls Co. of Boise, Idaho, filed suit in Idaho federal court Sept. 26, accusing PACCAR of infringing the trade dress of a backup alarm system used on heavy vehicles. U.S. trademark law protects a product’s trade dress.

PACCAR didn’t respond immediately to an e-mailed request for comment.
The case is Electronic Controls Co. v. PACCAR Inc., 1:15-cv-00451, U.S. District Court, District of Idaho (Boise).

For more trademark news, click here.

Amended Reexamined Patent Means No Infringement, Court in New Jersey Rules

Two specialty-drug companies and their contract manufacturer have defeated a patent claim brought by a New Jersey pharmaceutical company.

The case began in November 2010, when MonoSol Rx LLC of Warren, New Jersey, sued the three companies, accusing them of infringing patent 7,824,588. The patent, issued that month, covered a method of making self-supporting active-containing film.

Monosol claimed that BioDelivery Sciences International Inc. of Raleigh, North Carolina, MEDA Pharmaceuticals Inc. of Somerset, New Jersey, and Aveva Drug Delivery Systems Inc. of Miramar, Florida, infringed the patent.

At issue was the Onsolis pharmaceutical film, made by Aveva and sold by MEDA under license from BioDelivery Sciences International.

In a Sept 25 ruling, U.S. District Judge Freda L. Wolfson dismissed the case on all three defendants’ request. She said that the claims of the patent were altered during a process at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office known as reexamination. The amendments MonoSol made were “substantive,” which let the defendants off the hook for infringement claims made before the changes, she said.

According to her opinion, the patent office issued its reexamination certificate for the patent in August 2012, almost two years after the suit was filed. She said that the defendants then could not be found liable for infringing the patent prior to that date.

The case is MonoSol RX LLC v. Biodelivery Sciences International Inc., 3:15-cv-05695, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey (Trenton).

For patent news, click here.

Before it's here, it's on the Bloomberg Terminal.