Graphisoft SE et al. v. Andr Roy Engineers Group et al. (19-cv-11789).

Hungarian company Graphisoft, along with its Waltham division, filed suit against Andr Roy Engineers Group, accusing it of infringing the copyright in Graphisoft’s ARCHICAD®584 and ARCHICAD®248 building information modeling software. Graphisoft embedded piracy detection and reporting security software in its ACHICAD code, so that it would be informed when the verification technology is hacked or bypassed. They assert that this software has indicated that Andr Roy is using unlicensed ARCHICAD software. Graphisoft says that Andr Roy never responded to cease and desist letters beyond a simple denial.  Judge Talwani has the case.

Howarth v. Mitchell Construction Group, Inc. (19-cv-11815).

Photographer Morgan Howarth specializes in interior architectural photography. Howarth accuses Mitchell Construction Group of copying a Howarth photograph of a kitchen cabinet and using it without license on Mitchell’s website. Specifically, the photograph is alleged to be included in Mitchell’s “5 Amazing Kitchen Cabinet Storage Options You Need To See!” on Mitchell’s blog.  Howarth seeks injunctive relief, actual or statutory damages, and attorneys fees. The case is before Judge Saylor.

PMG Resources LLC v. Martinez et al. (19-cv-11771).

Colorado-based PMG sells aftermarket auto parts online. It publishes copyrighted advertising listings in electronic format on Amazon, eBay, and others in connection with this. PMG accuses Texas individuals Jose Martinez Ramos and Noemi Martinez, who are alleged to do business as Customz Liners, of copying verbatim its listings on competing Amazon and eBay sites. PMG identifies a number of its listings that were put up in November 2017 and were alleged to be copied in whole or in large part by the defendants.  PMG seeks actual or statutory damages and injunctive relief.

Tyger Manufacturing LLC v. Jacobs (19-cv-11732).

Tyger manufacturing sued Timothy Jacobs, who is said to do business as The Glass Blunt Store or G.B.S., accusing Jacobs of infringing Tyger’s copyright in “loading instructions” for glass smoking products having a screw-like insert that allows for the removal of spent ash. Tyger asserts that the instructions are included with four different G.B.S. products and are found throughout the G.B.S. website, and seeks injunctive relief and an accounting of sales of the four products. It is unclear why Tyger, a California company, sued Jacobs, who is alleged to have a principal place of business in Denver, in Massachusetts; personal jurisdiction and venue are alleged solely on alleged sales of products into the Commonwealth. Tyger is represented in the case by Massachusetts counsel, but has filed lawsuits over the past several years in a number of different jurisdictions, and appears to have already sued Jacobs in his home state of Colorado in 2018, accusing him of infringing design and utility patents relating to glass smoking devices. In October 2018, that complaint was amended to bring copyright infringement counts, although it appears that while an application had been filed, the copyright registration had not yet issued as of the amended complaint. That case subsequently settled.

Broadcast Music, Inc. et al. v. Matthews Maries, LLC d/b/a The Establishment, et al. (19-cv-11682).

BMI, an entity that manages licensing and copyright fees for 14 million copyrighted musical compositions, filed suit against The Establishment, a bar/restaurant/function room in Chelmsford, as well as its manager and members. According to the complaint, BMI had reached out to The Establishment more than 40 times in the past year, demanding that the bar either cease and desist the public performance of BMI-controlled music or pay the appropriate license permitting such performance. When no response was received, BMI filed suit, alleging infringement of eight BMI-controlled songs on April 26, 2019. BMI seeks statutory damages plus attorneys’ fees.

Foss v. Spencer Brewery et al. (18-cv-40125).

In 2018, Cynthia Foss, who does graphic design work as Hunter Foss Design filed a pro se complaint in state court against Spencer Brewery, St. Joseph Abbey, Ruggles Media, Northeastern University, Cup of Julie Show, and Big Eastern Exposition (known as the “Big E”), accusing each of copyright infringement, tortious interference with business relations, defamation and violation of 93A. Foss contends that she owns the copyright in graphic compositions that were commissioned by Spencer Brewery, located within St. Joseph’s Abbey, of a stained-glass wall found in the Abbey, with the composition to be displayed at Spencer Brewery’s exhibit room at the 2016 Big E. Foss asserted that Spencer modified the composition, displayed it in places not contemplated by the agreement between Foss and Spencer, and by using the composition in an electronic display continuously since 2016. Cup of Julie, a marketing business, and Ruggles Media, which is associated with Northeastern University. After the case was removed to federal court, Judge Hillman dismissed the state law claims with prejudice as against the Big E and Cup of Julie, and Foss filed an amended complaint alleging claims only for copyright infringement against the two. Subsequently, he granted motions to dismiss and for judgment on the pleadings, which Foss did not oppose – while the dismissal motion was pending, she instead filed a motion for default, apparently (and incorrectly) thinking that the motion to dismiss did not abrogate the need to answer the complaint. Following dismissal, the Big E filed a Bill of Costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d) and 28 U.S.C. §1920, seeking $1835 in costs. Noting that he had discretion to refuse to award costs despite the presumption that costs be awarded, Judge Hillman denied request despite Foss having not filed a motion for disallowance, because four of the six categories of costs sought were plainly not recoverable under the statute. He found that the Bill of Costs was thus not filed in good faith, but instead evidenced punitive intent, and denied the bill in total.

Foss has filed two other pro se copyright cases in Massachusetts, one of which was dismissed for failure to timely serve or to timely seek an extension to serve (and which asserted claims that were time-barred, implausible and/or preempted); the second was dismissed for failure to state a claim when Foss failed to oppose the motion to dismiss, but Foss was successful in having the case reopened and is presently seeking a preliminary injunction.

Rice v. SAJ Technologies, Inc. (19-cv-10103).

Judge Stearns granted photographer John Curtis Rice default judgment, finding that SAJ wrongfully reproduced Rice’s copyrighted photograph of New York City taken by drone from above in SAJ’s “DroneLife” drone news website. The default came after SAJ’s CEO was informed that he (a non-lawyer) could not file an answer on SAJ’s behalf and SAJ could not afford to pay for a defense. Judge Stearns refused, however, to go along with Rice’s demand for regarding damages and fees. Rice had sought $3000 in actual damages for copyright infringement, $10,000 in statutory damages for removal of copyright management information, and $3,825 in fees and $475 in costs, asserting that SAJ’s “infringement and refusal to appear and respond” were “objectively unreasonable.” Judge Stearns, noting that an intern at SAJ had utilized the image without the corporation’s knowledge and that SAJ immediately took down the photograph upon learning of its use, determined that the violations were “unintentional, very limited, and the source of no discernable profit to SAJ.” He awarded only the minimum $750 in statutory damages.

As I have previously noted, the attorney representing Rice has achieved quite a bit of notoriety in demanding vastly unreasonable sums having no ties to the actual infringement or actual likely measure of damages. As Judge Furman of Liebowitz’s home court in the Southern District of New York, recently noted, “[i]n his relatively short career litigating in this District, Richard Liebowitz has earned the dubious distinction of being a regular target of sanctions-related motions and orders. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that there is a growing body of law in this District devoted to the question of whether and when to impose sanctions on Mr. Liebowitz alone.” Perhaps this decision is an indication that courts outside of New York’s Southern District are taking note of Mr. Liebowitz’s predatory practices.