U.S. District Judge John Tharp for Northern Illinois in Chicago should reject Hytera’s renewed motion to compel discovery from the government and to convene a Classified Information Procedures Act hearing to probe the company’s allegations that the government is withholding information from the defendant (see 2405010046), said DOJ’s response Wednesday (docket 1:20-cr-00688). Hytera’s renewed motion “fails for the same reasons as its last motion” in that it rests on “misinformed speculation” and on an “unprecedentedly broad scope of what constitutes discoverable information in this case,” it said. The “purported developments” to which Hytera points “do not advance its meritless claims,” said DOJ. The government “continues to abide by” its discovery obligations, it said. Hytera contends it has “incontrovertible evidence” that the government is conducting a classified national security investigation into the company’s relationship with the Chinese government, including the surveillance and questioning of its chief in-house attorney, and seeks the disclosure of information gleaned from that investigation. A grand jury in May 2021 returned an indictment listing multiple counts of trade secret theft against Hytera and seven of its engineers who developed digital mobile radios for Motorola in Malaysia beginning in 2004 (see 2301260060). The engineers quit Motorola in 2008 and 2009 to go to work for Hytera in Shenzhen, and the government alleges they took Motorola’s DMR trade secrets with them when they left.

Plaintiff Lesly Chavez, who operates a 24-hour mobile legal servicing company in Greater Los Angeles called Seals on Wheels Notary, alleges that defendant Telli Griffin is infringing her registered trademark by running a business called Seals on Wheels Mobile Notary Services, said Chavez’s complaint Wednesday (docket l:24-cv-01029) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Los Angeles. Chavez also alleges that Meta is guilty of contributory trademark infringement because it has refused Chavez's demands to take down Griffin’s Facebook and Instagram advertising. Chavez and her counsel have sent Griffin multiple emails since May 2020, and as recently as March 26, putting her on notice of her infringing conduct, but Griffin has ignored them, said the complaint. They also sent notices to Instagram on April 4 and to Facebook on April 10, demanding that they take down Griffin’s advertising, it said. But Meta continues to allow the advertisement and promotion of the infringing mark to the present day, even after the infringement notices and follow-up emails from Chavez and her attorney, said the complaint. Meta “has control over the infringement, including without limitation the ability to stop the dissemination of the infringement by ceasing all advertisement and promotions” of the infringing mark on Instagram and Facebook, it said. Griffin’s unauthorized use of the infringing mark, and Meta’s “disregard” of that infringement, “creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement” of Chavez’s services, “and is likely to falsely suggest sponsorship, connection, license, or association” of Griffin and Chavez’s registered mark, it said.

Tiffany Nwahiri and 10 John Doe defendants have used the Intentional Entrepreneur mark in a manner that violates Entrepreneur Media’s (EM) “longstanding and strong rights” in the Entrepreneur mark, alleged EM’s infringement complaint Wednesday (docket 8:24-cv-01012) in U.S. District Court for Central California in Santa Ana. EM is the publisher of Entrepreneur magazine and other publications incorporating the Entrepreneur name in their titles, said its complaint. The defendants own the intentionalentrepreneurlife.com and theintentionalentrepreneur.com domain names, and operate websites at these domains using the Intentional Entrepreneur mark, it said. The defendants filed a trademark application to register the Intentional Entrepreneur mark with the Patent and Trademark Office, it said. EM opposed the application, and the case remains pending before PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, it said. “In light of EM’s renown, online presence, and long history of providing goods and services under the EM Marks, EM is very concerned that consumers will likely be confused and mistakenly believe” that the defendants and their goods and services “are endorsed, approved, or sponsored by, or affiliated, connected, or associated with, EM,” said the complaint. EM attempted to “reconcile its concerns” with the defendants, including by letter, various follow-up correspondence and by opposing their trademark application, it said. While the parties “have been engaged in good faith negotiations and have explored numerous potential options for resolving their differences,” the defendants ultimately refused to cease use of the infringing mark, it said. In light of the defendants’ actions and continuing use of the infringing mark, EM brought this suit “to fully litigate and resolve the trademark issues between the parties,” it said.

U.S. District Judge Roy Payne for Eastern Texas in Marshall granted the unopposed motion of 54 plaintiff record labels and music publishers for a nine-day extension, through May 17, to complete written and document venue discovery and to conduct depositions in their contributory copyright infringement suit against Altice (see 2405020025), said the judge’s signed order Friday (docket 2:23-cv-00576]). The recording industry plaintiffs defended the deadline extension as necessary in light of client and witness availability. They allege that Altice has knowingly contributed to, and reaped “substantial profits” from copyright infringement committed by thousands of its internet subscribers.

The 54 plaintiff record labels and music publishers suing Altice for contributory copyright infringement (see 2312080050) seek a “modest” nine-day extension, through May 17, to complete written and document venue discovery and to conduct depositions, said their unopposed motion Wednesday (docket 2:23-cv-00576) in U.S. District Court for Eastern Texas in Marshall. The parties have been engaged in negotiations “over their respective document requests, interrogatories, and requests for admission, and anticipate serving supplemental responses to certain requests,” it said. The deadline extension would allow time “for the exchange and review of supplemental responses, and to prepare, take, or defend five Rule 30(b)(6) depositions,” it said. “Given client and witness availability, a modest extension is necessary,” it said. The plaintiffs seek the extension “not for delay but for good cause, and so that justice may be served,” it said. The recording industry plaintiffs allege that Altice has knowingly contributed to, and reaped “substantial profits” from, massive copyright infringement committed by thousands of its internet subscribers.

U.S. District Judge John Tharp for Northern Illinois in Chicago has taken under advisement Hytera’s renewed motion to compel discovery from the government and to convene a Classified Information Procedures Act hearing to probe the company’s allegations that the government is withholding information from the defendant (see 2405010046), said a clerk’s docket entry notification Wednesday (docket 1:20-cr-00688). The government’s response to the motion is due May 15 and Hytera’s reply May 22, said the notification. Hytera contends it has “incontrovertible evidence” that the government is conducting a classified national security investigation into the company’s relationship with the Chinese government, including the surveillance and questioning of its chief in-house attorney, and seeks the disclosure of information gleaned from that investigation. A grand jury in May 2021 returned an indictment listing multiple counts of trade secret theft against Hytera and seven of its engineers who developed digital mobile radios for Motorola in Malaysia beginning in 2004 (see 2301260060). The engineers quit Motorola in 2008 and 2009 to go to work for Hytera in Shenzhen, and the government alleges they took Motorola’s DMR trade secrets with them when they left.

BMI and 10 music publishers allege six claims of willful copyright infringement against The Seineyard at Wildwood, a seafood restaurant in Crawfordville, Florida, and owners Starr and Samuel Dunlap, based on their unauthorized public performance of musical compositions from the BMI repertoire, said their complaint Tuesday (docket 4:24-cv-00193) in U.S. District Court for Northern Florida in Tallahassee. BMI has reached out to the defendants more than 40 times since April 2019 to educate them about the necessity of purchasing a license for the public performance of musical compositions, said the complaint. Included in the correspondence were cease and desist letters giving the defendants formal notice that they must immediately cease all use of BMI-licensed music in the establishment, it said. The specific acts of copyright infringement alleged in the complaint, plus the defendants’ “entire course of conduct,” are causing the plaintiffs “great and incalculable damage,” it said. Unless the court restrains the defendants from committing further acts of copyright infringement, the plaintiffs “will suffer irreparable injury for which they have no adequate remedy at law,” it said.

Hytera seeks for the second time an order compelling the government to produce discoverable information it had gathered in the trade secrets theft complaint against the company and for the court to hold a hearing under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA), said its renewed motion Wednesday (docket 1:20-cr-00688) in U.S. District Court for Northern Illinois in Chicago. A grand jury in May 2021 returned an indictment listing multiple counts of trade secret theft against Hytera and seven of its engineers who developed digital mobile radios for Motorola in Malaysia beginning in 2004 (see 2301260060). The engineers quit Motorola in 2008 and 2009 to go to work for Hytera in Shenzhen, and the government alleges they took Motorola’s DMR trade secrets with them when they left. Hytera moved last fall for an order compelling the government to produce discoverable information it had gathered, but the court denied that motion after concluding the company had nothing more than a speculative basis to believe that discoverable classified information was being withheld, said the renewed motion. While Hytera disagrees with the court’s prior CIPA ruling, it now has “incontrovertible evidence that the government is indeed conducting a classified investigation into Hytera, and possesses discoverable information that must be produced,” the defendant said. The surveillance of and invasive questions posed to Hytera’s in-house attorney about his affiliations with the Chinese government, along with the imaging of his electronic devices, “confirm both that the government is surveilling Hytera and its employees for national security reasons, and that the government possesses relevant and discoverable information about Hytera, its employees, and this case,” it said. Hytera also has identified in discovery the translation of an email to an employee “that appears to have classified markings redacted out of it,” said the motion. The defendant asked the government “to produce an unredacted copy of this document so that it could see whether classified markings had been applied to the document, but the government has refused,” it said.

The News/Media Alliance hailed Tuesday’s complaint in which eight local newspapers alleged that Microsoft and OpenAI violated copyright law by using millions of the newspapers’ copyright-protected articles in the training of their generative AI bots (see 2404300034). “We continue to support our members who are fighting against these companies that repurpose and monetize news content without permission or payment,” said alliance President-CEO Danielle Coffey in a statement Tuesday. “AI companies recognize the value of this content, evidenced by marketplace arrangements, and they rely on quality content to train their systems,” she said. “The continued unconstrained use by AI companies of publishers’ valuable content without proper compensation is unlawful, and we support efforts to hold Big Tech accountable for what amounts to stealing on a massive scale. No company should be above the law.” The alliance says it represents more than 2,200 news, magazine and digital media organizations and their multiplatform businesses in the U.S. and globally.

U.S. District Judge Darrel Papillion for Eastern Louisiana in New Orleans directed BMI and its five music publisher co-plaintiffs to show cause in writing by May 29 why the defendants in their copyright infringement suit shouldn’t be dismissed for failure to prosecute, said Papillion’s signed order Monday (docket 2:23-cv-01561). BMI and the publishers allege that the Max Lounge in Metairie, Louisiana, and its owners, David Cook and Bridget Haydel, violated the Copyright Act by not buying a license for the public performance of musical compositions in the BMI repertoire (see 2305110052). The plaintiffs “represent” that service has been made upon the defendants, but the record “reflects that no responsive pleadings have been filed by said defendants,” said the judge’s order. If the plaintiffs fail to move for entry of default or show good cause in writing, the defendants “will be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute without further notice” under Rule 16(f), it said.