Tag Archives: BitTorrent

List of Indiana Download Cases

20 Wednesday Jun 2012

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This is a comprehensive list of Indiana download cases. Follow the links to individual case details. The cases are sorted below by Plaintiff’s Attorney and Judge.

Last updated: 7/9/14

By Plaintiff’s Attorney:

Keith A. Vogt of Takiguchi & Vogt

  1. TCYK LLC v. Does 1-19
  2. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-16
  3. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-20
  4. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-20
  5. Dallas Buyers Club LLC v. Does 1-24

Matthew Edward Dumas of Hostetter & O’Hara

  1. CP Productions, Inc. v. John Doe (GH Hustlers – Maryjane’s Second Visit)
  2. Millennium TGA Inc. v. John Doe (S.P. – Eva Lin & Patrick)

Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates, PLLC

  1. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-29 (Lunchtime Fantasy)
  2. Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-13 (Busty Construction Girls)
  3. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-7 (15 Movies)
  4. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-23 (16 Movies)
  5. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-8 (Slow Motion)
  6. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-8 (Introducing Kaylee)
  7. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-14 (Romantic Memories)
  8. Malibu Media v. John Does 1-11 (16 movies)
  9. Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-11 (Performers of the Year 2012)
  10. Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-10 (Performers of the Year 2012)
  11. Third Degree Films v. John Does 1-26 (Teens in Tight Jeans)
  12. Third Degree Films v. John Does 1-33 (Teens in Tight Jeans)
  13. Patrick Collins v. John Does 1-16 (Best New Starlets 2012)
  14. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-4
  15. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-5
  16. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-4
  17. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-4
  18. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-4
  19. Malibu Media LLC v. John Does 1-4
  20. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (201)
  21. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (202)
  22. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (203)
  23. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (204)
  24. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (205)
  25. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (206)
  26. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (30)
  27. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (31)
  28. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (55)
  29. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (71)
  30. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (72)
  31. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (85)
  32. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (89)
  33. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (97)
  34. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (98)
  35. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (99)
  36. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (162)
  37. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (163)
  38. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (164)
  39. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (165)
  40. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (389)
  41. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (390)
  42. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (391)
  43. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (392)
  44. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (394)
  45. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (1:13-cv-00071)
  46. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (26)
  47. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (122)
  48. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (123)
  49. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (124)
  50. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (135)
  51. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe (136)
  52. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (663)
  53. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (664)
  54. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (665)
  55. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (666)
  56. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (667)
  57. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (668)
  58. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (669)
  59. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (670)
  60. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (671)
  61. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (672)
  62. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (673)
  63. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (674)
  64. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (675)
  65. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe (676)
  66. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe 5
  67. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe 9
  68. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe 12
  69. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.129.8.71
  70. Malibu Media, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.129.162.170
  71. Countryman Nevada, LLC v. Does 1-16
  72. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.141.132.4
  73. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.151.109.205
  74. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.14.133.150
  75. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 24.13.26.28
  76. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.220.145.100
  77. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.220.129.105
  78. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.213.184.255
  79. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.212.56.174
  80. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 68.51.71.237
  81. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 67.163.85.215
  82. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.165.234.83
  83. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 50.151.212.213
  84. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.253.168.90
  85. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.253.11.177
  86. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.228.104.170
  87. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.227.7.60
  88. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.222.130.20
  89. Malibu Media LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 98.220.54.186

By Judge:

Tanya Walton Pratt, Mark J. Dinsmore

Tanya Walton Pratt, Denise K. Larue

Tanya Walton Pratt, Debra McVicker-Lynch

Jane Magnus-Stinson, Debra McVicker-Lynch

Jane Magnus-Stinson, Mark J. Dinsmore

Jane Magnus-Stinson, Denise K. Larue

Sarah Evans Barker, Mark J. Dinsmore

Sarah Evans Barker, Tim A. Baker

Sarah Evans Barker, Debra McVicker Lynch

Sarah Evans Barker, Denise K. LaRue

Richard L. Young, Mark J. Dinsmore

Richard L. Young, Tim A. Baker

Richard L. Young, Denise K. LaRue

Richard L. Young, Debra McVicker Lynch

Philip P. Simon, Roger B. Cosbey

Philip P. Simon, Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Philip P. Simon, Andrew P. Rodovich

Jon E. DeGuilio, Andrew P. Rodovich

Jon E. DeGuilio, Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Jon E. DeGuilio, Paul R. Cherry

Jon E. DeGuilio, Roger B. Cosbey

Theresa L. Springmann, Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Theresa L. Springmann, Paul R. Cherry

Theresa L. Springmann, John E. Martin

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Paul R. Cherry

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Andrew P. Rodovich

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Roger B. Cosbey

Joseph S. Van Bokkelen, Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Christopher A. Nuechterlein

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Paul R. Cherry

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Roger B. Cosbey

Robert L. Miller, Jr., Andrew P. Rodovich

Robert L. Miller, Jr. John E. Martin

Larry J. McKinney, Mark J. Dinsmore

William T. Lawrence, Tim A. Baker

William T. Lawrence, Mark J. Dinsmore

William T. Lawrence, Denise K. LaRue

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – Malibu Media v. John Does 1-8 (Introducing Kaylee)

20 Wednesday Jun 2012

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-8

Court Case Number:    1:12-cv-00840-RLY-MJD
File Date:    Monday, June 18, 2012
Plaintiff:     Malibu Media, LLC
Plaintiff Counsel:     Paul J. Nicoletti of Nicoletti & Associates, PLLC
Defendant:     John Does 1-8
Cause:    Copyright Infringement, Contributory Infringement
Court:    Southern District of Indiana
Judge:     Judge Richard L. Young
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore

Motion for Leave to Serve Third Party Subpeonas

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion

Declaration of Tobias Fieser

Stories from the Week that Was – 6/10/12-6/16/12

17 Sunday Jun 2012

Posted by in Federal Initiatives, Indiana, Litigation, Patent, Social Media, Stories from the Week that Was, Tech Developments, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

I spent this week in Philadelphia, the City of Brotherly Love. It was my first visit and I have to say the place is top-rate. Some of the best museums you can imagine and the C-SPAN junkie in me was absolutely thrilled to walk inside Congress Hall, location of the first U.S. House and Senate from 1790-1800. But just because I’m out sightseeing doesn’t mean the news stops. Here are the top stories I followed this week:

Indiana finally has its own keyword advertising case

$176 million unmanned drone crashes in Maryland

Twitter Takes a New Approach to Avoid Patent Litigation

The NLRB’s Dos And Don’ts For Employer Social Media Policies

US elections 2012: top 50 Twitter accounts to follow

Downloaders take heed, Indiana’s first BitTorrent download case – CP Productions v. John Doe

These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

Comcast: Don’t “Shake Down” Our Customers

Got another big story from this week that I missed? Leave a comment below.

“He snatched the lightning from the sky and the sceptre from tyrants” – Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, speaking of Benjamin Franklin

CP Productions v. John Doe – Motion to Subpoena Internet Service Providers

15 Friday Jun 2012

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, ,

For those following the CP Productions v. John Doe BitTorrent lawsuit filed recently in the Southern District of Indiana, I thought I’d detail the first steps in the Plaintiff’s litigation strategy. First, Plaintiff uses its “proprietary P2P network forensic software” to monitor and collect IP addresses of BitTorrent downloaders. They then file a Complaint in the jurisdiction du jour (over the last two years they’ve been filing all over the U.S. looking for courts willing to play along…CP Productions v. John Doe is the first lawsuit of this type filed in Indiana). Plaintiff then files a motion asking the Court to issue a subpoena to the downloaders’ Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to obtain the personal information (name, address) of the John Does. Most courts have granted this motion (see example below).

Once an ISP receives a subpoena, it will contact the downloader, alerting them to the subpoena and that their personal information will be disclosed by a set deadline. Some ISPs have decided to challenge the subpoena, but most have simply played along, presumably happy that they’re not included in the lawsuit. From there, it’s up to the downloader to decide whether to settle, defend themself or just wait and hope the lawsuit gets thrown out. If nothing is done by the ISP’s deadline, the ISP will share the downloaders’ information and the downloader will receive a new letter directly from Plaintiff.

Stay tuned for more updates as the case proceeds. If you have questions, feel free to leave them in the comments. However, there are numerous helpful websites already out there with general information about BitTorrent download cases. I’ll be trying to focus primarily on the specifics of this Indiana case. Coming up…profiles of Plaintiff’s counsel and Judge Magnus-Stinson.

CP Productions, Inc. v. John Doe
Court Case Number: 1:12-cv-00808-JMS-DML

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference:

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Take Discovery Prior to the Rule 26(f) Conference:

Indiana Copyright Litigation Update – CP Productions v. John Doe

14 Thursday Jun 2012

Posted by in Copyright, Indiana, Litigation, Southern District of Indiana

≈ 11 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Just weeks after getting its own keyword advertising case, Indiana now has its very own BitTorrent download case. The Plaintiff, CP Productions, is an Arizona-based adult entertainment company and the file allegedly downloaded is “GH Hustlers – Maryjane’s Second Visit.” The Defendant, currently unidentified, is described as a “serial infringer of copyrights in adult content.” Besides a copyright claim, the Plaintiff also makes claims of Civil Conspiracy and Contributory Infringement and provides a list of 448 IP addresses alleged to have participated in a BitTorrent swarm with the named Defendant. If you’re a BitTorrent user, you’ll want to check the list (see Exhibit A below) and see if your IP address appears. If so, you could soon be a part of this lawsuit. That doesn’t mean it’s time to worry but you will want to begin to educate yourself on the case.

I’ll be following this lawsuit closely and will provide updates as it proceeds. If you’re interested in reading more now, check out DieTrollDie, an informative blog discussing this type of download case. Similar cases are going on all over the country with mixed results. Judge Magnus-Stinson is a no-nonsense judge, so it will be interesting to see whether this case can find any traction in her courtroom.

CP Productions, Inc. v. John Doe

Court Case Number:    1:12-cv-00808-JMS-DML
File Date:    Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Plaintiff:     CP Productions, Inc.
Plaintiff Counsel:     Matthew Edward Dumas of Hostetter & O’Hara
Defendant:     John Doe
Cause:    Copyright Infringement, Civil Conspiracy, Contributory Infringement
Court:    Southern District of Indiana
Judge:     Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson
Referred To: Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch

Complaint:

Exhibit A – IP Addresses of “Civil Conspirators”