ILNews

Copyright infringement spurs knife fight in Warrick County

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A copyright infringement dispute between two out-of-state companies has spurred criminal charges in Warrick County, a place where neither business has facilities, employees or quite possibly ever visited before these charges were brought.

Margaret and Ben Lu, founders of Wuu Jau Co. Inc., in Edmond, Okla., have each been charged with three counts of forgery, one count of theft and three counts of counterfeiting by the Warrick County prosecutor for allegedly infringing on the copyrights of Master Cutlery Inc., based in New Jersey.

knives-1col.jpg Ben and Margaret Lu of Oklahoma face theft and forgery charges in Indiana for alleged copyright infringement. (Submitted photo)

The two companies import and distribute hunting and survival knives from manufacturers based in China. According to court documents, the Lus were arrested after they sold and shipped knives allegedly copyrighted by Master Cutlery to an entity in Warrick County.

Since Margaret and Ben Lu were arrested, Wuu Jau has filed a copyright infringement claim against Master Cutlery in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. A sister company of Wuu Jau, Neptune Trading Co., is located in the coastal state.

Master Cutlery then filed a counterclaim in federal court against Neptune and Wuu Jau.

Why Indiana is involved in this case baffles Evansville attorney Mark Foster. A lawyer at Foster O’Daniel Hambidge & Lynch LLP, Foster is part of the criminal defense team representing the Lus.

“I still don’t know why they took it,” Foster said of the Warrick County Prosecutor’s Office. “It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. I’m sure (Chief Deputy Prosecutor Daniel Miller) had his reasons, but for Warrick County, Ind., to stick its nose in a fight between a New Jersey company and an Oklahoma company, I don’t know.”

Miller did not return a call seeking comment.

One possible connection to Indiana is the intellectual property consulting firm Continental Enterprises in Indianapolis. Court documents identify Continental as investigating Wuu Jau on behalf of Master Cutlery and organizing the purchases of the disputed knives.

The shipments brought the knives to Warrick County and established the connection to Indiana. Court filings state, Continental presented the evidence to Warrick County which filed the seven felony counts.

Through its vice president and intellectual property counsel Jeremiah Pastrick, Continental did not make any statements specifically about the Wuu Jau case, saying it did not want to comment while the matter is still pending.

Setting precedent

A trademark fight involving toy guns that reached the Indiana Supreme Court in 2012 involved Continental Enterprises and has similarities to the copyright case in Warrick County.

Working on behalf of firearms manufacturer Heckler & Koch Inc., Continental initiated an investigation of Houston-based toy gun importer Generation Guns that included having orders shipped to Indiana. Subsequently, the Huntington County Prosecutor’s Office charged Yu-Ting Lin, who imported the guns, and her business associate An-Hung Yao with three counts of counterfeiting, three counts of theft, and one count of corrupt business influence based on the similarities between one of the toy guns and H&K’s MP5 submachine gun.

The first time Yao and Lin set foot in Indiana was when they were brought here in a state van to face criminal charges, said Jeremy Gayed, partner at Barrett & McNagny LLP in Fort Wayne, who was one of Lin’s attorneys.

Huntington County Prosecutor Amy Richison said she decided to prosecute because of a series of police shootings in neighboring Allen County. At least one of those involved law enforcement mistaking an airsoft gun from Generation Guns for an actual gun.

Indiana State Police shared with Richison the results of its investigation which contained information gathered by Continental Enterprises. Richison said she wanted to prevent the tragedy of someone in her community being killed accidentally by a police officer.

Richison acknowledged she used Continental Enterprises as a resource to understand the intricacies of intellectual property law. She maintained it was no different than the toxicologists, scientists and other experts she relies on in other cases and emphasized the Indianapolis firm was not driving the prosecution.

“I make my own choices and decisions,” Richison said. “I don’t have people influencing me one way or another.”

The defendants’ motion to dismiss was appealed all the way to the Indiana Supreme Court. In An-Hung Yao and Yu-Ting Lin v. State of Indiana, 35S02-1112-CR-704, the court rejected the defense team’s arguments that Indiana lacked jurisdiction. The justices held that counterfeiters can be held criminally liable even if they do not affix an intellectual property owner’s name or logo to a product.

On its website, Continental calls the Yao decision a “resounding victory.” Pastrick said the justices understood the nuances emerging in intellectual property as counterfeiters move away from blatantly copying a product.

“It signifies Indiana’s willingness to protect intellectual property in innovative and creative ways that keep up with what’s going on in the marketplace,” Pastrick said.

Gayed said that significant civil remedies already exist in the federal code to address infringement issues. Continental Enterprises has found a “really creative way” to help stop whatever is happening in the marketplace that their clients do not like. It has found an avenue for persuading county prosecutors to file charges on behalf of their private clients.

“The civil approach, hiring an attorney, filing a lawsuit is definitely one approach,” Pastrick said, “but I don’t think it’s the only approach, and it seems the Supreme Court agreed.”

Motion to dismiss

Like the defendants in the Yao case, Margaret and Ben Lu’s attorneys have filed a motion to dismiss partly on the grounds that the state courts lack jurisdiction. The defense argues the Lu case is distinct because it involves copyright – not trademark as in Yao – and Indiana’s authority is preempted by the federal Copyright Act.

“My take on this case is that the state of Indiana is overreaching to charge someone with an act that the state of Indiana doesn’t have the right to police,” said Benjamin Ashurov, IP attorney at KB-Ash Law Group in California. He is a member of the defense team who is providing expertise on the intellectual property aspect.

The defense can offer no state court opinion nor 7th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on point, but they reference a Florida case, Crow v. Wainwright, 720 F. 2d 1224, 1225 (11th Cir. 1983). There, the court threw out a conviction for selling “bootleg” eight-track tapes because the Copyright Act preempted Florida’s regulation of the defendant’s actions.

Attorneys for Yao made the jurisdictional argument, but the Supreme Court rejected it.

If the trial court denies the motion to dismiss, Ashurov said the defense will ask the federal court to issue an injunction to stop the state criminal proceeding while the civil copyright claim is being considered.

Margaret and Ben Lu maintain their innocence and their daughter, Jennifer, has launched an intense crusade to get the charges dropped. She has written directly to the prosecutor and has drafted a letter to Gov. Mike Pence.

However, it may be too late.

Tyler Helmond, an attorney at Voyles Zahn & Paul in Indianapolis who worked on the Yao defense, pointed out that a person charged with a crime not only has to incur the expense of hiring a lawyer but, unlike a civil suit, is faced with losing their reputation and liberty.

“It creates a scenario where the first company that is able to convince a prosecutor to charge a crime has really won,” he said. •

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT