Tag Archive | "ICLEF"

I.P Blog: DISH Network Accuses Indiana Resident of Piracy

By: Paul B. Overhauser Publisher: Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

New Albany, Indiana – Intellectual property attorneys for DISH Network L.L.C., EchoStar Technologies L.L.C., and NagraStar L.L.C., all of Englewood, Colorado (collectively, “DISH Network”), filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Danny Abner of Paris Crossing, Indiana illegally intercepted, decrypted and viewed DISH Network satellite programming.

Defendant Abner has been accused by DISH Network of “circumventing DISH Network’s security system and receiving DISH Network’s satellite broadcasts of copyrighted television programming without payment of the required subscription fee.” This intellectual property lawsuit, brought in the Southern District of Indiana, claims Abner violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201 et seq., the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605 et seq., and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511 et seq.

According to DISH Network, Abner’s piracy occurred via the use of Nfusion Private Server (“NFPS”), a television-pirating service. Francis Philip, a/k/a Vgiddy, sold subscriptions to the NFPS service. Philip provided DISH Network with copies of his business records pertaining to Abner, which showed that Abner had purchased one or more subscriptions to the piracy service in 2012.

Through the NFPS piracy service, Abner allegedly obtained DISH Network’s digital “keys,” which he used to decrypt and view DISH Network programming. The type of piracy of which Abner is accused, Internet key sharing, is still possible despite DISH Network’s latest generation of security technology.

In the complaint, filed by intellectual property lawyers for DISH Network, the following counts are alleged:

  • Count I: Circumventing an Access Control Measure in Violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)
  • Count II: Receiving Satellite Signals Without Authorization in Violation of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 605(a)
  • Count III: Intercepting Satellite Signals in Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511(1)(a) and 2520

DISH Network seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, and reimbursement for DISH Network’s costs, attorneys’ fees, and investigative expenses.

The case was assigned to Chief Judge Richard L. Young and Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana and assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00068-RLY-TAB.



By: Paul B. Overhauser, Publisher, Indiana Intellectual Property Law News

Overhauser Law Offices, LLC provides intellectual property services including patents, trademarks, copyrights and infringement litigation. Whether you’re an entrepreneur launching your first invention or a corporation looking for a litigation specialist, we have the legal experience to meet your goals.

To learn more about how Overhauser Law Offices can help you, browse our website to meet our lawyers and peruse our practice areas.  Then contact us, and we’ll put our expert team to work for you.

© 2015

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Intellectual Property Blog0 Comments

Amateur Life Coach: “Awesome Lawyers”

Amateur Life Coach: “Awesome Lawyers”

James J. Bell, ICLEF's Amateur Life Coach

The Amateur Life Coach is back to dispense his unique thoughts, advice and wisdom to his real and imagined viewers…

This week Katz & Korin attorney Bernard “Buddy” Pylitt seeks solace from the Amateur Life Coach as he is once again dissed by a distinguished award designation group….

Now, you can also “like” the Amateur Life Coach at Facebook!  Visit his facebook account today and catch up on his day-to-day activities.

Questions for the Amateur Life Coach?  Submit questions for the Amateur Life Coach to iclef@iclef.org

Written and performed by James J. Bell. Produced by the Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum. This video is for informational purposes only and should not be used as a substitute for professional advice.


James focuses his practice in the areas of criminal defense; attorney discipline defense and health care law. As a Marion County Public Defender, he represented clients in numerous jury and bench trials. James also represents clients in juvenile delinquency, appeals and post-conviction proceedings. James is a frequent ICLEF speaker on ethics, trial practice and criminal procedure. James just completed his first semester as an adjunct professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law where he teaches a course on professional responsibility. To date, no student has yet stood on their desk and shouted “Oh captain, my captain!” Follow James on Twitter @jamesjbell

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Amateur Life Coach, Sale/Featured Items0 Comments

Law Tips: Beware of the Potential for Conflicts of Interest With Your Elder Law Clients

According to the most recent data available to the Department of Health and Human Services the population of Individuals who are 65 years or older was approximately 39.6 million in 2009. This equated to 12.9% of the total U.S. population for an equivalent of one in every eight Americans. It is estimated that by 2030 there will be 72.1 million individuals who are at least 65 years of age. There are unique and complex issues that elder law attorneys encounter when dealing with a population that has decreased mental capacity, suffer from disabilities, or clients who want family involvement when making end of life decisions.

Matthew Moore and Allen Reece, Indianapolis Elder Law attorneys, focus on the crucial ethical issues involved as faculty for ICLEF’s Elder Law Institute. Potential for conflicts of interest is a prime area of concern they point to. I appreciate Matt and Allen’s helpful review of this topic for Law Tips readers.

Beware of the Potential for Conflicts of Interest
It is extremely common for elder law attorneys to be approached by a group of multiple family members to address what they feel is a “family” issue. It is also common for the elder law attorney to be asked to draft the estate plans for spouses, children, and/or relatives of current and former clients. Identifying potential issues at the outset of the representation and informing the client of potential conflicts is critical for all attorneys, especially the elder law attorney.

Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct (IRPC) Rule 1.7 & 1.8 primarily address the attorney’s duties and obligations as far as conflict of interest situations, but overall any rule outlined in the IRPC should be reviewed and considered by the attorney when dealing with multiple clients where a conflict may become present. (Also review IPRC 1.9 & 1.10 dealing with conflict situations.)

Joint and Separate Representation
National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys’ (NAELA) Aspirational Standards identify joint and separate as the two types of attorney representations that may exist in multiple party/client situations. A joint representation is an attorney-client relationship whereby all confidences are shared between the clients and a separate representation is where confidences are not shared.1  In both situations it is imperative that the attorney explain to all affected parties the different types of representation and received informed consent if the parties wish to waive any confidences associated with these types of representations.

The IRPC states: “… the prevailing rule is that, as between commonly represented clients, the privilege does not attach. Hence, it must be assumed that if litigation eventuates between the clients, the privilege will not protect any such communications, and the clients should be so advised. 2 “ Thus in most estate planning situations the assumption is that any information shared by any party with the attorney will be shared with the other party. The lawyer should, at the outset of the common representation and as part of the process of obtaining each client’s informed consent, advise each client that information will be shared and that the lawyer may have to withdraw from representing one or more or all of the common clients if one client decides that some matter material to the representation should be kept from the others.” Id. Comment 31.

It is advisable that this disclosure be made in the initial engagement letter with the clients that is signed and returned. It could be argued that failure to get this acceptance signed in writing by the client that informed consent was not obtained as required under the IRPC. Although this concept seems simple, many clients do not understand that even if their circumstances change that the attorney would be obligated to disclose any information shared with the other party. This situation is extremely common if the clients are going through a subsequent divorce or separation.

The IRPC does address a common problem that elder law attorneys may face more regularly in the future. It is more common that attorneys are dealing with blended families where one party may want to make specific provisions for their own children or there is a risk that the surviving spouse may change the estate plan to decrease or completely remove a part of the deceased spouse’s inheritance they intended to ultimately go to their prior children. The IRPC says that in limited circumstances an attorney may proceed with the representation when the clients have agreed, after being properly informed, that the lawyer will keep certain information confidential. Id.

Thus it is imperative for the client to get a general back ground of the client’s situation before addressing any information that may be confidential. An initial information sheet should ask for family background including any prior divorces and the relationship of all children or potential heirs to the client. The attorney should then address the pros and cons of moving forward with a common representation with the clients before discussing specific information related to any estate plan. If the clients are unsure as to whether they wish to proceed or if the attorney feels that the parties’ estate plan could create a situation for conflicting interest it would be advisable to recommend that one of the parties obtain separate representation at the outset of the case. Failure to recognize these issues early may result in a situation where the attorney is forced to withdraw his or her representation if potential issues were not discussed at the outset.


1 NAELA Aspirational Standards Pg. 10

2 IRPC Rule 1.7 Comment 30.

These elder law issues are creating challenges around each corner. Fortunately, Allen Reece and Matthew Moore continue their discussion for next week’s Law Tips. Join them for their insights on Non-client, Family Member Involvement and Representation of a Client Who is a Fiduciary.

Meanwhile, you are invited to schedule the full faculty presentation of the 2014 Elder Law Institute through our On Demand CLE. You choose the time and place. We will assist you in the easy setup. Also, remember to mark your calendar for the Live Elder Law Institute on October 15-16, 2015.



About our Law Tips faculty participants:
Matthew C. Moore, partner, Fechtman & Moore, Indianapolis, focuses his practice on estate and trust administration, Medicare set aside issues, Medicaid planning, and estate planning for families with special needs children. He graduated from Franklin College in 2003 with a Bachelors of Arts Degree in Political Science. Then received his Juris Doctorate in 2006 from Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis.

Allen Reece, Frank & Kraft, P.C., Indianapolis, focuses his practice on the fields of estate and elder law planning. Mr. Reece is a member of the Indiana State Bar Association, including the sections of Elder Law and Probate, Trust, & Real Property; the American Bar Association; the National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys; and the American Academy of Estate Planning Attorneys. He is a frequent speaker at seminars. Allen was formerly Vice President at Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown

About our Law Tips blogger:
Nancy Hurley has long-standing connections with Indiana lawyers. She was formerly a member of the ISBA and IBF staffs for over 30 years. Nancy’s latest lifestyle venture is with ICLEF. We are utilizing her exceptional writing and interviewing skills while exploring how her Indiana-lawyer background fits with ICLEF’s needs. When she isn’t ferreting out new topics for Law Tips, her work can be found in our Speaker Spotlight blogs, postings on the ICLEF Facebook and Twitter pages, and other places her legal experience lends itself.

Thank you for reading Law Tips. You may subscribe to this weekly blog through the RSS link at the top of this page.  Also, you are encouraged to comment below or email Nancy. She welcomes your input as she continues to sift through the treasure trove of knowledge of our CLE faculty to share with you.

ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Law Blogs, Law Tips0 Comments

Live CLE in June

Torts, Sports & All Sorts!
3 CLE – This program is no longer available. Please join us next year.

Legislative Update for 2015
3 CLE –  – This program is no longer available as a Live In-Person Seminar. However, you can still view the Video Replay, On Demand Video or purchase the Publication of this Seminar by Clicking Here.

42nd Midwest Estate, Tax & Business Planning Institute
12 CLE / 1 E / 14 CPE / 12 Ins. CE – This program is no longer available as a Live In-Person Seminar. However, you can still view the Video Replay or purchase the Publication of this Seminar by Clicking Here.

Civil Mediation Training
40 Civil Mediation Hours / 24 CLE / 6 E – This program is no longer available. Please join us next year.

Indiana Adoption Reconnections
1 CLE – This program is no longer available as a Live In-Person Seminar. However, you can still view the Video Replay or purchase the Publication of this Seminar by Clicking Here.

Immigration Law You Really Need to Know
6 CLE / 1 E – This program is no longer available as a Live In-Person Seminar. However, you can still view the Video Replay, On Demand Video or purchase the Publication of this Seminar by Clicking Here.

Preserving & Obtaining Cell Phone Records in Civil Litigation
1 CLE – Thursday, June 25     12:15 P.M. – 1:15 P.M.
Live In-Person Seminar: ICLEF Conference Center, Indianapolis
Live Group Webcasts: May Oberfell Lorber Law Office, Mishawaka
                                         Reiling Teder & Schrier, Lafayette
Live Individual Webcast: From your home or office computer


ICLEF • Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum, Indianapolis, IN

Posted in Highlighted Seminars0 Comments

Having trouble logging in?Visit our Support section.


Contact Us

230 East Ohio Street
Suite #300
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204
Phone: 317-637-9102
Fax: 317-633-8780
E-mail: iclef@iclef.org