B&P Littleford, LLC v. Prescott Machine, LLC ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION B&P LITTLEFORD, LLC, Plaintiff, Case No. 20-CV-13025 v. Hon. Thomas L. Ludington PRESCOTT MACHINE, LLC, and RAY MILLER, Defendants. _______________________________________/ ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS On November 11, 2020, Plaintiff B&P Littleford, LLC filed a complaint against Defendants Prescott Machine, LLC and Ray Miller alleging copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 1201 et seq. (“DMCA”), and the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq. ECF No. 1. On January 19, 2021, Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss. ECF No. 16. Timely response and reply briefs have been filed. ECF Nos. 23, 24. For the reasons set forth below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will be denied. I. A. Plaintiff B&P Littleford, LLC is a Saginaw-based company that manufactures “a wide variety of high quality, highly engineered equipment for large- and small-scale manufacturing applications such as mixers, dryers, extruders, compounders, kneaders, reaction vessels, Podbielniak Centrifuges, and centrifugal separation equipment.”1 ECF No. 1 at PageID.5. Plaintiff’s earliest predecessor was Baker Perkins, Inc., which was formed in 1911. Id. at PageID.2. 1 The factual allegations of the Complaint are assumed true for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). Baker Perkins, Inc., later merged with APV Chemical Machinery, Inc., and from 1987 until 1995, conducted business as “APV.” Id. at PageID.2–3. “Through the merger, APV purchased, succeeded to, and retained all of the rights and liabilities of Baker Perkins, Inc., including all of Baker Perkins, Inc.’s assets, contractual obligations, and rights.” Id. APV later sold “the assets of [the] chemical machinery business to B&P Process Equipment and Systems, L.L.C., a newly formed Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business in Michigan.” Id. at PageID.3. On January 1, 2017, B&P Process reincorporated as B&P Littleford, LLC, which “succeeded to and retained all the assets, rights, and liabilities of [B&P Process].” Id. “In order to preserve institutional knowledge and assist vendors and customers,” B&P employees created “detailed drawings comprising engineering schematics . . . of B&P’s devices.” Id. at PageID.5. These drawings “are the product of many hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on research and development and thousands of engineering hours.” Id. at PageID.6. Plaintiff claims that these drawings “are, by their nature, the subject of copyright protection under the laws of the United States.” Id. at PageID.6. In addition to engineering schematics, the B&P drawings also include certain “copyright management information” (“CMI”), including the name of the author and the owner of the drawing. The CMI appears in a box at the bottom of the drawing. As an example, B&P Drawing 113-945 is reprinted below. 2.2. 26-E/ | a bearer — j io peor 1 PASSE lott — kathy a oy H ps4 pee TV | | a □ © Eee . □ STH Re Aa ae her rk Nt lens Mal, Asses sito — Gia hard ieee ee na og | At \hie/ proms OVO) tenner aperte et tthe Te? beste tate ee ee) CT aS tt RE pe orem ceemar ep ee aed □□ il] AT \ basen os tien eee — {| Ave 2tttn □ | a” 284 Fea 1448 @ SPEC Foe RORSETY aim TH be of \ } . iS aes Cer were rowed) oanets a oS Fr % 2 ——2 \ leo OT oe eh i ne, | 3-14 >bb ies pay S, oN / WF I lated | Pl jee mr) LP SMW \ | | | ibe PES [ = P\“.S | | ty | wee|) sé at | iT [amcweron S11} [> ey □□ at | | etgne SHH | t RL A eae SEN eters ff] ] | be} | dR tt \\ 5 + X yy | 1) ae D | Ol □ a OW 6 | iil 1 | X. YX I} | io \S Yj ssite ‘ } i. | i