This case was last updated from U.S. District Courts on 03/11/2022 at 08:01:51 (UTC).

Power v. Connectweb Technologies, Inc. et al

Case Summary

On January 10, 2022, Matthew Power (“Plaintiff”), filed an intellectual property lawsuit against Connectweb Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant”), seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs, along with damages, for the Defendant’s alleged copyright infringemen. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts with Judge Judith G. Dein presiding.

 

In the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that, “This is an action brought under federal copyright law seeking a declaratory judgment that plaintiff Matthew Power is the exclusive author of a derivative work, or a co-author of a joint work, for which defendant Connectweb Technologies, Inc. claims to be the exclusive author. To the extent that Plaintiff is the sole author of the work, he is entitled to collect all profits obtained from the infringing uses of the work; to the extent that Plaintiff is a co-author of the work, he is entitled to continue receiving a reasonable royalty.”

 

The Plaintiff also alleged that, “Defendant Connectweb's claim to the sole ownership of CVW, including any derivative works written solely by Plaintiff on behalf of Connectweb during pertinent times as an independent contractor, and other intellectual property created by Plaintiff at that time, creates an actual, significant, and justiciable controversy between the parties which requires resolution by this Court.” The Plaintiff then alleged that, “Plaintiff contends that the derivative work of CVW he created as an independent contractor belongs to him alone, or that he is a co-author with equal rights in the CVW software.”

 

The Plaintiff further alleged that, “Defendants’ infringing acts were committed with knowledge and willfulness, or in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s exclusive rights granted by The Copyright Act [...] Through the acts described in this Complaint, Defendants have made significant profits and earned benefits which they are not legally or equitably entitled to retain [...] The Defendants have damaged Plaintiff by their acts of infringement, and if not stopped by this Court, will continue to damage Plaintiff, and cause him irreparable harm, for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.”

 

There are fifteen claims for relief laid down by the Plaintiff. The first claim alleged is for copyright infringement. The second claim alleged is for conspiracy to commit copyright infringement. The third claim alleged is for injunctive relief. The fourth claim alleged is for breach of fiduciary duty. The fifth claim alleged is for conversion/theft of trade secrets. The sixth claim alleged is for breach of contract. The seventh claim alleged is for violation of M.G.L. C. 93A, §§ 2, 11 / Unfair Trade Practices. The eighth claim alleged is for violation of DMCA Anti-Circumvention Technical Measures. The ninth claim alleged is for violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The tenth claim alleged is for secondary copyright infringement. The eleventh claim alleged is for vicarious copyright infringement. The twelfth claim alleged is for unfair competition. The thirteenth claim alleged is for replevin. The fourteenth claim alleged is for imposition of a constructive trust. The fifteenth claim alleged is for imposition of a resulting trust. 

 

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiff requested the Court for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief along with damages, including compensatory and statutory damages, actual damages, disgorgement, double or treble damages, expectation damages, reliance damages, unpaid licensing fees, costs of suit and attorney’s fees along with exemplary and punitive damages and pre- and post-judgement interest and any other relief the Court deems just.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    1:22-CV-10030

  • Filing Date:

    01/10/2022

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Intellectual Property - Copyright

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

Judith G. Dein

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Matthew Power

Swampscott, MA 01907

Defendants

Connectweb Technologies, Inc.

Paul Beaulieu

Michael Beaulieu

Rubber Stamp Champ Inc

Anchor Rubber Stamp and Printing Co. Inc

The J.P Cooke Company

Google, LLC

 

Court Documents

1 #1

Main Document

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet Category

1 #2

List of parties

1 #3

Exhibit A

1 #4

Exhibit B

1 #5

Exhibit C

#3

(#3) REPORT on the filing/termination of copyright case. (Castilla, Francis) (Entered: 01/10/2022)

 

Docket Entries

  • 01/10/2022
  • Docket(#4) NOTICE of Case Assignment. Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein assigned to case. Plaintiff's counsel, or defendant's counsel if this case was initiated by the filing of a Notice of Removal, are directed to the Notice and Procedures regarding Consent to Proceed before the Magistrate Judge which can be downloaded #here. These documents will be mailed to counsel not receiving notice electronically. Pursuant to General Order 09-3, until the Court receives for filing either a consent to the Magistrate Judge's jurisdiction or the reassignment of the case to a District Judge, the initial assignment of a civil case to the Magistrate Judge is a referral to the Magistrate Judge under 28 USC 636(b) for all pretrial non-dispositive matters and Report and Recommendations, but not for the Rule 16(b) scheduling conference. (Finn, Mary) (Entered: 01/10/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) REPORT on the filing/termination of copyright case. (Castilla, Francis) (Entered: 01/10/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Matthew Power. (Attachments: #1 Supplement supporting)(Castilla, Francis) (Entered: 01/10/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 01/10/2022
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Matthew Power. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet Category, #2 List of parties, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B, #5 Exhibit C)(Castilla, Francis) (Main Document 1 replaced on 1/12/2022) (Castilla, Francis). (Entered: 01/10/2022)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Google LLC is a litigant