IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—E.D. Pa.: Suit over images for shoe crease protectors moves to jury trial, (Aug 13, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

A jury must decide the factual disputes relating to alleged ownership and infringement of copyrighted images for shoe accessories, but indirect profits are not recoverable.

Concluding that factual disputes exist, the federal district court in Philadelphia has held that a jury must resolve a copyright infringement suit brought by the manufacturer of shoe crease protectors, SOL3, LLC, against a competitor over images used for shoe accessories. In denying a motion for summary judgment sought by defendant New Era, the court concluded that a jury must decide the factual disputes relating to alleged ownership and infringement of the copyrighted images for the shoe accessories. The court also concluded that while indirect profits are not recoverable damages, the copyright owner may seek compensation for its actual damages at trial (SOL3, LLC v. Inversal Inc., No. 2:25-cv-00255-JFM (E.D. Pa. Aug. 12, 2026)).

SOL3, LLC (“SOL3”) is a manufacturer of sole crease protectors, lightweight, flexible inserts placed inside the toe box of sneakers to prevent creases while maintaining the shoe's original shape. SOL3 does not own the crease protector design. In 2021, SOL3 used a third-party platform, Fiverr, to engage a freelance contractor to produce a computer-generated image embodying the crease protector for use on boxes containing its product. In 2025, SOL3 submitted an application to the U.S. Copyright Office for the registration of one of the images. After submitting the application to the U.S. Copyright Office, SOL3 filed a lawsuit in the federal district court in Philadelphia against New Era Deals, LLC (“New Era”) for copyright infringement, alleging that New Era infringed SOL3’s registered copyright by reproducing and publicly displaying the image that appeared on New Era’s Amazon storefront, in product listings and packaging, and on New Era’s website. SOL3 also named Inversal Inc. and a representative of New Era, in his individual capacity, as additional defendants. Following discovery, New Era moved for summary judgment.

Infringement. In denying the motion for summary judgment, the court held that a jury must decide the factual disputes relating to alleged ownership and infringement of copyrighted images. The court found that there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding SOL3’s ownership interest in the copyrighted work, and whether SOL3 actually owns the copyrighted work created by the freelance contractor from Fiverr. The freelance contractor from Fiverr did not sign any written instrument of conveyance, or any note or memorandum transferring ownership of copyright in any of the images he produced to SOL3, including the image used in SOL3’s application. The court also held that a reasonable jury could consider the communications between New Era’s representation and SOL3, in conjunction with New Era’s admission of widespread availability of source images, to conclude that New Era more likely than not accessed SOL3’s copyrighted work. A reasonable jury could similarly find—by making a side-by-side comparison of the two works combined with the communications—that the images used by New Era are substantially similar to the copyrighted images.

Damages. Next, the court concluded that indirect profits are not recoverable damages at trial. To recover the profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement, the plaintiff must present proof only of the infringer’s gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove the deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work. There must be a causal nexus between the infringement and the infringer’s gross revenue. Here, SOL3 failed to present sufficient evidence of gross revenue attributable to the allegedly copyrighted work. During discovery, SOL3 failed to move to compel production of profit and loss statements related to its crease protector products. SOL3 cannot now point the finger at New Era for its lack of evidence regarding New Era’s gross revenues to defeat New Era’s motion. SOL3 may, however, still seek compensation for its actual damages at trial.

Other defendants. Finally, the court dismissed Inversal as a defendant but held that the case against the individually named representative of New Era can proceed to trial. Before the case was filed, New Era’s representative used an email address that ended in “Inversal.com” and contacted SOL3 on behalf of New Era. The court found no record evidence that Inversal committed copyright infringement. The mere use of an Inversal email address, while intriguing, alone cannot support a finding that Inversal committed or contributed to the alleged copyright infringement. But a reasonable jury could conclude that New Era’s representative contributed to the alleged infringement of SOL3’s copyright based on email communications.

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-00255-JFM.

Judge: Murphy, B.

Attorneys: John D. Simmons (Panitch Schwarze Belisario & Nadel LLP) for Sol3, LLC. Robert R. Axenfeld (Axenfeld Law Group LLC) for New Era Deals, LLC.

Companies: Sol3, LLC; New Era Deals, LLC

Cases: Copyright PennsylvaniaNews GCNNews