IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT NEWS: Vision test IP lawsuit should be tossed as a matter of law, according to motion, (Feb 6, 2026)

By Steven Melendez

Copyright, DMCA, patent, and Lanham Act claims in the case should be dismissed as a matter of law, defendants motion assert.

Innova Systems, Inc., and its president, Cheryl Nordstrom, argued that several IP infringement claims brought against them by Nordstrom Consulting, Inc. (NCI), and its president, Steven Nordstrom, should be dismissed as a matter of law, according to a motion filed by the defendants. The dispute involves vision testing technology (Nordstrom Consulting, Inc. v. Innova Systems, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-03011 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 5, 2026)).

Piercing the corporate veil. Cheryl Nordstrom argued that she is entitled to judgment for all claims against her in her personal capacity, because any acts alleged would have been undertaken by Innova, not Cheryl Nordstrom.

NCI and Steven Nordstrom, who was once married to Cheryl Nordstrom, haven’t sufficiently alleged Cheryl Nordstrom acted independently or “pleaded that Innova’s corporate veil should be pierced,” according to the motion.

Copyright infringement. Cheryl Nordstrom and Innova also argued that a copyright infringement claim fails as a matter of law since NCI and Steven Nordstrom failed to provide sufficient evidence that any allegedly copied work is sufficiently similar to their work or that they hold a registered copyright.

Despite Steven Nordstrom testifying that he continued to update relevant software source code, NCI and Steven Nordstrom failed to produce source code for software at issue, according to the motion, which makes an infringement analysis impossible.

Innova also has a license to certain NCI copyrights, according to the motion, which also argued that any claims are time-barred and that they are barred by equitable estoppel since NCI and Steven Nordstrom “induced Innova’s reliance on the software product.” The motion also argues that any alleged infringement is protected by fair use and that any copying is a “de minimis use.”

DMCA violation. Cheryl Nordstrom and Innova also argued they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on alleged violation of a section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that bars knowingly providing false copyright management information (CMI) and altering or removing CMI “where the defendant knows, or has reasonable grounds to know, that doing so will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement.”

Steven Nordstrom and NCI haven’t provided sufficient evidence that Cheryl Nordstrom or Innova intentionally removed or altered copyright information on a software splash screen or that “doing so will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal infringement,” the motion argues. Cheryl Nordstrom has testified that didn’t see the splash screen until the lawsuit was filed, and since there’s no evidence of copyright infringement, there’s no reason “to know that their actions would induce, enable, facilitate or conceal infringement,” the motion argues.

Additionally, according to the motion, no evidence was presented that any potential customer ever saw the splash screen.

False advertising. False advertising claims brought under the Lanham Act, also related to the splash screen, should be dismissed, according to the motion.

There’s no evidence that the splash screen was a commercial advertisement, that it misled any customers or was likely to influence purchasing decisions, or that NCI or Steven Nordstrom were injured by it, according to the motion. Both Steven Nordstrom and Cheryl Nordstrom have testified that the software was already launched when customers saw it at trade shows, meaning the splash screen would not have been visible, according to the motion.

“There is no legally sufficient evidence of any other alleged false advertising except for the splash screen admitted into evidence,” according to the motion.

Patent inventorship. Steven Nordstrom also failed to produce sufficient evidence he should be listed as a named inventor on a patent assigned to Innova, according to the motion.

Evidence he has offered shows that he worked on related software code and “contributed to reduction to practice,” which is not sufficient to argue that he contributed to the idea and should be a named inventor, according to the motion.

And while he claimed to make a contribution around calibration elements, that was already known in the prior art, Innova and Cheryl Nordstrom argue. “There is no legally sufficient evidence of any other alleged false advertising except for the splash screen admitted into evidence,” according to the motion.

The Case is No. 1:18-cv-03011.

Judge: Valderrama, F.

Attorneys: Kyle David Wallenberg (Niro McAndrews, LLC) for Nordstrom Consulting, Inc. Ellen Swartz Simpson (Simpson & Simpson, PLLC) for Innova Systems, Inc.

Companies: Nordstrom Consulting, Inc.; Innova Systems, Inc.

News: Copyright Patent TechnologyInternet IllinoisNews