LHF Productions Inc. adds 315 Defendants in Illinois

This week in Illinois LHF Productions filed 12 new copyright lawsuits against 315 defendants, with each defendant being an unnamed “Doe.” Overall, this brings the total number of people targeted to around 1,500 people nationwide.

LHF Productions has filed lawsuits in Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington state.

If you are the account holder for an internet service provider (ISP), your name is linked to an IP address. If you receive an ISP letter informing you a subpoena was received to reveal your identity, click here to learn about motions to quash or call us at 312-201-8310 or use the contact form below.

Attorney Jeffrey Antonelli is admitted to the trial bar of the Northern District of Illinois federal court as well as numerous federal courts around the country.  Antonelli Law has represented defendants accused by LHF Productions living in Hawaii, Arizona, and Illinois of using BitTorrent file-sharing software to illegally download the movie “London Has Fallen” and over 1,100 defendants from California to New York in many BitTorrent copyright infringement lawsuits in federal court.

Jeffrey Antonelli has been recognized by national and local media as representing many people accused of BitTorrent file-sharing of copyrighted work, including by Bloomberg BNA.

Want Legal Advice? Free Initial Consultations

Antonelli Law can help you nationwide if you have received an ISP letter informing you a subpoena for your identity was received, or if you are served with a summons or waiver of service. We will give each of your legal options, and the risks and benefits of each.

If you receive an ISP letter informing you a subpoena was received to reveal your identity, click here to learn about motions to quash,  call us at 312-201-8310, or use the contact form below. We represent people nationwide.

We understand the shock you may be feeling from receiving a notice of this action, and have the experience to help you deal with this in the best way possible for you. Attorney referrals accepted.

Name of ISP eg. Comcast

Party Suing or issuing subpeona (Plaintiff)

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

State (required)

Daytime Phone

Subject

Your Message

captcha

Northern District Court of Illinois

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-06796
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-06797
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-24 16-cv-06798
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-24 16-cv-06799
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-19 16-cv-06800
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-18 16-cv-06801
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-30 16-cv-06802
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-31 16-cv-06803
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-29 16-cv-06805
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-29 16-cv-06806
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-39 16-cv-06808
LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-22 16-cv-06811

District of Arizona

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-27 2:16-cv-01474

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-26 2:16-cv-01471

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-20 2:16-cv-01469

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-15 2:16-cv-01472

LHF Productions. Inc v. Does 1-29 2:16-cv-01199

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-18 2:16-cv-01200

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-22 2:16-cv-01196

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-12 2:16-cv-01198

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-26 2:16-cv-01194

 

District of California

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-01157

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-01158

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-01035

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-01045

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-00999

District of Colorado

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 et al 1:16-cv-01048

District of Hawaii

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-16 1:16-cv-00190

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-10 1:16-cv-00191

 

Northern District of Illinois

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-30 16-cv-04730

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-27 16-cv-04731

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-29 16-cv-04732

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-19 16-cv-04733

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-04734

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-23 16-cv-04740

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-29 16-cv-04741

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-28 16-cv-04742

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-29 16-cv-04743

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-26 16-cv-04744

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-26 16-cv-03903

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-24 16-cv-03904

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-26 16-cv-03892

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-21 16-cv-03902

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-03896

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-26 16-cv-03899

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-27 16-cv-03907

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-27 16-cv-03897

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-31 16-cv-03905

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 16-cv-03887

District of Nevada

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-11 2:16-cv-00924

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-14 2:16-cv-00925

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-30 2:16-cv-00926

District of New York

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1- 19 1:16-cv-02097

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1- 9 1:16-cv-02114

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1- 14 1:16-cv-03162

District of Oregon

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-00745

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-00746

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-00716

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-00717

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-00591

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-00592

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-00594

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 3:16-cv-00595

District of Virginia

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-10 5:16-cv-00030

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 3:16-cv-00283

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-20 3:16-cv-00284

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-24 3:16-cv-00282

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-25 5:16-cv-00027

LHF Productions, Inc v. Does 1-18 3:16-cv-00274

District of Washington

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 – 16 2:16-cv-00621

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 – 17 2:16-cv-00623

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 – 17 2:16-cv-00551

LHF Productions, Inc v. Doe 1 – 10 2:16-cv-00552

Antonelli Law has defended individuals accused of illegal file-sharing in LHF Productions cases and are able to answer your questions about your legal options.

LHF Productions and Criminal Productions – Carl Crowell Combo

Oregon attorney Carl Crowell has filed several copyright lawsuits in California on behalf of several copyright holders, LHF Productions Inc. and Criminal Productions Inc., alleging that an unnamed “Doe” defendant used BitTorrent to illegally file-share the films “London Has Fallen” and “Criminal.” The lawsuit alleges that LHF Productions Inc. and Criminal Productions Inc., are both affiliates of Nu Image, Inc. /Millennium Films, Inc.  Millennium Films, Inc. is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, represented by its General Counsel Dimiter Nikolov.

It is unusual for more than one copyright holder to be joined as plaintiff in a single complaint.

The complaint alleges that the defendant was observed on over 350 occasions by plaintiffs’ investigator Maverickeye through direct TCP/IP connection as distributing plaintiffs’ motion pictures.

In order to find out the identity of the unnamed Doe defendant, plaintiffs LHF Productions, Criminal Productions, and Millenium Films will need to ask the court for permission to issue a subpoena to the ISP internet provider to reveal the identity of the defendant.  Usually something called a motion to quash is mentioned in the letter. Click here to learn about motions to quash in these type of lawsuits.

If you receive a letter from your ISP call Antonelli Law for a free initial consultation at 312-201-8310, fill out our simple contact form below  or email us with a request to call you back at a time that is convenient for you. Attorney referrals are accepted.

Name of ISP eg. Comcast

Party Suing or issuing subpeona (Plaintiff)

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

State (required)

Daytime Phone

Subject

Your Message

captcha

California

2:16-cv-04716 Millenium Films Inc, LHF Productions Inc, Criminal Productions Inc. v. DOE-76.170.195.248

2:16-cv-04718 Millenium Films Inc, LHF Productions Inc, Criminal Productions Inc. v. Doe-104.172.82.34

Bloomberg BNA Quotes Jeffrey Antonelli on Copyright Litigation, Malibu Media LLC

Bloomberg BNA has published an article about the large increase in federal copyright lawsuits filed by X-Art.com’s owner Malibu Media LLC, quoting attorney Jeffrey Antonelli. The article here is not pay-walled but you may be asked to register.

If you or your client receives notice from its ISP that Malibu Media has issued a supboena to reveal their identity, its time to refer them to Antonelli Law. We have handled the defense of over 500 Malibu Media LLC matters.

“Porn Infringement Battles Keep the Action Going for Both Sides”

Bloomberg BNA - Malibu Media litigation by quarter Bloomberg BNA - John Doe Copyright Cases

Antonelli Law defends people nationwide who are sued by Malibu Media LLC or receive  an ISP letter informing them a subpoena for their identity was received.

For immediate advice and a free initial consultation call Antonelli Law at 312-201-8310, fill out our simple contact info below, or email us at jeffrey@antonelli-law.com with a request to call you back at a time that is convenient for you. Click here for just some of our federal court co-counsel attorneys in your jurisdiction.

Name of ISP eg. Comcast

Party Suing or issuing subpeona (Plaintiff)

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

State (required)

Daytime Phone

Subject

Your Message

captcha

Criminal Productions Inc. Targets Illinois, Washington and Arizona

Criminal Productions Inc. Targets Illinois, Washington and Arizona

No, this is not a pseudonym or an oblique reference to Breaking Bad’s “You need a _criminal_ attorney.”  Criminal Productions Inc. owns the copyright to the movie “Criminal” and is alleging people illegally shared the movie through the internet using file-sharing software. The movie stars Ryan Reynolds, Kevin Costner, and Gary Oldman. The film plot involves the implantation of a dead CIA agent’s memories into the mind of a convict.

Criminal Productions Inc. recently filed lawsuits against IP address account holders in Illinois, Washington and Arizona. The company originally filed lawsuits against people in Oregon, but has now expanded to three other states. Account holders in these states will soon receive a letter from their internet service provider informing them that a subpoena requesting the account holder’s identity was received. Usually something called a motion to quash is mentioned in the letter. Click here to learn about motions to quash in these type of lawsuits.

If you receive one of these letters, for immediate advice and a free initial consultation call Antonelli Law at 312-201-8310 or fill out our simple contact page or email us with a request to call you back at a time that is convenient for you. We understand the shock you may be feeling from receiving a notice of this action, and have the experience to help you deal with this in the best way possible for you. Attorney referrals accepted.

Criminal Productions, Inc. may soon file lawsuits in other states as well. If you are an IP address account holder, you will want to take steps to try to avoid dealing with these types of lawsuits. If you are the account holder for an IP address, make sure you speak with your household members to prevent them from using BitTorrent file sharing programs to download this movie or other copyrighted content without permission to avoid dealing with a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Name of ISP eg. Comcast

Party Suing or issuing subpeona (Plaintiff)

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

State (required)

Daytime Phone

Subject

Your Message

captcha

District of Arizona
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-17 2:16-cv-01526

District of Illinois
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-18 1:16-cv-05500
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-15 1:16-cv-05501
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-24 1:16-cv-05503
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-27 1:16-cv-05504
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-12 1:16-cv-05505
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-19 1:16-cv-05507
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-17 1:16-cv-05509
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-17 1:16-cv-05511
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-11 1:16-cv-05513
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Does 1-28 1:16-cv-05515

District of Oregon
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe 3:16-cv-00729
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe 3:16-cv-00730
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe 3:16-cv-00731
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe 3:16-cv-00732

District of Washington
Criminal Productions, Inc. v. Doe 2:16-cv-00729

Subpoena Notices for Siemens PLMS Lawsuit

Subpoena Notices for Siemens PLMS Lawsuit

Internet subscribers nationwide are receiving notices from their internet service providers informing them that a subpoena from a federal copyright lawsuit filed by Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. was received to reveal their identity. This Siemens PLMS lawsuit alleges that one hundred people illegally downloaded their software products without paying the appropriate license fee.

If you receive one of these letters, Antonelli Law can assist you nationwide. Our firm provides free consultations where we can discuss you legal options, including fighting the lawsuit, settling anonymously through an attorney, or filing a motion to quash.  Click here learn more about learn about motions to quash  and call us at 312-201-8310 or use the contact form below to discuss your case with an attorney.

Want Legal Advice? Free Initial Consultations

Antonelli Law can help you nationwide if you have received an ISP letter informing you a subpoena for your identity was received, or if you are served with a summons or waiver of service.

For immediate advice and a free initial consultation call attorney Antonelli Law at 312-201-8310 or fill out our simple contact page or email us with a request to call you back at a time that is convenient for you. We understand the shock you may be feeling from receiving a notice of this action, and have the experience to help you deal with this in the best way possible for you. Attorney referrals accepted.

Name of ISP eg. Comcast

Party Suing or issuing subpeona (Plaintiff)

Your Name (required)

Your Email (required)

State (required)

Daytime Phone

Subject

Your Message

captcha

Southern District of New York
Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1- 100 14-cv-1926

Southern District of Texas

Siemens Product Lifecycle Management Software, Inc. v. Does 1- 100 4:16-cv-01422

News and Opinions from Antonelli Law