Security Bank & Trust Company v. Cook Group, Inc., 0:21-cv-02572

Dr. Kurt Amplatz was an inventor who entered into two royalty contracts (1983, 1995) with Cook Inc. (medical device manufacturer), with Cook Medical as distributor.
Amplatz received royalties for Cook's products using his name for decades; after his death in 2019, his estate (represented by Security Bank & Trust) became the counterparty.
The estate claims Cook stopped paying royalties after Amplatz’s death but continued to profit from his name; the estate sues for breach of contract and right of publicity, among other claims.
Cook contends the contracts expired, the name “Amplatz” is generic, and seeks reimbursement for royalties paid after expiration, counterclaiming for breach of contract and unjust enrichment.
Both parties moved for summary judgment on various claims and counterclaims; the court rules on these motions, sending key factual questions to a jury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity/duration of royalty contracts	Contracts remained in effect through Amplatz’s life	Contracts expired pre-2019; no enforceable contract remains	Jury must decide if implied contracts existed, summary j. denied
Whether "Amplatz" name is generic/descriptive	Name remains a protectable right of publicity	Name became generic/descriptive, thus no exclusive right	Jury to decide factual issue; summary j. denied on this defense
Right of publicity abandonment/waiver	Right not waived/abandoned by inaction	Amplatz abandoned rights by not enforcing against others	Name cannot be abandoned by omission; summary j. for estate
Estate’s claims of promissory estoppel/unfair competition	Sought as alternative theories	Not legally viable; claims fail as a matter of law	Dismissed (unopposed/withdrawn by Estate)
Defendant’s counterclaims against estate (timeliness)	Counterclaims are time-barred by statute of limitations	Claims were timely or excused under various arguments	Barred by statute of limitations; summary j. for estate
Defendant’s recoupment defense/unjust enrichment	No unjust enrichment; payments made deliberately	Sought to reduce/recover payments as equitable recoupment	No unjust enrichment, no recoupment; summary j. for estate

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (explains summary judgment standard)
Epland v. Meade Ins. Agency Assocs., Inc., 564 N.W.2d 203 (assignment of contract duties requires obligee consent)
Vetter v. Sec. Cont’l Ins. Co., 567 N.W.2d 516 (assignment does not absolve assignor of contractual liability)
Tony & Leo, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 281 N.W.2d 862 (assignment and contractual obligations)
Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Prods., Inc., 930 F.2d 277 (mark’s status as generic is a jury issue)
Peterson v. Marston, 362 N.W.2d 309 (what constitutes presentment of a claim against estate)
Cady v. Bush, 166 N.W.2d 358 (unjust enrichment not available for self-imposed bargains)
Caldas v. Affordable Granite & Stone, Inc., 820 N.W.2d 826 (unjust enrichment standard under Minnesota law)