Category Archives: Intellectual Property

Primer and Comment on The Defense Trade Secrets Act.

31 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Defense Trade Secrets Act, Intellectual Property

≈ Comments Off on Primer and Comment on The Defense Trade Secrets Act.

Tags

, , , ,

Guest Post: Defend Trade Secrets Act — A Primer, an Endorsement, and a Criticism, Guest Post by David S. Almeling (partner of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, specializing in patent and trade secret litigation), Patently-O Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kdmurjf

It’s been an exciting month for trade secret law. Senators Christopher Coons (D-Delaware) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) introduced the Defend Trade Secrets Act, a bill that would, for the first time, provide a federal right of civil action for trade secret theft. And the Judiciary Committee held a hearing during which speakers expressed support for the DTSA, including Eli Lilly’s VP and General Patent Counsel, Douglas Norman, who stated that the DTSA ‘will establish the gold standard for national trade secret laws globally.’

The DTSA is a game changer. If enacted, it would constitute the most dramatic rethinking of trade secret law since 1979, when the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved a model statute called the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. Since then, 48 states have adopted the UTSA in some form, replacing their common-law regimes with statutory ones.

The DTSA isn’t perfect — I’ll explain why in a moment — but it’s the best bill of its kind introduced to date, and it should be enacted. . . .

How Graphics Were Used In Historic Copyright Case.

22 Thursday May 2014

Posted by in Closing Argument, Copyright, Exhibits, Intellectual Property, Legal Technology, Opening Argument, Oral Argument, Technology, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on How Graphics Were Used In Historic Copyright Case.

Tags

, , , ,

Graphics for a Historic Copyright Case, by Michael Kelleher, Consent Legal Blog

http://tinyurl.com/q6oa8rt

As you prepare for oral argument in an important hearing, you may realize that you need quick help to create or revise graphics. Today’s blog post comes from this type of scenario, and it has the added interest of coming from a high-profile copyright dispute pending in the Supreme Court. . . .

 

Statute of Limitations And Copyright Infringement.

20 Tuesday May 2014

Posted by in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Patent Law

≈ Comments Off on Statute of Limitations And Copyright Infringement.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Supreme Court: In Copyright, Laches Cannot Preclude Actions Taken Within Three Year Statute of Limitations, by Dennis Crouch, PatentlyO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/pqwudqa

Petrella v. MGM (Supreme Court 2014)

Frank Petrella wrote a screenplay back in 1963 based on the life of Jake LaMotta and assigned rights to UA/MGM who made the movie Raging Bull. Under the old renewal system, renewal rights went to Petrella’s heir, Paula Petrella, who renewed the copyright in 1991 in a fashion that (seemingly) eliminates the prior license. In 1998 she informed MGM that its continued exploitation of the Raging Bull movie violated her copyright. Finally, in 2009, she did sue – alleging copyright infringement.

Copyright infringement has a three-year statute of limitations indicating that ‘No civil action shall be maintained under the [Act] unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued.’ 17 U.S.C. §507(b). However, as in patent law, copyright follows a ‘separate-accrual rule’ that sees each successive violation of a copyright as a new infringing act with its own statute of limitations. Thus, under the statute of limitations, MGM could be liable for its post-2006 actions such as copying and distributing the work. . . .

Forget Me – Europe Rules On Removing Google Links.

17 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Copyright, Google, Intellectual Property, Internet, Legal Technology, Privacy, Public Domain

≈ Comments Off on Forget Me – Europe Rules On Removing Google Links.

Tags

, , , , ,

European Ruling On Removing Google Links May Leave A Mess, by Aarti Shanani, All Tech Considered, NPR

http://tinyurl.com/k747wvt

Google’s lawyers are trying to make sense of a ruling they did not expect.

This week, Europe’s highest court decided that people have a right to have search results about them deleted from online databases. So Google has to remove links to certain pages. Legal experts in Europe are torn about what, exactly, that means.

What Prompted The Ruling

There’s a man in Spain who doesn’t like his search results. I ask a fellow Spaniard, Cristina de la Serna in Madrid, to show us why.

She goes to Google.es, Spain’s version of the search engine, and types in the name Mario Costeja Gonzalez. The second result she gets for Gonzalez is a link to a 1998 Spanish newspaper clip. It shows his home was repossessed because of debt.

Google Must Delete Personal Data When Asked, European Court Says

Gonzalez wants the old blemish to go away, and de la Serna thinks he’s got a point. Searching people isn’t the same as searching for shoes, cars or books. . . .

Are Patent Rights A Marital Asset?

10 Saturday May 2014

Posted by in Divorce, Family Law, Intellectual Property, Marital Asset, Patent Law

≈ Comments Off on Are Patent Rights A Marital Asset?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Patent Rights are a Marital Asset and Non-Inventing Spouse is a Co-Owner, by Dennis Crouch, Patently-O Blog

http://bit.ly/1mce19e

James Taylor v Taylor Made Plastics (Fed. Cir. 2014)

I should note here that this case is neither about the musician or the golf club company. Rather, it is about the now fractured Taylor family and their patented pipe plugs. I discussed the district court decision earlier here.

Several years ago James T. invented storm drain equipment and obtained a patent in his name only. U.S. Patent No. 5,806,566. When he and his wife Mary T. later divorced, the divorce court ordered “equitable distribution of marital property” with Mary T. receiving 60% of proceeds from the patent and James T. receiving 40%. The divorce court seemingly only dealt with equitable title in the form of rights-to-proceeds and not with legal title to the patent itself. And, in particular, the divorce court did not identify who held the exclusive rights associated with the patent. . . .

Apple Loses Billions In Damages To Samsung In 2nd Patent-Infringement Lawsuit.

04 Sunday May 2014

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Patent Law

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Jury Finds Samsung Infringed Some Apple Patents, Must Pay $120M In Damages, by Martyn Williams, PC World News

http://bit.ly/1kDlj2L

Apple was dealt a blow in its second major patent-infringement lawsuit against Samsung when a Silicon Valley jury awarded the iPhone maker damages of just US$119.65 million for Samsung’s infringement of several of its smartphone patents.

Apple had requested $2.2 billion in damages.

The decision by the eight-person jury came at the end of the third full day of deliberations. . . .

Author’s Guild Sues Google Inc. For Copyright Infringement.

13 Sunday Apr 2014

Posted by in Copyright, Intellectual Property

≈ Comments Off on Author’s Guild Sues Google Inc. For Copyright Infringement.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Authors Guild Asks US Court To Rule Against Google, by Larry Neumeister, Associated Press (Associated Press Writer Michael Liedtke in San Francisco contributed to this report) (with hat tip to Howard J. Bashman at How Appealing Blog!)

 http://tinyurl.com/ya7n7wx

Saying Google Inc. is stealing business from online book retailers, the Authors Guild asked a federal appeals court Friday to reinstate its lawsuit contending that the Internet giant is violating copyright laws with its massive book digitization project.

The Guild filed papers with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, saying that Google’s effort to create the world’s largest digital library was violating the rights of authors and stifling competition in the busy Internet book sales market. . . .

The Meaning of “Intellectual Property”

23 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Patent Law, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

The Meaning Of “Intellectual Property,” by Dennis Crouch’s Patently-O Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lcag5xs

Energy Recovery, Inc. v. Hauge (Fed. Cir. 2014) 13-1515.Opinion.3-18-2014.1– Panel: Rader, Reyna, and Wallach (author).

At the heart of this case lies the question of ‘what is intellectual property?’ Here, the answer has more than philosophical implications: a finding of contempt hinges on it.

Is Sherlock Holmes in the Public Domain?

17 Monday Feb 2014

Posted by in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Public Domain

≈ Comments Off on Is Sherlock Holmes in the Public Domain?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Federal Judge Declares Sherlock Holmes Characters in Public Domain. Sort of., by Dan Nabel, LawLawLand Blog

http://tinyurl.com/lqx7vda

Comedian Dmitri Martin has a great joke about the expression ‘sort of.’  Although normally a fairly meaningless expression, saying ‘sort of’ after certain things suddenly becomes very important.  Such as after the phrase ‘I love you,’ or ‘You’re going to live,’ or ‘It’s a boy.’  I immediately thought of this joke after reading a recent order issued by a federal court in Illinois.  The order declared that Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson, 221B Baker Street, the evil Professor Moriarty, and other elements of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s beloved works have fallen into the public domain.

Sort of.

How Skillful Are You At Mediation?

16 Sunday Feb 2014

Posted by in Alternative Dispute Resolution, Intellectual Property, Litigation, Mediation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

≈ Comments Off on How Skillful Are You At Mediation?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Beyond Biglaw: Mediation Matters (Part 1), by Gaston Kroub, Above The Law Blog

http://tinyurl.com/kv9d9ag

Mediation. For some lawyers, it is a great way to spend a day; for others, it is an interminable bore, and ineffective to boot. It is easy to imagine that lawyers who have had successful mediation experiences are more likely to fall into the former category than the latter. What is more certain, however, is that mediation skills are increasingly important for a litigator to have, for a number of reasons. . . .

Apple and Google Fighting Patent Trolls In the U.S. Supreme Court.

15 Saturday Feb 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, Apple, Google, Intellectual Property, Legal Technology, Patent Law, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, United States Supreme Court

≈ Comments Off on Apple and Google Fighting Patent Trolls In the U.S. Supreme Court.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Supreme Court Takes on Patent Trolls, by Greg Stohr and Susan Decker, Technology, BloombergBusinessweek

http://tinyurl.com/mav2rc4

Apple (AAPL) and Google (GOOG) say they’re tired of being slapped with baseless patent suits that cost them millions in legal fees. Now they’re asking the U.S. Supreme Court to let them hit back. The two are leading a group of companies urging the court to make it easier for businesses to recover legal costs when they win a patent infringement suit. In two cases to be argued this month, the justices will hear them out.

More than 100,000 businesses were threatened in 2012 by ‘patent assertion entities.’ Often derided as patent trolls, these companies get most of their revenue from licensing patents and from suing other companies for infringement. They filed 19 percent of all patent lawsuits from 2007 to 2011, according to the Government Accountability Office. . . .

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That FCC Regulations Are Outside the Agency’s Authority.

14 Tuesday Jan 2014

Posted by in Appellate Law, District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, FCC, Government, Internet

≈ Comments Off on D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Rules That FCC Regulations Are Outside the Agency’s Authority.

Tags

, , , , ,

Not Hyperbole: The Internet Won’t Be The Same Without Net Neutrality, by Brian Focht, The Cyber Advocate

http://tinyurl.com/lwlyubo

Today, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that key provisions of regulations promulgated by the FCC, referred to as the ‘Open Internet Rules’ (or ‘Net Neutrality’ to most), were outside the agency’s authority. Specifically, the court held that rules requiring broadband internet service providers to treat all internet traffic equally were beyond the FCC’s powers, because broadband providers are not considered ‘common carriers.’

A CEO Guide To Just About Everything You Want to Know About Tech.

25 Wednesday Dec 2013

Posted by in Clouds, Disaster Preparedness, Intellectual Property, Legal Technology, Marketing

≈ Comments Off on A CEO Guide To Just About Everything You Want to Know About Tech.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

CEO Tech Guide, Bloomberg BusinessWeek

http://www.businessweek.com/reports/technology/ceo-tech-guide

Creative financing, sustainable business practice, clouds, disaster preparedness, protection of intellectual property, mobile advertising and marketing, and more. – CCE

Court Questions Party’s Unexplained Lack Of Cooperation In E- Discovery Production.

13 Friday Dec 2013

Posted by in Discovery, E-Discovery, Intellectual Property, Requests for Production, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Court Questions Party’s Unexplained Lack Of Cooperation In E- Discovery Production.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Court Declines to Compel Identification of Seed Set, Encourages Cooperation, published by K&L Gates

http://tinyurl.com/leagmr6

In re: Biomet M2a Magnum Hip Implant Prods. Liab. Litig., NO. 3:12-MD-2391, 2013 WL 6405156 (N.D. Ind. Aug, 21, 2013).

Previously in this case, the court ruled that Biomet need not start again on its document production for which it utilized both keyword searching and predictive coding.  (See summary here.)  In this opinion, the court addressed the Steering Committee’s request that the discoverable documents used in Biomet’s seed set be identified and declined to compel such identification.  Despite this, the court noted Biomet’s ‘unexplained lack of cooperation’and urged Biomet to ‘re-think its refusal.’

IP Law Professors Send Letter to Congress Seeking Anti-Troll Patent Legislation.

07 Saturday Dec 2013

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Patent Law

≈ Comments Off on IP Law Professors Send Letter to Congress Seeking Anti-Troll Patent Legislation.

Tags

, , , , ,

IP Law Professors Rise-Up Against Patent Assertion Entities, By Dennis Crouch at PatentlyO Blog

http://tinyurl.com/n7qrg7a

A group of sixty US intellectual property law professors have signed a letter to Congress supporting anti-troll patent reform legislation. This effort was driven by Professor Love of Santa Clara and is also signed by Professors Bessen, Goldman, Ghosh, Lemley, Meurer, Samuelson, Sprigman, and others. [Download ProfessorsLetterOnTrolls].

A key introductory line from the letter:

Despite our differences, we all share concern that an increasing number of patent owners are taking advantage of weaknesses in the system to exploit their rights in ways that on net deter, rather than encourage, the development of new technology.

Five Important and Volatile Issues in Current Patent Law.

01 Sunday Dec 2013

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Patent Law, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Five Important and Volatile Issues in Current Patent Law.

Tags

, , ,

The 5 Biggest Issues in Patent Law Right Now, by Ryan Flax, The Litigation Consultant Report Blog

http://tinyurl.com/laqmz3g

Trial of Historical Patent for Common Web Encryption of SSL in East Texas.

24 Sunday Nov 2013

Posted by in E-Discovery, Evidence, Intellectual Property, Legal Technology, Patent Law, Texas Supreme Court, Trial Tips and Techniques

≈ Comments Off on Trial of Historical Patent for Common Web Encryption of SSL in East Texas.

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Newegg on trial: Mystery company TQP rewrites the history of encryption, by Joe Mullin, Law & Disorder/Civilization & Discontents (with hat tip to Dennis Crouch’s Patently-O!)

http://tinyurl.com/

The story of Michael Jones, his mysterious invention, and the massive patent enforcer he’s working with is finally coming out at a patent trial underway in this small East Texas town.

Jones’ patent, now owned by famed patent enforcer Erich Spangenberg, has scared corporate America into writing one hefty check after another to avoid a trial just like this one. He and his lawyers say the patent covers the common web encryption scheme of SSL combined with the RC4 algorithm. The sums of those checks were revealed in court here on Tuesday when a TQP attorney displayed to the jury a spreadsheet with many of the payments.

Three Base Hit: An Analysis of Apple v. Samsung, Bookmarking in Adobe, and E-Briefs

23 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by in Adobe Acrobat, E-Briefs, Legal Technology, Patent Law

≈ Comments Off on Three Base Hit: An Analysis of Apple v. Samsung, Bookmarking in Adobe, and E-Briefs

Tags

, , , , , , ,

An E-Brief Reading Guide to the Latest Decision in Apple v. Samsung, by Michael Kelleher, Cogent Legal Blog

http://tinyurl.com/oax544l

This post is unique. Interesting analysis of Apple v. Samsung and a “how to” on bookmarking Adobe documents and creating and using e-briefs. CCE

A Compilation of Canadian Law Blogs, Articles, and Links

09 Saturday Nov 2013

Posted by in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Law Libraries, Law Office Management, Legal Writing, Marketing, Research

≈ Comments Off on A Compilation of Canadian Law Blogs, Articles, and Links

Tags

, , , , , ,

Fall 2013 Issue of Law Library Journal Now Available, Michel-A. Sheppard, Library Boy

http://bit.ly/1fsfMdJ

Ron, this one’s for you. CCE

Seeing Double

06 Wednesday Nov 2013

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Trademarks

≈ Comments Off on Seeing Double

Tags

, , , ,

Interlocking X’s Mark the Litigation Spot, by Lori L. Werdertich, Law Law Land

http://bit.ly/Hyd9uU

Oil and gas behemoth ExxonMobil has sued FX Networks in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas over the logo FX bestowed onto its newly launched network FXX.  Exxon alleges the FXX logo infringes on Exxon’s own logo featuring two interlocking X’s along a diagonal line sloping downward, left to right.

The FXX logo features a similar interlocking double X design that FXX is in the process of trying to register (though, to be nit-picky, these X’s connect along a diagonal sloping upward, left to right).

So what’s got Exxon’s gas pumps in a twist?  Well, according to Exxon, the FXX logo infringes on Exxon’s trademark, causing customer confusion, dilution of the trademark, unfair competition, and the unjust enrichment of FXX.  Exxon contends that it registered this interlocking X design and that it’s been in continuous use by the company for decades to designate its “famous” fuel pumps and gas stations “uniquely” associated with Exxon goods and services.  Judging from Exxon’s complaint, Exxon is especially perturbed that FXX has used the interlocking X’s standing alone in some of its recent promotions.  According to Exxon, Exxon has exclusive ownership over these interlocking X’s.