Scott Graham, Inside Counsel; Texas Judge Sets Patent Venue Test for a Post-TC Heartland World
"The first big post-TC Heartland shoe has dropped on the patent world.
U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas set down ground rules last week for maintaining cases in the district following the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods resetting venue rules.
Gilstrap laid out four factors he will consider when deciding whether a company has a “regular and established place of business” that gives rise to venue. While a fixed physical presence such as a store or office will tend to be persuasive, “that is not a prerequisite to proper venue,” Gilstrap wrote. His rules appear to open the door for internet companies to continue being sued in the Eastern District in some circumstances."
Sunday, July 9, 2017
Friday, July 7, 2017
Right to use HHGregg’s name and other intellectual property fetches just $400,000; Indianapolis Business Journal, July 7, 2017
Scott Olson, Indianapolis Business Journal; Right to use HHGregg’s name and other intellectual property fetches just $400,000
"Failed retailer HHGregg Inc., which racked up more than $2 billion in annual revenue prior to landing in bankruptcy this March, has sold its name and other intellectual property rights for a mere $400,000.
Court records show that at an auction late last month, an entity called Valor LLC scooped up the rights to the Indianapolis-based company’s trademarks, domain names, customer files and other data.
Buyers of a defunct retailers' intellectual property sometimes do so with the intention of resurrecting the brand, either as an online-only business or with brick-and-mortar locations. It's not clear what Valor's intentions are. Company principal Michael Eisner did not respond to phone calls or an email.
HHGregg’s intellectual property became available after the electronics and appliance retailer failed to find a buyer and closed all 220 its stores this spring."
"Failed retailer HHGregg Inc., which racked up more than $2 billion in annual revenue prior to landing in bankruptcy this March, has sold its name and other intellectual property rights for a mere $400,000.
Court records show that at an auction late last month, an entity called Valor LLC scooped up the rights to the Indianapolis-based company’s trademarks, domain names, customer files and other data.
Buyers of a defunct retailers' intellectual property sometimes do so with the intention of resurrecting the brand, either as an online-only business or with brick-and-mortar locations. It's not clear what Valor's intentions are. Company principal Michael Eisner did not respond to phone calls or an email.
HHGregg’s intellectual property became available after the electronics and appliance retailer failed to find a buyer and closed all 220 its stores this spring."
Protecting Your Business: When To Consult An Intellectual Property Lawyer; CBS Los Angeles, July 6, 2017
Christopher Millard, CBS Los Angeles; Protecting Your Business: When To Consult An Intellectual Property Lawyer
"To many a small business owner, legalese can inspire fear in the heart. Intellectual property law is no exception, but this critical legal concept is tantamount to the health and well-being of your business. As Darren Dahl of the New York Times points out, “They see images of expensive lawyers and use that as an excuse to ignore the topic, reasoning that it is a problem for big companies to worry about.” He goes on to point out that through the rise of the internet, protecting your intellectual property has become a necessity. Small businesses are threatened more so, due to the lack of personnel to police intellectual property infringement.
So, let’s decode exactly what intellectual property means, and when you need to call in a lawyer to help your organization...
This article was written by Christopher Millard for CBS Small Business Pulse"
"To many a small business owner, legalese can inspire fear in the heart. Intellectual property law is no exception, but this critical legal concept is tantamount to the health and well-being of your business. As Darren Dahl of the New York Times points out, “They see images of expensive lawyers and use that as an excuse to ignore the topic, reasoning that it is a problem for big companies to worry about.” He goes on to point out that through the rise of the internet, protecting your intellectual property has become a necessity. Small businesses are threatened more so, due to the lack of personnel to police intellectual property infringement.
So, let’s decode exactly what intellectual property means, and when you need to call in a lawyer to help your organization...
This article was written by Christopher Millard for CBS Small Business Pulse"
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Saved by Alice: How a Key Supreme Court Decision Protects Businesses from Bad Patents; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), June 22, 2017
Daniel Nazer and Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Saved by Alice: How a Key Supreme Court Decision Protects Businesses from Bad Patents
"In 2014’s Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that an abstract idea does not become eligible for a patent simply by being implemented on a generic computer. Since then, Alice has provided a lifeline for real businesses threatened or sued with bogus patents.
This week, on the third anniversary of Alice, EFF is launching a new series called Saved by Alice where we’ll collect these stories of times when Alice came to the rescue. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be sharing stories of business owners large and small. You’ll meet an app developer who was sued over a bogus patent on computerized treasure hunts, a software company whose customers were targeted by a patent troll, and a photographer sued for practices that had been common in the field for years. These stories all have one thing in common: someone with a patent on an abstract idea sued a small business, and that business could have lost everything. But Alice came to the rescue.
Why are we telling these stories? Because Alice is under attack. A few loud voices in the patent lobby want to amend the law to bring back these stupid patents. It’s time to tell the stories of the individuals and businesses that have been sued or threatened with patents that shouldn’t have been issued in the first place."
"In 2014’s Alice v. CLS Bank, the Supreme Court ruled that an abstract idea does not become eligible for a patent simply by being implemented on a generic computer. Since then, Alice has provided a lifeline for real businesses threatened or sued with bogus patents.
This week, on the third anniversary of Alice, EFF is launching a new series called Saved by Alice where we’ll collect these stories of times when Alice came to the rescue. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be sharing stories of business owners large and small. You’ll meet an app developer who was sued over a bogus patent on computerized treasure hunts, a software company whose customers were targeted by a patent troll, and a photographer sued for practices that had been common in the field for years. These stories all have one thing in common: someone with a patent on an abstract idea sued a small business, and that business could have lost everything. But Alice came to the rescue.
Why are we telling these stories? Because Alice is under attack. A few loud voices in the patent lobby want to amend the law to bring back these stupid patents. It’s time to tell the stories of the individuals and businesses that have been sued or threatened with patents that shouldn’t have been issued in the first place."
Wednesday, July 5, 2017
Swedish Neo-Nazis Frozen Out In Trademark Fight; NPR, July 5, 2017
Scott Neuman, NPR: Swedish Neo-Nazis Frozen Out In Trademark Fight
"A German manufacturer of deep freezers has won a trademark battle with Swedish neo-Nazis over the group's name — which the company says is too easily confused with its own.
The extremist group, known as the Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM), or "Nordfront" for short, is too similar to Nordfrost, the firm that claims to be the world's sixth-largest maker of deep freezers."
"A German manufacturer of deep freezers has won a trademark battle with Swedish neo-Nazis over the group's name — which the company says is too easily confused with its own.
The extremist group, known as the Nordic Resistance Movement (NRM), or "Nordfront" for short, is too similar to Nordfrost, the firm that claims to be the world's sixth-largest maker of deep freezers."
Intellectual Freedom and Open Access: Working Toward a Common Goal?; American Libraries, June 25, 2017
Jennifer Putnam Davis, American Libraries; Intellectual Freedom and Open Access: Working Toward a Common Goal?
"How do the principles of intellectual freedom and open access intersect? That was the topic of the “Intellectual Freedom and Open Access: Working Toward a Common Goal?” panel discussion, sponsored by the Intellectual Freedom Round Table, which addressed the relationship from several different perspectives."
"How do the principles of intellectual freedom and open access intersect? That was the topic of the “Intellectual Freedom and Open Access: Working Toward a Common Goal?” panel discussion, sponsored by the Intellectual Freedom Round Table, which addressed the relationship from several different perspectives."
Tuesday, July 4, 2017
Louisiana considers radical step to counter high drug prices: Federal intervention; Washington Post, July 3, 2017
Carolyn Y. Johnson, Washington Post; Louisiana considers radical step to counter high drug prices: Federal intervention
"At [Louisiana’s health secretary Rebekah] Gee’s urging, Joshua Sharfstein, a professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University and a former Food and Drug Administration deputy commissioner, convened a meeting of health-policy specialists and economists. They advised that the state ask the federal government to intervene in a two-pronged approach: Gee should first ask the government to negotiate with a drug company and license a medication, in line with a recent recommendation by a committee from the National Academies.
At the same time, they advised Gee to pursue a harder-edged tactic, in case the voluntary approach did not work: Gee should ask the secretary of health and human services to invoke a century-old law that allows the government to use patents at a reasonable cost. The panel recommended a price as low as $1,000 per patient.
The law was used routinely in the 1950s and 1960s to make medicines available at lower prices. It was considered but not used during the anthrax attacks in 2001. It has been used by more than 10 government agencies or departments to lower the prices for patented inventions, including night-vision goggles for the Defense Department.
“The drug has been out for years, and we’re failing to provide it to the majority of people who have this infection,” Gee said. “We’re failing at our mission to improve the public health, and so just doing what we’re doing is not an option and we have to do better.”"
"At [Louisiana’s health secretary Rebekah] Gee’s urging, Joshua Sharfstein, a professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University and a former Food and Drug Administration deputy commissioner, convened a meeting of health-policy specialists and economists. They advised that the state ask the federal government to intervene in a two-pronged approach: Gee should first ask the government to negotiate with a drug company and license a medication, in line with a recent recommendation by a committee from the National Academies.
At the same time, they advised Gee to pursue a harder-edged tactic, in case the voluntary approach did not work: Gee should ask the secretary of health and human services to invoke a century-old law that allows the government to use patents at a reasonable cost. The panel recommended a price as low as $1,000 per patient.
The law was used routinely in the 1950s and 1960s to make medicines available at lower prices. It was considered but not used during the anthrax attacks in 2001. It has been used by more than 10 government agencies or departments to lower the prices for patented inventions, including night-vision goggles for the Defense Department.
“The drug has been out for years, and we’re failing to provide it to the majority of people who have this infection,” Gee said. “We’re failing at our mission to improve the public health, and so just doing what we’re doing is not an option and we have to do better.”"
Monday, July 3, 2017
Chocolate Aplenty, but Nary a Wonka Bar to Be Found; New York Times, July 3, 2017
Michael Paulson and David Gelles, New York Times; Chocolate Aplenty, but Nary a Wonka Bar to Be Found
"The Wonka brand passed from company to company in a wave of late-20th-century corporate mergers and acquisitions, and along the way came a real-world Wonka Bar, Peanut Butter Oompas, Everlasting Gobstoppers and other candies. In 1993 Nestlé, a Swiss conglomerate, acquired the Wonka name from a British candymaker, Rowntree Mackintosh Confectionery, and, for a time, nurtured the Wonka brand, which eventually encompassed candies including SweeTarts, Nerds and Laffy Taffy, followed by Wonka Exceptionals. But the entire Wonka line has since been discontinued.
Nestlé has been hoping “to refocus the magic of Wonka toward future product offerings around the world,” according to Roz O’Hearn, a company spokeswoman. “We’re considering a variety of options, but for now, our innovation plans remain confidential, so I cannot share more info.”
"The Wonka brand passed from company to company in a wave of late-20th-century corporate mergers and acquisitions, and along the way came a real-world Wonka Bar, Peanut Butter Oompas, Everlasting Gobstoppers and other candies. In 1993 Nestlé, a Swiss conglomerate, acquired the Wonka name from a British candymaker, Rowntree Mackintosh Confectionery, and, for a time, nurtured the Wonka brand, which eventually encompassed candies including SweeTarts, Nerds and Laffy Taffy, followed by Wonka Exceptionals. But the entire Wonka line has since been discontinued.
Nestlé has been hoping “to refocus the magic of Wonka toward future product offerings around the world,” according to Roz O’Hearn, a company spokeswoman. “We’re considering a variety of options, but for now, our innovation plans remain confidential, so I cannot share more info.”
‘Bombshell’ Canadian Patent Ruling Seen Favoring Foreign Companies; Bloomberg, June 30, 2017
Josh Wingrove, Bloomberg; ‘Bombshell’ Canadian Patent Ruling Seen Favoring Foreign Companies
"“It’s a bombshell of a decision,” said Richard Gold, a law professor at Montreal’s McGill University who studies intellectual property. He’s a member of the university’s Centre For Intellectual Property Policy, which intervened in the case. “We’re now the only country in the developed world that when an inventor says, ‘my invention does X,’ it doesn’t actually have to do X.”
"“It’s a bombshell of a decision,” said Richard Gold, a law professor at Montreal’s McGill University who studies intellectual property. He’s a member of the university’s Centre For Intellectual Property Policy, which intervened in the case. “We’re now the only country in the developed world that when an inventor says, ‘my invention does X,’ it doesn’t actually have to do X.”
The Supreme Court ruled that a current standard, known as the “promise doctrine,” goes too far, because it allows for patents to be invalidated if an invention doesn’t do any of the things it promised."
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?; Guardian, June 27, 2017
Stephen Buranyi, Guardian; Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
"The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her.
Elbakyan is an unabashed utopian. “Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers,” she told me in an email. In a letter to the court, she cited Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.
Whatever the fate of Sci-Hub, it seems that frustration with the current system is growing. But history shows that betting against science publishers is a risky move. After all, back in 1988, Maxwell predicted that in the future there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left, and that they would ply their trade in an electronic age with no printing costs, leading to almost “pure profit”. That sounds a lot like the world we live in now."
"The idea that scientific research should be freely available for anyone to use is a sharp departure, even a threat, to the current system – which relies on publishers’ ability to restrict access to the scientific literature in order to maintain its immense profitability. In recent years, the most radical opposition to the status quo has coalesced around a controversial website called Sci-Hub – a sort of Napster for science that allows anyone to download scientific papers for free. Its creator, Alexandra Elbakyan, a Kazhakstani, is in hiding, facing charges of hacking and copyright infringement in the US. Elsevier recently obtained a $15m injunction (the maximum allowable amount) against her.
Elbakyan is an unabashed utopian. “Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers,” she told me in an email. In a letter to the court, she cited Article 27 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, asserting the right “to share in scientific advancement and its benefits”.
Whatever the fate of Sci-Hub, it seems that frustration with the current system is growing. But history shows that betting against science publishers is a risky move. After all, back in 1988, Maxwell predicted that in the future there would only be a handful of immensely powerful publishing companies left, and that they would ply their trade in an electronic age with no printing costs, leading to almost “pure profit”. That sounds a lot like the world we live in now."
Sunday, July 2, 2017
Intellectual Property 101: What Your Business Needs To Know About Trademark Law; Forbes, June 26, 2017
Art Neill, Forbes; Intellectual Property 101: What Your Business Needs To Know About Trademark Law
"Co-author Teri Karobonik contributed to this post*
When you think of a “trademark” you may think of a logo (Apple’s apple logo) or a product or service name (Forbes). You may even assume that trademarks are only a concern for internationally famous brands like fashion companies (Prada) and fast food (Pizza Hut).
In reality, trademark protection extends further than logos and can cover everything from sounds (the 20th Century Fox Fanfare before the opening movie credits), to colors (the “green” on a John Deere tractor), to the design of a taco shop.
Although many of the common examples you hear about are large corporate brands, understanding trademark protection is just as important for startups, independent creators, and small business. So what do trademarks do? They protect consumers from confusion regarding the source of products or services. As your business grows, trademarks become a significant asset because they are the way consumers identify and relate with your company. You also need to know how and when your business can use the trademarks of other companies.
In this second part of this four part series (see Part 1 on Copyright here), we’ll break down one of the 4 main types of intellectual property (Trademark) and explain..."
"Co-author Teri Karobonik contributed to this post*
When you think of a “trademark” you may think of a logo (Apple’s apple logo) or a product or service name (Forbes). You may even assume that trademarks are only a concern for internationally famous brands like fashion companies (Prada) and fast food (Pizza Hut).
In reality, trademark protection extends further than logos and can cover everything from sounds (the 20th Century Fox Fanfare before the opening movie credits), to colors (the “green” on a John Deere tractor), to the design of a taco shop.
Although many of the common examples you hear about are large corporate brands, understanding trademark protection is just as important for startups, independent creators, and small business. So what do trademarks do? They protect consumers from confusion regarding the source of products or services. As your business grows, trademarks become a significant asset because they are the way consumers identify and relate with your company. You also need to know how and when your business can use the trademarks of other companies.
In this second part of this four part series (see Part 1 on Copyright here), we’ll break down one of the 4 main types of intellectual property (Trademark) and explain..."
Friday, June 30, 2017
Coraopolis man accused of taking trade secrets from Harsco; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 30, 2017
Len Boselovic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; Coraopolis man accused of taking trade secrets from Harsco
"A Camp Hill company that recycles mill waste is accusing a former employee from Coraopolis of taking thousands of pages of documents containing trade secrets to a competitor that planned to use them to develop products of its own.
"A Camp Hill company that recycles mill waste is accusing a former employee from Coraopolis of taking thousands of pages of documents containing trade secrets to a competitor that planned to use them to develop products of its own.
A federal judge based in Pittsburgh this week ordered Stephen Miranda, a former employee in Harsco Corp.’s Sarver office, to remain on administrative leave from Phoenix Services, the Chester County company Mr. Miranda went to work for after leaving Harsco in April."
Thursday, June 29, 2017
One Year On: Developments in the Protection of Trade Secrets; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Director's Forum Blog, June 29, 2017
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
|
Tuesday, June 27, 2017
Should robot artists be given copyright protection?; Phys.org, June 26, 2017
Andres Guadamuz, Phys.org; Should robot artists be given copyright protection?
"But who owns creative works generated by artificial intelligence? This isn't just an academic question. AI is already being used to generate works in music, journalism and gaming, and these works could in theory be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author.
This would mean they could be freely used and reused by anyone and that would be bad news for the companies selling them. Imagine you invest millions in a system that generates music for video games, only to find that music isn't protected by law and can be used without payment by anyone in the world."
"But who owns creative works generated by artificial intelligence? This isn't just an academic question. AI is already being used to generate works in music, journalism and gaming, and these works could in theory be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author.
This would mean they could be freely used and reused by anyone and that would be bad news for the companies selling them. Imagine you invest millions in a system that generates music for video games, only to find that music isn't protected by law and can be used without payment by anyone in the world."
Lawyers Rally to Save ‘McMansion Hell’ from Zillow’s Copyright Claim; Fortune, June 27, 2017
Jeff John Roberts, Fortune; Lawyers Rally to Save ‘McMansion Hell’ from Zillow’s Copyright Claim
"A Zillow spokesperson has sent the following statement to media outlets:
"We are asking this blogger to take down the photos that are protected by copyright rules, but we did not demand she shut down her blog and hope she can find a way to continue her work," the statement reads.
The McMansion Hell controversy is likely to end with Wagner's site going back online, and with Zillow becoming the latest victim of what is known as "the Streisand effect"—a phenomenon in which an attempt to use dubious legal tactics to smother an issue on the Internet results in even more publicity for that issue. (Ironically, the original Streisand effect case—named for Barbara Streisand—also turned on mansions)."
"A Zillow spokesperson has sent the following statement to media outlets:
"We are asking this blogger to take down the photos that are protected by copyright rules, but we did not demand she shut down her blog and hope she can find a way to continue her work," the statement reads.
The McMansion Hell controversy is likely to end with Wagner's site going back online, and with Zillow becoming the latest victim of what is known as "the Streisand effect"—a phenomenon in which an attempt to use dubious legal tactics to smother an issue on the Internet results in even more publicity for that issue. (Ironically, the original Streisand effect case—named for Barbara Streisand—also turned on mansions)."
Sleepless Nights for GCs Caused by Regulations and Crisis Management; Inside Counsel, June 22, 2017
Jennifer Williams-Alvarez, Inside Counsel; Sleepless Nights for GCs Caused by Regulations and Crisis Management
"The inaugural "General Counsel Up-at-Night" report looks at responses to an online survey conducted in spring 2017 from more than 200 U.S.-based general counsel and other in-house legal decision-makers.
"The inaugural "General Counsel Up-at-Night" report looks at responses to an online survey conducted in spring 2017 from more than 200 U.S.-based general counsel and other in-house legal decision-makers.
The results reveal that the most pressing challenges faced by respondents are: regulations and enforcement; privacy and data security; risk and crisis management; litigation; and intellectual property. Among these, the biggest concerns are regulations and enforcement, with 74 percent of respondents identifying this as a very important challenge, followed by privacy and data security with 65 percent and risk and crisis management with 63 percent."
Monday, June 26, 2017
Patents can stifle, as well as protect, stifle innovation; Albuquerque Journal, June 26, 2017
Joel Jacobsen, Albuquerque Journal;
Patents can stifle, as well as protect, stifle innovation
"The absence of patent protection would make it difficult if not impossible for many inventors to profit from their ingenuity. But when a second inventor vastly improves on an original idea, as Curtiss did, isn’t he equally entitled to reap the rewards of his own ingenuity? Even apart from questions of fairness, society benefits from both the original invention and its subsequent improvement. Both types of progress deserve legal protection."
Inventor's Corner: What happens when someone infringes a patent?; Sioux Falls Business Journal via Argus Journal, June 23, 2017
Jeffrey Proehl, for the Sioux Falls Business Journal via Argus Journal; Inventor's Corner: What happens when someone infringes a patent?
"Jeffrey Proehl is a registered patent attorney with Woods, Fuller, Shultz & Smith P.C. in Sioux Falls.
Although the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants patents, the U.S. government does not enforce patents against infringers. When a patent owner becomes aware someone without authorization is “making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing” a product that infringes the owner’s patent, the owner has the option to enforce the patent."
Sunday, June 25, 2017
How Bad Intellectual Property Laws Hurt Classic Video Game Consumers; Forbes, June 25, 2017
Adam Ozimek, Forbes; How Bad Intellectual Property Laws Hurt Classic Video Game Consumers
"The economic purpose of intellectual property is to incentivize the creation of products that would not otherwise be created. These laws can benefit consumers, but the granting of monopoly rights creates a cost as well. In terms of balancing costs and benefits, the current copyright system is -to be frank- absurd. A look at how excessive copyright is harming back video game consumers makes that clear."
"The economic purpose of intellectual property is to incentivize the creation of products that would not otherwise be created. These laws can benefit consumers, but the granting of monopoly rights creates a cost as well. In terms of balancing costs and benefits, the current copyright system is -to be frank- absurd. A look at how excessive copyright is harming back video game consumers makes that clear."
The great intellectual property trade-off; BBC, June 25, 2017
Tim Harford, BBC; The great intellectual property trade-off
"For most economists, scrapping intellectual property entirely is going too far. They point to important cases - such as new medicines - where the costs of invention are enormous and the costs of copying are trivial.
"For most economists, scrapping intellectual property entirely is going too far. They point to important cases - such as new medicines - where the costs of invention are enormous and the costs of copying are trivial.
But those who defend intellectual property protections still tend to argue that - right now - those protections offer more than enough incentive to create new ideas.
Dickens himself eventually discovered a financial upside to weak copyright protection.
Twenty five years after his initial visit to the US, Dickens returned, keen to make some money.
He reckoned that so many people had read cheap knock-offs of his stories that he could cash in on his fame with a lecture tour. He was absolutely right: off the back of pirated copies of his work, Charles Dickens made a fortune as a public speaker, many millions of dollars in today's terms.
Perhaps the intellectual property was worth more when given away."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)