Hamilton Producers Sue Over Copyright; Playbill, 10/8/16

Adam Hetrick, Playbill; Hamilton Producers Sue Over Copyright:

"Online t-shirt companies SunFrog and GearLaunch are being sued by the producers of Hamilton over copyright infringement. The show’s producers state that the companies have been selling bootleg t-shirts that utilize the show’s logo, according to TMZ.com."

WVU library offers patent, trademark resources; West Virginia Record, 10/7/16

Taryn Phaneuf, West Virginia Record; WVU library offers patent, trademark resources:

"The only official Patent & Trademark Resource Center in the state has been offering its services for nearly 25 years. Recently, it’s become a tool used more frequently by WVU students building businesses involving intellectual property, Marian Armour-Gemmen, the patent and trademark librarian at Evansdale Library, told The West Virginia Record...

The U.S. Patent & Trademark Office has a network of official resource centers all over the country at public, state and academic libraries. It is designed to assist the public, and library staff are trained in using USPTO search tools to find the patent and trademark information. The records have changed over the years — from hard paper copies to microfiche to DVDs to online databases — but the premise is the same, Armour-Gemmen said.

“It’s really important to find a similar patent to your invention,” she said. “No invention stands alone. We don’t live in a vacuum — we’re influenced by somebody. It’s important to find ones that are similar to your invention so you can show how yours is novel.”

The centers are an important resource because of the value of intellectual property. The stakes are high for an inventor or business owner looking to protect their ideas or to avoid infringing on someone else’s — a mistake that can cost a lot of money."

Improving the Trademark Register; Director's Forum: A Blog from USPTO's Leadership, 10/5/16

Guest Blog from Commissioner for Trademarks Mary Boney Denison, Director's Forum: A Blog from USPTO's Leadership; Improving the Trademark Register:

"When selecting a mark for a new product or service, a business will search the USPTO database of registered marks to determine whether a particular mark is available. Registered trademarks that are not actually in use in commerce unnecessarily block someone else from registering the mark.

To ensure the accuracy of our trademark registry, in 2012, the USPTO launched a pilot program to gather data on whether registered marks were actually being used on the products and services listed on their registrations.

During the pilot, in 500 randomly-selected maintenance filings we required the registrant to submit proof of use for two additional items for each class listed on the registration. Although the registrant must submit one example of use per class in a maintenance filing, typically the registration will list multiple products or services for each class.

At the conclusion of the pilot, the USPTO determined that in more than half of the trademark registrations selected, the owner was unable to verify the actual use of the mark for the goods or services queried. This was in spite of the owner having recently sworn under penalty of perjury to such ongoing use as part of the maintenance filing. We issued a report on the results and held a roundtable to discuss the results and next steps. The consensus among roundtable participants was that the results of the pilot program indicated a need for some action to improve the accuracy and integrity of the register. As a result of these findings and input from the trademark community, we are now taking a three-pronged approach to tackling the so-called “deadwood” in our searchable database of registered marks."

Dramatic twists could upend patent battle over CRISPR genome-editing method; Science, 10/5/16

Jon Cohen, Science; Dramatic twists could upend patent battle over CRISPR genome-editing method:

"The 9-month-old patent battle over CRISPR, a novel genome-editing tool that could have immense commercial value, has taken two surprising twists. Last week, attorneys for the Broad Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, one of the research organizations vying for CRISPR rights, submitted motions that could let it win even if it loses. And yesterday, a new player in the drama, a French biopharmaceutical company called Cellectis, may have made the whole fight moot, revealing it has just been issued patents that it says broadly cover genome-editing methods, including CRISPR.

The Broad Institute, a marriage between Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, holds 13 CRISPR patents that are under fire from the University of California (UC) and two co-petitioners. This past January, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) said it would review the patent claims in what’s known as an interference proceeding. That has triggered an epic legal battle over CRISPR intellectual property (IP) that centers on the Broad Institute’s issued patents and a patent application from UC that’s still under review."

Suboxone Creator’s Shocking Scheme to Profit Off of Heroin Addicts; Daily Beast, 10/5/16

Christopher Moraff, Daily Beast; Suboxone Creator’s Shocking Scheme to Profit Off of Heroin Addicts:

"The case against Reckitt Benckiser accuses it of “product hopping,” in which a company tweaks its product slightly, often without any actual improvements, and then applies for a new patent with the intent of keeping its market share intact. In Reckitt Benckiser’s case, the product switch was from the orange Suboxone tablets it had been successfully marketing to a new dissolvable film strip that was developed by co-defendant MonoSol RX.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit say Reckitt Benckiser took product hopping to a nefarious new level by using “feared-based messaging” and “sham science” to illegally subvert the market for Suboxone tablets while aggressively promoting its new film variation, which was introduced in 2010 and is under patent until 2023...

Patent expiration is a conundrum faced by all drug makers and ordinarily it wouldn’t be a terribly big deal for a global monolith like Reckitt Benckiser—which generated more than $2.5 billion in revenue during the first half of 2016 through its ownership of popular brands like Lysol disinfectant, Mucinex cold medicine, and Durex condoms."

U.S. Justice Department Defends Copyright Anti-Hacking Law as "Unquestionably Constitutional"; Hollywood Reporter, 9/30/16

Eriq Gardner, Hollywood Reporter; U.S. Justice Department Defends Copyright Anti-Hacking Law as "Unquestionably Constitutional" :

"The U.S. Department of Justice is demanding an end to a lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of a law that prevents people from getting around the access restrictions on copyrighted works such as films, television shows and songs.

In July, the Electronic Frontier Foundation led the lawsuit that argues that the anti-circumvention provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Sec. 1201) inhibits free expression in violation of the First Amendment. The law allows for a triennial review where every three years the Librarian of Congress grants exemptions. For example, in the most recent review, the government made it legal to hack a smart TV to achieve interoperability and also allowed grade school teachers to circumvent access controls on DVDs for educational purposes."

Here's Why Software Patents Are in Peril After the Intellectual Ventures Ruling; Fortune, 10/3/16

Jeff John Roberts, Fortune; Here's Why Software Patents Are in Peril After the Intellectual Ventures Ruling:

"Software Patents as a Threat to Free Speech

Friday’s ruling is also significant because Judge Mayer eschews the insider baseball language that typically dominates patent law, and addresses patents in the broader context of technology and government monopolies.

Pointing out that intellectual property monopolies can limit free speech, Mayer notes that copyright law has built-in First Amendment protections such as “fair use” and that patent law must include similar safeguards. He suggests that the safeguard comes in the form of a part of the Patent Act, known as “Section 101,” which says some things—including abstract ideas—simply can’t be patented in the first place."