Claire Bushey, Crain's Chicago Business; A patent lawyer switches teams
"Unlike a traditional law firm, Blackbird is structured as a limited liability company, not a partnership, and it has no clients. Instead, it acquires patents from inventors or small businesses. Blackbird then sues companies for patent infringement on its own behalf, and it shares an unspecified percentage of any settlement or judgment with the original patent owner.
Blackbird filed 107 lawsuits between September 2014 and May, including against Amazon, Fitbit, Netflix and kCura, a Chicago company that makes software used by law firms. It has settled with Amazon. The other three cases are ongoing.
Three months ago it sued San Francisco-based Cloudflare, and in May the website infrastructure company blasted Blackbird as "a dangerous new breed of patent troll" and launched a scorched-earth campaign against the 11-person business. Cloudflare, valued at $3.2 billion and with a seven-employee Champaign office, offered to the public a total of $50,000 for evidence that would invalidate any of 35 patents Blackbird holds. It also lodged ethics complaints with legal disciplinary bodies in Illinois and Massachusetts, and it was successful in prompting Illinois Rep. Keith Wheeler (R-Oswego) to introduce a bill that would outlaw Blackbird's business model...
A lawyer at Intel coined the epithet "patent troll" in 2001 to refer to Anthony Brown, a one-time Jenner & Block partner turned serial patent lawsuit filer, and his Chicago lawyer, the late Ray Niro. A troll asserts a patent of dubious quality, hoping the company will settle the infringement lawsuit quickly for maybe $50,000 to avoid spending millions on litigation. Detractors often slap the label on patent holders who do not manufacture a product, so-called nonpracticing entities."
My Bloomsbury book "Ethics, Information, and Technology" was published on Nov. 13, 2025. Purchases can be made via Amazon and this Bloomsbury webpage: https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/ethics-information-and-technology-9781440856662/
Friday, July 14, 2017
ABA Webinar: Fundamentals of Today's Trade Secret Litigation: The DTSA, Section 337 at the ITC, and More, Tuesday, July 18, 2017 1 PM - 2:30 PM ET
|
Thursday, July 13, 2017
Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm thinking of dog walking'; Guardian, July 12, 2017
Julia Carrie Wong, Guardian; Monkey selfie photographer says he's broke: 'I'm thinking of dog walking'
"The one consolation for Slater is that he believes that his photograph has helped to save the crested black macaque from extinction.
“These animals were on the way out and because of one photograph, it’s hopefully going to create enough ecotourism to make the locals realize that there’s a good reason to keep these monkeys alive,” Slater said. “The picture hopefully contributed to saving the species. That was the original intention all along.”"
"The one consolation for Slater is that he believes that his photograph has helped to save the crested black macaque from extinction.
“These animals were on the way out and because of one photograph, it’s hopefully going to create enough ecotourism to make the locals realize that there’s a good reason to keep these monkeys alive,” Slater said. “The picture hopefully contributed to saving the species. That was the original intention all along.”"
Can A Monkey Hold A Copyright?; NPR, Morning Edition, July 13, 2017
NPR, Morning Edition; Can A Monkey Hold A Copyright?
"A court is deciding if the rights for photos belong to a monkey that took selfie photos. A photographer published the photos in a book, but an animal rights group sued for copyright infringement."
"A court is deciding if the rights for photos belong to a monkey that took selfie photos. A photographer published the photos in a book, but an animal rights group sued for copyright infringement."
Wednesday, July 12, 2017
If You Buy It, You Own It!; HuffPost, July 12, 2017
Darryl S. Weiman, MD, JD, HuffPost; If You Buy It, You Own It!
"The lesson learned from this decision was “the sale transfers the right to use, sell, or import because those are the rights that come along with ownership, and the buyer is free and clear of an infringement lawsuit because there is no exclusionary right left to enforce.” (Impression v. Lexmark) The buyer will not be sued for enfringement. In fact, all patent rights will “exhaust” after the sale. The next in line of a sale, in this case Impression, is still a buyer and the protection applies to them, also.
A patent owner must take into consideration the monopoly rights to his “invention” when he sets the price to purchase the item. He will not get another bite of the apple—the apple being the right to bring an infringement lawsuit—once that sale has been made. In other words, the only thing that matters is the patentee’s decision to make a sale. Any post sale restrictions that the patent owner wants to impose can only be enforced through some other action, such as breach of contract if a contract has been signed. If we buy it, we own it! This is a good decision."
"The lesson learned from this decision was “the sale transfers the right to use, sell, or import because those are the rights that come along with ownership, and the buyer is free and clear of an infringement lawsuit because there is no exclusionary right left to enforce.” (Impression v. Lexmark) The buyer will not be sued for enfringement. In fact, all patent rights will “exhaust” after the sale. The next in line of a sale, in this case Impression, is still a buyer and the protection applies to them, also.
A patent owner must take into consideration the monopoly rights to his “invention” when he sets the price to purchase the item. He will not get another bite of the apple—the apple being the right to bring an infringement lawsuit—once that sale has been made. In other words, the only thing that matters is the patentee’s decision to make a sale. Any post sale restrictions that the patent owner wants to impose can only be enforced through some other action, such as breach of contract if a contract has been signed. If we buy it, we own it! This is a good decision."
Labels:
buyers,
Impression v. Lexmark,
patent owners,
US Supreme Court
The Supreme Court Explains Trademark Registration, And It's The Best Ever; Forbes, July 10, 2017
Jess Collen, Forbes; The Supreme Court Explains Trademark Registration, And It's The Best Ever
"Much has been said and written in recent weeks about the Supreme Court’s defense of the First Amendment in the Slants case (Did The Supreme Court Slants Case Just Approve A Big FU To Trademark Owners?), by striking down provisions of federal trademark law. The court has also provided us with perhaps the most authoritative explanation of the history of United States trademark registration ever written.
Whether you run a startup, small business or a company on Forbes World’s Biggest Companies list, this should be required reading. Here below, an abridged discussion of trademark registration in this country, courtesy of Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court of the United States (in own his words, and citing prior Court decisions and trademark law experts):"
"Much has been said and written in recent weeks about the Supreme Court’s defense of the First Amendment in the Slants case (Did The Supreme Court Slants Case Just Approve A Big FU To Trademark Owners?), by striking down provisions of federal trademark law. The court has also provided us with perhaps the most authoritative explanation of the history of United States trademark registration ever written.
Whether you run a startup, small business or a company on Forbes World’s Biggest Companies list, this should be required reading. Here below, an abridged discussion of trademark registration in this country, courtesy of Justice Samuel Alito of the Supreme Court of the United States (in own his words, and citing prior Court decisions and trademark law experts):"
Is the threat of a copyright lawsuit stifling music?; BBC News, July 12, 2017
Chi Chi Izundu, BBC News; Is the threat of a copyright lawsuit stifling music?
"You would be hard-pushed to find a musician in the charts whose work hasn't taken inspiration from their idols and contemporaries.
"You would be hard-pushed to find a musician in the charts whose work hasn't taken inspiration from their idols and contemporaries.
Now though, music experts have told the Victoria Derbyshire programme that artists are being advised not to mention publicly who has inspired them.
This is because of a high-profile copyright infringement case in which US jurors ruled that Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams, on their song Blurred Lines, had copied Marvin Gaye's Got To Give It Up."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)