Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The case will ask the nation’s highest court to determine whether 11 U.S.C. § 365, the statute in U.S. bankruptcy code regarding executory contracts and unexpired leases, requires that a debtor-licensor’s rejection of a trademark license agreement in bankruptcy terminates rights of the licensee that would survive the licensor’s breach under applicable non-bankruptcy law. The Supreme Court declined to take up a second question presented on whether an exclusive right to sell certain products practicing a patent in a particular geographic territory is a “right to intellectual property” within Section 365(n) of U.S. bankruptcy code.

The resurrection of the ‘814 patent claims was of great importance to Fitness Anywhere because it covered a modification to the company’s fitness equipment that helped it achieve great success in the marketplace. The invention essentially consisted of taking a handle accessory that was attachable to the fitness equipment via velcro and making it a permanent fixture of the equipment. Although Fitness Anywhere had told the court that it wouldn’t pursue further infringement damages against Woss based on the reinstated ‘814 patent claims, in large part because of Woss’ bankruptcy status, Judge Freeman’s granting the motion for reconsideration restores an important asset that can now again be asserted against many of the at least 100 companies that are allegedly infringing the patent behind TRX fitness equipment.

When it comes to gathering information prior to settling on a prospective licensee, less is certainly not more. For this reason, companies angling to license software must not be shy about asking the questions presented here. Without a doubt, by learning as much as possible about potential partners before finalizing agreements, software licensors can significantly minimize downside risk. Appropriate due diligence is the means to that end. Whether by way of a thorough licensing application or more in-depth background investigation conducted by legal counsel, a licensor’s complete grasp of a licensee’s work, reputation, experience, reach, financial condition, litigation history and potential conflicts of interest will go a long way to ensure a successful licensing relationship.

At the beginning of this decade the United States Supreme Court embarked on a path that would ultimately result in a significant re-writing of the law of patent eligibility in America. While this Supreme Court first became intrigued with patent eligibility in Bilski v. Kappos in 2010, it wasn’t until Mayo v. Prometheus (2012), AMP v. Myriad (2013) and Alice v. CLS Bank (2014) that the law became a chaotic mess that no longer resembled the well-established view of patent eligibility that dates back to at least the 1952 Patent Act… Is this Supreme Court really content with the subjective, extra-statutory test they have foisted upon the industry while changing the law? Does the Supreme Court even appreciate the chaos they have created?

Andy Bitter, a former sports journalist covering the travails and triumphs of the Virginia Tech football team, was sued last month by his former employer, a local newspaper, for trade secret theft. According to the plaintiff Roanoke Times he was obligated by the company’s employee handbook to turn over all company property, and this necessarily included the Twitter account he had used to stay in touch with his 17,000+ followers… In spite of the mess it created, the Roanoke Times has reminded us of some important questions for industry in the information age. Who owns social media accounts? What role do they play in building competitive advantage? And how should companies manage their use?

REAL argued in its petition that step two of the Alice test used to determine invalidity under Section 101 requires questions of fact that were never asked by the lower court. To invalidate without asking those questions contradicts the Federal Circuit’s recent holdings in Berkheimer v. HP and Aatrix Software v. Green Shades Software. REAL’s appeal to the Federal Circuit was decided by a panel including Circuit Judges Alan Lourie, Evan Wallach and Kara Stoll, a trio where the majority has held that step two of Alice is a pure question of law, which is a misapplication of the Alice standard. REAL further contended that both the district court and the Federal Circuit disregarded the factual record in their Alice analysis; that the patents-in-suit claim patentable improvements to computer user interface technology; and that the district court found that there were material facts in dispute while also finding that the claims were well-understood, routine and conventional.

The appeal of the PCT process is that it enables patent applicants to file a single patent application and have that single, uniform patent application be treated as an initial application for patent in any Member Country.  This single, uniform patent application is what is referred to as the international application. Filing an international patent application to start the patent process can frequently be a wise move if you are contemplating securing patent rights in multiple countries. It is, however, important to understand that obtaining international patent protection is not cheap. It is also important to understand that the international patent application you file will not mature into an international patent.

On Friday, November 2nd, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued a decision in Sturgis Motorcycle Rally, Inc. v. Rushmore Photo & Gifts, Inc., et. al. which reversed various parts of the lower court’s decision in the trademark infringement case brought by Sturgis, which claimed to own trademarks covering merchandise related to a well-known motorcycle rally which has taken place in Sturgis, SD, going back to 1938. While the appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial as a matter of law to the defendants’ as to Sturgis’ claims of deceptive trade practices, false advertising and trademark infringement claims, the Eighth Circuit reversed the lower court’s findings that various marks asserted by Sturgis were valid because it found that Sturgis didn’t provide the jury with sufficient proof regarding validity.

For the innovators capitalizing on the legal growth, distribution, and commercial sale of cannabis, the procurement of intellectual property rights can go a long way in the monetization of their ideas, products, and services. As with any new venture, solidifying an IP protection strategy early on can maximize the benefits of a new invention and minimize risk the of potential infringement. This rings especially true in a field where so few patents, copyrights, and trademarks have been issued… It is not impossible to secure IP rights on cannabis-related inventions, but there are a number of factors to consider and a number of complexities to be aware of.

In May 2018, Scott Cooper and his companies, World Patent Marketing Inc. and Desa Industries Inc., agreed to a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission that bans them from the invention promotion business, and ordered payment of $25,987,192. The FTC charged World Patent Marketing with being nothing more than a scam, bilking millions of dollars from inventors. “The record supports a preliminary finding that Defendants devised a fraudulent scheme to use consumer funds to enrich themselves,” concluded United States District Judge Darrin P. Gayles as he issued a preliminary injunction in August 2017. Matthew G. Whitaker, the Acting Attorney General of the United States who ascended to the position with the resignation of Jeff Sessions, served on the advisory board of World Patent Marketing. Worse, Whitaker was involved in some of the egregious intimidation that led to the charges, issuance of an injunction and ultimately the settlement.

When Congress permitted sound recordings to be copyrighted over four decades ago, it didn’t extend that coverage to pre-1972 recordings. This issue, and the piecemeal nature of licensing for digital music on a per-work, per song basis, were part of the impetus for the stakeholders in the music industry to work together to create the Music Modernization Act, signed into law on October 11, 2018… Not all issues in the music industry were solved by the Music Modernization Act: licensing of physical sound recordings (vinyl and CDs) will still occur on a per-work, per song basis. Terrestrial radio pays songwriters and publishers royalties for playing music, but it doesn’t pay performance or sound-recording royalties. And while the goal of one public database is laudable, the responsibility still lies with songwriters and publishers to submit copyright applications and to submit all of their musical works and sound recordings to the MLC… While there is still work to be done, the Music Modernization Act does solve some long-standing issues in the music industry.

Early protection of intellectual property rights is a critical component in any business’ efforts to secure a competitive advantage in the marketplace. A recent report has found that patenting activity for cannabis food and drink has seen a large increase in global activity, in the last five years. 242 simple patent families have been filed in 2015, up from only 144 simple patent families filed in 2012. However, not a single food and beverage company was found to be among the top 10 applicants. Is this a sign that food and beverage companies are not well positioned to benefit from ongoing cannabis legalisation?

Director Iancu did not make much, if any, news speaking at PPAC today. He did, however, indicate that at least for now his major initiatives to reform the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) have been rolled out, albeit with the last phase still in proposed rule form. Director Iancu indicated that he believes it is necessary now to carefully assess the implementation of these PTAB reforms and consider stakeholder reaction to the changes.

An administrative law judge at the U.S. International Trade Commission recently found patent infringement in Qualcomm’s case against Apple, but then inexplicably refused to recommend that the commission issue an exclusion order against infringer Apple. Is there some new standard that “established and profitable companies” are no longer deserving of ITC action?  The International Trade Commission is in danger of causing the same harm to patent rights as the U.S. Supreme Court has inflicted on patent owners with the court’s lame-brained eBay decision.

The Alliance of U.S. Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) recently released a report detailing the organization’s research into serial attacks on high quality patents at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The USIJ’s research shows that, far from being a cheaper alternative venue for small businesses to challenge the validity of weak patents being asserted against them as was originally intended, the administrative tribunal has instead become a tool for rich, sophisticated companies who are able to harass owners of valuable patents with duplicative petitions filed either by themselves or by profiteering entities which weren’t envisioned when the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 was passed into law.