Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

Filming and photographing in public venues – parks, streets, subway stations – for ads, TV spots and social media videos can produce exciting, creative results for advertising campaigns, but companies advertising should be careful when using shots featuring graffiti in the background. It may be protected by copyright law. Even if the graffiti has not been lawfully created, but rather produced in an act of vandalism or trespass, the artist could raise a copyright infringement claim that could lead to a lawsuit.

The focus of this interview was OED generally, but more specifically why they Office felt it was necessary to begin charging annual dues to practitioners and what those funds would be used for. I indicated leading up to the interview that I would specifically like to discuss the issue of unauthorized practice of law, explaining that I personally was not philosophically opposed to dues but that as a registered patent practitioner myself I would like to see OED do more than just reciprocal discipline, which appears to be the overwhelming portion of their work, at least if you look at the OED Reading Room of published decisions. Director Covey came with statistics and followed up after the interview with the chart included below. While it may appear OED focuses overwhelmingly on reciprocal discipline, that is a tiny fraction of what they do.

The issue faced by the EU High Court was whether shape and color of Louboutin’s mark could be separated under the circumstances; i.e., whether color applied to the sole of a high-heeled shoe is essentially a “shape” mark within the meaning of the EU trademark law. The EU High Court found in favor of Louboutin, pointing out that Louboutin did not seek to protect a particular shape, but the application of a color to a specific part of a high heeled shoe. 

George Santayana is attributed with the aphorism: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This is modern § 101 in a nutshell. Every horror we in the patent community are now experiencing under Alice/Mayo isn’t new, but a repeat of a drama played out long ago… Every great horror story has a monster… In the patent world, the monster is “invention.”

How ironic is it that the infringer lobby – the very people trying to weaken the patent system and who ignore the patent rights of others through a free riding scheme of efficient infringement – are the ones who are seeing their monopoly power consolidated. By ignoring the property of true innovators the infringer lobby has grown in size, power, strength and influence.  Profits are soaring in Silicon Valley, yet they claim patent trolls are killing high tech. That claim is simply not credible. Stop and think about that for even half a second in an objective way and the claims don’t stand up to any level of scrutiny. In 2017, Apple had nearly $50 billion in net income, Microsoft has over $20 billion in net income, Facebook over $15 billion, Goggle approximately $13 billion. If patent trolls are killing, or even attempting to kill the tech elite of Silicon Valley we all ought to be able to agree they are doing a very poor job.

Organic light-emitting diodes (OLEDs) are semiconductor films composed of an organic compound having electroluminescent properties which utilize an electrical current to emit light. The technology has wide applications and has been incorporated into digital displays for mobile phones, automotive dashboards and television screens. OLEDs can be constructed to be thinner and lighter than liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and also provide…

Cobra Products filed a lawsuit for patent infringement. G.T. Water then filed for a re-examination of my patent at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to invalidate my patent claims. My licensing agreement with Cobra and BrassCraft was to share equally in the cost of defending my patent. However, Cobra Products elected not to help me in the defense of my patent at the USPTO. I was forced to bear the total cost of that alone. After seven years of validity proceedings, which have cost more than $250,000, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has invalidated all 12 of my claims covering the Zip-It. How can the USPTO issue a patent with 12 claims and then use the PTAB to neuter my patent? Since this has been going back and forth with the court system, there are now numerous other entities which have engaged in copying and infringing my patented invention.

In October 2016, the creators of the classic mockumentary film This Is Spinal Tap filed suit against a group of defendants including the French mass media conglomerate Vivendi S.A. alleging that Vivendi engaged in anticompetitive business activities to defraud the Spinal Tap creators of profits earned from the movie. On August 28th of this year, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee of the Central District of California allowed the case to move forward by denying a motion filed by defendants to dismiss the case based on the economic loss rule, a rule that otherwise operates to require recovery of damages under contract rather than for an action for fraud. Judge Gee also determined that copyright reversion claims presented a sufficiently ripe controversy for consideration by the court. 

In its decision, the Federal Circuit noted that the PTAB is entitled to strike arguments improperly raised in a reply brief under 37 CFR § 42.23(b). However, the appellate court disagreed that Ericsson raised a new theory in its reply brief and thus the Board erred in not considering those portions of the reply brief. “The Board’s error was parsing Ericsson’s arguments on reply with too fine of a filter,” the Federal Circuit found. Ericsson’s petition for IPR described how a person with ordinary skill in the art would be familiar with the concept of interleaving. The CAFC further found that the PTAB’s error was exacerbated by the fact that the new claim constructions proposed by Intellectual Ventures after institution gave rise to the significance of interleaving in the proceeding. In light of this, the Federal Circuit found that Ericsson deserved an opportunity to respond to the new construction.

On August 15, 2018, Fall Line Patents, LLC asserted U.S. Patent No. 9,454,748 against a number of companies. Specifically, Fall Line alleged in nine separate lawsuits that the mobile applications provided by AMC Entertainment, McDonald’s, Boston Market, Panda Express, Papa John’s, Pizza Hut, Regal Cinemas, Starbucks, and Zoe’s Kitchen directly infringe at least Claim 1 of the ‘748 patent. All of the lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District of Texas and request permanent injunctions as well as damages.

The result of the ITC investigation was a win for AMD with the issuance of a cease and desist order against Respondent VIZIO, a cease and desist order against Respondent SDI, and a limited exclusion order against Respondents VIZIO, SDI and MediaTek. Rather surprisingly AMD has not issued a press release touting the win and is also not otherwise taking a victory lap. Generally, when a company scores a win of this magnitude, with either a limited exclusion order or a cease and desist order, it is news that is shared far and wide. In this case both a limited exclusion order and two cease and desist orders were obtained, and there hasn’t been as much as a peep from AMD. The fact that AMD has chosen to remain silent suggests negotiations are ongoing and an omnibus settlement may be announced in the coming days or weeks.

The Federal Circuit recently issued a decision that once again addressed the issue of whether an IPR was time-barred. The Court vacated the final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) with respect to one of challenged patents because it was time-barred and affirmed the Board’s decision that two other claims from two different patents were invalid as being obvious.See Luminara Worldwide, LLC v. Iancu, Nos. 2017-1629, 2017-1631, 2017-1633, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22836 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (Before Lourie, Dyk, and Taranto, J.) (Opinion for the court, Dyk, J.)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued a ruling on discussing the equitable doctrine of implied waiver; a decision that will be particularly important for those participating in the standard setting process and engaging with standard setting organizations, or SSOs as they are sometimes called. According to the Federal Circuit, failure to disclose patents and applications relevant to a standard may render a patent unenforceable based on an implied waiver.  See Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. Apple Inc., No. 17-2102, 2018 (Fed Cir. Aug. 16, 2018) (Before Reyna, Bryson, and Hughes, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the court, Bryson, Circuit Judge).

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s “exceptional” case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which resulted in Appellant Rembrandt Technologies paying attorney’s fees to Appellees, a number of communications companies.  The Court, however, vacated the fee award of $51 million and remanded for a new determination of fees. While the Federal Circuit was comfortable affirming this was an exceptional case, the panel explained that the district court award needs to establish some causal connection between the misconduct and the fee award.  See In re Rembrandt Techs. LP Patent Litig., No. 2017-1784, 2018 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15, 2018) (Before O’Malley, Mayer, and Reyna, J.) (Opinion for the court, O’Malley, J.). 

Litigation finance in the university context is thus particularly valuable. Even for smaller matters, litigation finance shifts spend off the university’s balance sheet, allowing it to put its own capital to use in its primary endeavors: Education and innovation. For larger matters, litigation finance shifts risk from the university—which, despite its diverse technology portfolio, may have only a small number of claims with attractive litigation prospects—to an entity with a much larger book of diversified risk across uncorrelated claimants.