Posts in Business

A Lanham Act false advertising verdict is not a scientific meta-analysis. It does not pool evidence, weight studies by quality, or resolve heterogeneity. It allocates burdens and asks whether the party carrying one carried it on the record that party chose to build. Read a false advertising judgment for more than that — for what the science shows, for whether the product works — and you will misread it.

On September 1, a federal judge in the Northern District of Ohio J.M. Smucker Co.‘s trademark and trade dress claims over its crustless, crimped-edge peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. The ruling allows that was filed last October against Trader Joe’s private-label “Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches” to proceed to discovery and, potentially, a merits determination on whether a sealed, circular sandwich shape can function as a protectable trademark.

For more than two centuries, the patent system has rested on a simple bargain: inventors publicly disclose their inventions in exchange for a limited monopoly. That bargain assumes disclosure primarily benefits competitors, researchers, and the public. Today, however, the audience has changed. Patent filings are now mined not only by competitors, but by governments, intelligence agencies, sovereign investors, and increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence systems capable of analyzing millions of documents simultaneously. The result is that patent databases have become one of the world’s richest sources of open-source technological intelligence.

A conglomerate—a large enterprise comprising multiple discrete companies, divisions, or business units—may come into being organically or inorganically, due to business growth, expansion into new markets, internal restructuring, or a merger, acquisition, or joint venture. Regardless of a conglomerate’s origin story, its leaders face a fundamental question: How should they structure the intellectual property or legal function to optimally serve the needs and interests of the divisions and the conglomerate at large?

As AI assistants take over product discovery and purchase, the likelihood of confusion test is losing the consumer it was built around. And brands are therefore losing their primary line of defense. For decades, building a brand has meant the same, patient work. You develop a differentiated story, then bring it to life everywhere a customer might meet it: Advertising; digital; packaging; product design; customer care. Every piece is guided by consumer insight, a hard-won read on what a person feels at each stage of the journey, from the first moment of awareness through consideration to the purchase itself.

Patent count is often the first thing people notice about a portfolio. It should not be the last. A portfolio with 500 patents may have little monetization value if the claims are difficult to understand, the infringing products are unclear, the damages are weak, the strongest assets are expired or expiring soon, or there are no pending applications. Conversely, a smaller portfolio with well-supported claims, identifiable infringing products, meaningful damages, remaining patent life, and pending applications in both the U.S. and Europe may be far more valuable.

Alden Abbott recently captured Europe’s digital-policy contradiction with a memorable image: Brussels says it wants technology champions, but when a champion emerges, it makes the winner share the trophy. The European Commission’s July 16 binding specification measures (BSMs) against Google turn that metaphor into an administrative program. One measure requires Google to provide eligible search engines—including AI chatbots with search functions—access to anonymized ranking, query, click, and view data. The other requires “free and effective” interoperability with 11 categories of Android functionality, including device sensors, app context, app and operating-system control, on-device AI models, and background execution. Google must furnish documentation and technical assistance and extend access to covered future functionality when it becomes available to its own services.

The ongoing trademark dispute between outdoor apparel company Patagonia and environmental activist and drag performer Pattie Gonia has generated considerable public attention. To many observers, the case appears to be a clash between a large corporation and an individual activist who shares many of the company’s environmental values. But viewed through the lens of trademark law, the dispute raises a far more nuanced question.

Have you ever drafted a claim set with a second claim that began, “the system of claim 2, wherein…” when you meant to write “the system of claim 1”? It’s embarrassing because every first-year patent attorney knows that a dependent patent claim cannot depend on itself. However, making the error is inevitable when you draft a large number of patent applications. The good news is, if you upload such a claim to today’s Patent Center (where patent applications are filed), you will be provided with the following alert: “The claims appear to contain an improper dependency with at least one claim that depends on a missing or canceled claim. Please review and revise if necessary”. How beautiful is this? Now you can self-correct before your patent application is even filed. Ten years ago, you would have to go back and forth with a patent examiner to correct the error.

Managing patent portfolios requires investment. There are significant costs associated with both building and maintaining patent portfolios, but all too often only a fraction of their potential business impact is ever realized. While obtaining and maintaining weak patents is a real concern, the strength of any particular patent, family or portfolio is not always tied to overall strength. Frequently, the problem is that the organization does not really know what it owns, why it owns what it does own, where patents fit from a strategic perspective, and whether the assets can be credibly used to support any commercial outcome.

In the latest episode of IP Innovators, host Steve Brachmann sits down with David Hyams, Co-Founder and Chief Business Development Officer of Longship Legal, to explore what it looks like to build an IP practice around business value rather than patent volume. Drawing on a career that spans big law in Boston, in-house roles at Bose Corporation and AOL, and a cleantech startup, Hyams makes a case that the most important questions in IP strategy have nothing to do with patentability, and everything to do with understanding what a company is actually trying to win.

Most patent portfolios are overbuilt and under-managed. That is not a criticism of any particular company or patent department. It is simply the predictable result of how patent portfolios are created. Companies innovate. Business leaders demand more filings. Engineers generate invention disclosures. Outside counsel prosecute applications. Patents issue. Then years pass, products change, markets move on, competitors pivot, and strategic priorities evolve. Often—if not frequently—the patent portfolio remains the same, as if legacy assumptions and strategy remain relevant even though they no longer match business or market realities.

To compete in artificial intelligence (AI) markets, emerging companies must choose one of two routes: the capital-intensive route entails buying compute and datasets to build in-house foundation models and refining them into agents for specific use cases. Alternatively, emergents can license pre-trained models and lease compute to focus on developing applications for the end user, whether that is a solo software developer or an entire business domain.

“Should we insource IP work?” This perennial question is posed by in-house professionals and organizational leaders in corporations, universities, and other institutions—and dreaded by outside IP counsel, who fear loss of insourced client business. Deceptively binary and straightforward, the insourcing question often can’t be answered without in-house teams first exploring a host of underlying considerations. Their decision-making calculus may confront grey areas and vexing tradeoffs, ultimately coming down to rough cost-benefit analyses and gut instincts.