Posts in Business

Protecting brands and going after counterfeiters is like herding cats. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of ways that online counterfeiters illegally monetize brands. Companies have many ways to combat them, but it can traditionally take lots of time, cost, and resources to do it. Now there is a less publicized option in the United States which can deter counterfeiters, takes little time, and often even pays for itself. This ultimately can result in true deterrence of counterfeiters for a brand in online marketplaces. With online sales exploding, there has been a marked increase in sales of counterfeit products, despite various solutions available to combat it. Indeed, the industry as a whole will see over $1.7 trillion of sold counterfeit products on various online platforms each year—and that estimate, by the International Anti-Counterfeiting Coalition, was in 2015. Counterfeit sales result in the loss of millions of U.S. jobs and lost profits, and is by far the world’s largest criminal enterprise, with eCommerce counterfeit sales expected to grow to $6 trillion by 2024 in the United States alone. 

Imagine that your family has decided to build a new home. You’ve got the vision, but you need to call in the pros—a well-established, highly expert homebuilder with a cadre of architects, designers, contractors, and tradespeople. You’re relying upon the builder’s expertise to thoughtfully scope the project and prepare you for what lies ahead. This includes (a) helping you understand what financial and other commitments will be required of you; (b) educating you on challenges you’ll face along the way; and (c) highlighting available offerings that align with your vision….. Now imagine that your company or law firm has decided to implement intellectual property management software (IPMS) with a vendor. In a worst-case implementation scenario, you may feel like you’re reliving the above homebuilding saga. Indeed, IP teams often embark on the IPMS journey with great optimism. Once in the thick of implementation, however, they may experience a turbulent journey.

As investors and business-minded IP litigators, we see many situations where IP holders get the short end of the stick. But one stands out from the rest: joint development relationships. Too often we see great American startups losing their technology and competitive edge to joint development partners/investors with a front-row seat to everything. What follows is a multi-part series that we hope any company going down the joint development path will take to heart. We start with tips to prevent a problem. Future installments will focus on what companies can do after their “partner” uses the guise of venture investment to steal critical IP and know-how.

On September 26, Licensing Executives Society (LES) USA and Canada published the LES High Tech Sector Royalty Rates & Deal Terms Survey Report 2021. In May of this year, the 2021 Global Life Sciences Royalty Rates and Deal Terms Survey results were released. Together, the releases culminated the intense efforts by LES during the COVID-19 pandemic in preparing and launching the Surveys and in analyzing the data, presenting the results and writing the Reports. Not only do LES Royalty Survey Reports provide an update on the licensing market in the past few years, they look into the dynamics of market evolution since the 2000s. The Reports offer benchmark royalty data by various categories, such as technology field and IP type, which serve as invaluable references for licensing professionals. The 2021 High Tech Survey Report is also the only data source in the IP industry that quantifies and publishes royalty rate premiums or discounts such as exclusivity premium and advanced-stage technology premium. Through identifying and quantifying the value contributions of key license parameters such as exclusivity, technology development stage and IP type, among others, the LES team aims to develop a build-up method for royalty determination, analogous to the build-up method in business valuation.

On the second day of the IPWatchdog LIVE conference held in Dallas, Texas, earlier this month, a panel of experts who advise startups and are passionate about the licensing business model discussed the challenges and opportunities presented by intellectual property. The panelists opened the discussion by describing their experiences with the biggest mistakes startups make in regard to patents. Ian McClure, Associate VP for Research, Innovation, and Economic Impact at the University of Kentucky as well as the chair of AUTM, identified two mistakes commonly made by the approximately 1,200 startups that are spun out from university research in the United States each year.

Blockchain technology can serve as a shared database ledger that tracks assets and transactions with little to no oversight but, in theory, unlimited users. Its potential applications spanning smart contracts to blockchaining intellectual property, indicate promise for fluid collaborations, efficient remuneration and thorough intellectual property management. However, there are still crucial issues, including privacy, compatibility, liability and jurisdiction that remain undefined. Moreover, because all fields necessitate specialized codes of conduct and ethics, if blockchain technology is expected to make a significant difference in society, then it too, deserves its own field of ethics, like artificial intelligence (AI), nuclear technology, biotechnology, and space exploration. Leading minds across disciplines need to contemplate how this technology can be shaped to have a positive impact, first by examining what this field is capable of doing and its potential consequences.

During day one of IPWatchdog LIVE in Dallas, Texas, a panel of speakers discussing current trends and the prospects of patent monetization going forward noted that the “heyday” of patent monetization was approximately ten years ago, with several large patent awards increasing interest in patent monetization. The panelists noted two major factors which presently act as a “glass ceiling” over patent valuations. First, the inter partes review (IPR) proceedings instituted at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2012 as part of the America Invents Act (AIA) has made investment in patents a riskier proposition.

International cosmetics retailer Sephora has agreed to pay $1.2 million to settle allegations that the company failed to cure violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). The settlement is the first CCPA enforcement action resulting in financial penalties from the California Attorney General’s office and elucidates the Attorney General’s view of how the use of website analytics and advertising trackers involve “sales” of personal information.

Are you bullish or bearish on the patent market as we close out 2022 and move into Q1 of 2023? That is the question I recently asked a distinguished panel of intellectual property business leaders and monetization experts. For the most part, those industry insiders who responded are bullish, although several distinguish patents and the licensing of technology and innovation. Indeed, if I were to answer my own question, I would say that given the Supreme Court’s refusal to address the obvious errors of the Federal Circuit relative to patent eligibility it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be anything other than bearish on patents as a meaningful asset class — or at least an asset class that will compensate innovators and investors for the full measure of their contributions.

Everyone knows someone whose life has been impacted by cancer, be it a parent, a sibling, or a friend. But it is rarer, perhaps, to know a family touched by pediatric cancer. Yet, cancer is the second leading cause of death in individuals under 14, impacting nearly 10,500 children annually in the United States. Fifty years ago, a child diagnosed with cancer had a median five-year survival rate of only 58%. But, thanks to biopharmaceutical companies’ investments in discovery science, we’ve achieved medical breakthroughs that drastically improved the survival rate, with 85% of childhood cancer patients living five years or more.

An “NNN” agreement is short for Non-Disclosure/Non-Use/Non-Circumvention agreement, which means the information cannot be shared with anyone, it cannot be used in any way, and “behind-the-back” or design around tactics are forbidden. In recent years, signing NNN agreements has become widely adopted and is now the standard initial step in dealings with Chinese companies, particularly original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). An NNN Agreement is much more than just a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). An NDA focuses narrowly on preventing secret information from being revealed to a third party or to the public, which is not sufficient for OEMs in China. In contrast, an NNN agreement not only contains confidentiality provisions, but also prevents misuse of confidential information.

Ray Young started RightsLedger.com to give creators control of their content and opportunities for IP monetization, using blockchain technology to authenticate ownership. His latest venture, Milio.io, is the first social media platform to fairly share advertising revenue with users, and already has over a million users. Young spent over two years, since Dec 2019, in Manila working on the company’s launch and is focused on rewarding small and independent content creators with the ability to both protect and monetize their IP. I spoke with Young to better understand how he is helping creators to safeguard and profit from their content online.

Summer has been historically associated with celebrating the enactment of the Trademark Act of 1946 (the “Lanham Act”). Accordingly, Congress now annually introduces resolutions celebrating July, along with Independence, as “anti-counterfeiting awareness month.” These non-binding resolutions are an important reminder of the national importance of trademarks—and a reminder that counterfeiting, and related bad faith trademark misconduct, negatively impacts U.S. small businesses, American jobs, the U.S. economy, and erodes our international competitiveness. Increasingly, brand owners are fighting numerous trademark issues around bad faith registrations and more artful counterfeiting every day of every month. Fortunately, one important element of the solution for restoring the integrity of the register are the tools made possible by responsible artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) image recognition technology that can fight the fakes.

Recently published research conducted by Vital Transformation shows legislative provisions similar to those found in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which allows the U.S. Government to “negotiate” drug prices under a set framework based upon the amount of time a drug has spent on the market, would have significant, negative effects on patient access to new therapies because funding would be severely curtailed for research and development. According to Vital Transformation, the reduction of net earnings due to government price fixing would substantially reduce the amount of research and development of small biotech firms, which would negatively impact future drug discovery and development. The model used in the study estimates that with government price fixing “only 6 of 110 previously approved therapies would be considered ‘not at risk’ of being cancelled, or at very least divested.”

One of the most frustrating questions I get from clients asks “what is the difference between ‘confidential’ and ‘proprietary’ information?” Or, “how do I help employees distinguish between either of those terms and real ‘trade secrets?’” Then there are people, including some judges, who trivialize the importance of some useful business information by saying it doesn’t “rise to the level of a trade secret.” That last one makes no sense these days, as we’ll see shortly. But first let’s identify the source of this nomenclature problem: it’s an outfit you’ve probably never heard of called the American Law Institute.