Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

What makes SCOTUS’s assertions in patent law jurisprudence that there are these “exceptions” or additional “requirements” particularly annoying to many of us in the patent bar is that patent law is essentially statutory.  In other words, there should be no “federal common law of patents” that allows SCOTUS (or any other court for that matter) to make “exceptions” to or make additional “requirements” for what is already expressly written in the patent statutes.  Indeed, in other areas of federal law, SCOTUS has made it abundantly clear that “federal common law” doesn’t exist.  The most famous example is Erie v. Tompkins where SCOTUS overturned its prior view of a “federal common law” applicable in cases involving diversity jurisdiction.  So we in the patent bar may rightly ask:  why does SCOTUS believe it can create what is, in essence, a “federal common law of patents” to supplant or modify the existing patent statutes?

The Qualcomm decision is unique in that it appears to be the first decision to require a SEP holder to license its patented technology to its competitors, and not just its downstream customers, on FRAND terms.  This decision casts doubt on the longstanding practice, common in industries such as the telecommunication and automotive industries, in which SEP holders seek to secure “FRAND” licenses with downstream companies that make finished products, while refusing to license (or licensing on non-FRAND terms) those same SEPs to their competitors or other companies further up the supply chain (such as component suppliers).  The decision also emphasizes U.S. courts’ focus on the express language of SSOs’ IPR policies and the willingness to review the SSO guidelines in interpreting the agreements SEP holders enter into with SSOs.  In this regard, the decision may bode well for SEP implementers, given the court’s broad understanding of what it means to “practice” a relevant standard and its view that SEP holders’ FRAND obligations extend to all potential licensees, irrespective of their position in the supply chain.

Earlier this year, in E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Synvina C.V. (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Dupont v. Synvina”), the Federal Circuit found that the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“the Board”) had erred in holding that in an inter partes review (IPR), the burden to produce evidence of patentability did not shift to the patentee.  Interestingly, in each of the previous two years the court also had occasion to address burden shifting in IPRs.  In In re Magnum Oil Tools International, Ltd., 829 F.3d 1364, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Magnum Oil”), the Board was found to have been wrong in deeming that when it institutes an IPR – which requires concluding that the petitioner has met the “reasonable likelihood of success” standard – that conclusion operated to shift the burden of producing evidence of patentability to the patentee.  Also, in Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, 872 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Aqua Products”), the court considered whether a patentee could amend claims during an IPR only if it accepted the burden of proving that the substitute claims were patentable… The trio of cases, Dupont v. Synvina, Magnum Oil, and Dynamic Drinkware, considered together, are helpful for one’s understanding of the burden shifting framework in both IPR and district court litigation.

Although every case had its own special facts reflecting unique personalities, technologies and business models, one necessary element was present in every single case. Somebody had done something stupid. And they still do. Sometimes it’s about what people do when getting ready to leave their job and go into competition. They brazenly solicit customers or foment discontent among the staff they want to recruit. They use the company’s computer system to research and prepare their business plan. They download thousands of confidential files they’re not supposed to have anyway, and then try to cover their tracks by using specialized software – I’m not making this up– called “Evidence Destroyer.”

On October 30, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decision from the International Trade Court invalidating the Converse Chuck Taylor sneaker design trade dress.  Converse Inc. v. ITC, No. 2016-2497, 2018 WL 5536405 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 30, 2018).  At first glance, this appeared to be great news for Converse.  However, the decision highlights multiple obstacles that Converse, and other brand owners, will continue to face as they seek to enforce product design trade dress in the US.

The number of trademark applications being filed by foreign companies with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been growing steadily – and in China’s case rapidly – since 2013. In 2013, a total of 328,180 trademark applications were filed in the USPTO, of which 57,977 (17%) were filed by foreign applicants. In 2017, 451,009 trademark applications were filed with the USPTO and the total number filed by foreign-based applicants rose to 119,883 (26%)… It is important for U.S. companies to recognize that the increases in trademark filings in general and by foreign companies, in particular, signify future stiff competition in the marketplace and potentially serious threats to existing trademarks.

The default position of brands has often been to protect as many marks as possible, driving other applicants out and helping establish a well-known and profitable identity. When names can make or break a brand, a significant number of trademarks are created purely for protection. However, these protective practices lead to a systemic problem. When new entrants to a market are faced with trademark clutter, their only choice is to adopt equally aggressive application strategies. This behavior leads to more clutter and further reduces the available pool of marks for the next generation of applicants.

It’s football season, so of course we should be talking about beer. Specifically, beer secrets. For fourteen years James Clark had an enviable job at Anheuser-Busch, where he had access to the brewer’s confidential recipes. For unexplained reasons he resigned. Instead of joining a competitor, he went to see a lawyer about planning a class action against his former employer for “intentionally overstating the alcohol content” of the company’s “malt beverages.”… Anheuser-Busch sued him for misappropriation of its secrets for making beer.

A trademark audit is a review of a brand owner’s current trademark portfolio to ensure that the brand owner’s trademark usage and trademark holdings are sufficient, comprehensive, and accurate. Good practices requires that a trademark audit be conducted yearly, or any time an existing trademark portfolio is acquired, even if there has already been IP due diligence. The primary goal of conducting a trademark audit is to ensure that there are no deficiencies in protection.

Black Friday is one of the most important retail events of the year for brands and consumers alike. This sales event is particularly tempting for price-centric Millennials whose diverse buying habits put them at increased risk of falling for fakes. Representing one of the biggest Black Friday consumer segments, they are particularly vulnerable to counterfeiters. Last year alone, our data show that an estimated $482 million were lost on Black Friday from Millennials who unwittingly bought fakes online.

Courts consistently focus on the availability of non-infringing substitutes as of the date of the hypothetical negotiation. In most of the cases reviewed, the determination of available substitutes was limited to those available at the date of first infringement. If an alternative introduced after the hypothetical negotiation was considered, its impact was discounted to reflect uncertainty as of the date of the negotiation. For example cases, please contact the author. From a review of the above cases, it is clear that the book of wisdom can be relevant and useful, but it is not always allowed by courts. Use and acceptance of the book of wisdom is case and court specific.

A closely watched cross-border trademark case finally has been resolved, and the results of the case have implications for global trademark holders. A  U.S. District Court Judge in the Eastern District of Virginia granted Bayer AG’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing rival Belmora’s claims to the trademark FLANAX. In Mexico, Bayer uses the FLANAX mark for the popular pain medication known elsewhere as Aleve (naproxen), and successfully blocked Belmora’s attempt to market its own naproxen product under the mark FLANAX in the United States. The ruling also affirms a U.S. Trial and Appeal Board ruling that cancelled Belmora’s U.S. trademark for FLANAX, which the company secured in 2005. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit had previously determined that the Lanham Act authorized Bayer’s claims against Belmora for unfair competition under §43(a) and its cancellation action under §14(3).

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.

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?

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.