Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

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?

Although running an early-stage startup is exhilarating, do not let your brand name protection be swallowed up by all the excitement. Neglecting to properly secure a trademark for your company and products can lead to expensive consequences in the future, such as being forced to rebrand just as you’re gaining traction or being unable to stop infringers from using your brand name. Below are 5 of the most common mistakes businesses make with trademarks and what you can do to avoid them.

The GDPR’s entry into force has forced HR teams across the US and EU to re-evaluate the ways in which they justify the use of personal data relating to their employees, applicants and contractors. Whilst compliance priorities will vary between businesses, all US headquartered organizations with a presence or personnel in the UK should be particularly mindful of their enhanced obligations to satisfy multiple conditions under both the GDPR and the UK’s new Data Protection Act 2018 (“DPA 2018”) before collecting certain special categories of personal data.

Trade secret holders must take reasonable precautions to maintain the secrecy of their secrets, such as keeping such information on a “need-to-know” basis. Companies should have clear IP, confidentiality, and employment agreements describing which types of information are considered trade secrets. These agreements should also describe an employee’s responsibility for maintaining the secrecy of such information. In spite of reasonable precautions by a trade secret holder, bad actors may maliciously misappropriate trade secrets.

The US Patent Office – of which the PTAB is a part – issues patents.  That’s why it exists.  So if the PTAB finds an error in a granted patent, fix it.  Maybe that fix renders the patent so narrow it’s worthless in the market.  If so, that’s the applicant’s issue.  The point is that all the components of the Patent Office should be resources for inventors, not adversaries, working to issue valid patents.  As Director Iancu says, “It is a new day at the PTAB! All these enhancements advance Dir. Iancu’s underlying theme, forcefully emphasized at numerous venues over the last months:  Cherish our patent system’s enabling capabilities, and as necessary, propose narrowly-tailored solutions that address actual shortcomings.  In other words, ex ante, would anyone have seriously proposed the Alice decision as the most surgical way to deal with abusive demand letters sent to coffee shops?

A recent Federal Circuit decision demonstrates that for priority claims and patent term, the phrase “specific reference” is key. For example, amongst three related applications, to get the benefit of priority of an earlier U.S. patent application 1, application 3 in a priority claim has to have a “specific reference” to earlier application 1. A mere priority claim in application 3 to application 2, even though application 2 specifically “incorporates by reference” application 1, is not sufficient to allow application 3 to rely on the filing date of application 1. Rather, the priority chain is broken between applications 2 and 1, leaving application 3, at best, with a priority date of application 2 for purposes of patentability… From the Federal Circuit in Droplets, practitioners are reminded that both priority claims and incorporation by reference are very specific tools that should not be relied on during prosecution without careful consideration and deliberate use. Certainly, incorporation by reference does not trump “specific reference” and may lead to a break in the priority chain for purposes of patentability.

University discoveries are recognized as critical national assets because Bayh-Dole gave academic institutions the ability to own and manage inventions made with federal funding. The law helped lift the economy out of the doldrums of the 1970’s, re-establishing America’s leadership in every field of technology…. While the critics argue that Cohen-Boyer would have had the same impact without patent protection, there are other more likely scenarios. It could have languished on the shelf as did many other published, but not patented, discoveries. It took a lot of work from Reimers before U.S. companies recognized its potential. That effort would not have been made to promote a scientific paper.

This time last year, the combination of the Commission’s September 2017 Communication and the proposed Article 13 of the draft Copyright Directive led some to conclude that Europe was indeed moving away from protecting internet intermediaries. The Communication has now been backed up by the March 2018 Commission Recommendation and proposed new Regulation (with its focus on terrorist content). Whether Article 13 is ever enacted and in what form is still to be decided, but it is closer to adoption now than before the vote in September 2018. Meanwhile, we await answers from the CJEU regarding the permissible subject-matter breadth and territorial width of injunctions made against intermediaries.

Mass market online filing services simply do not give their clients the time and attention they require and deserve during the trademark application process. The money clients end up spending trying to fix mistakes – in legal fees, settlements and redeveloping products, packaging and marketing materials – would have been better spent doing it right from the start with a professional who is qualified to advise and guide them.

Copyrights protect original works of authorship.  This gives a copyright holder exclusive rights to modify, distribute, perform, display, and copy the work. However, as with other forms of intellectual property, there are important things copyright holders need to know in order to best protect and utilize their copyrights. You do not need to register a work to be protected by copyright.  However, registration is encouraged as it provides enhanced protection for copyright holders.  For example, a registered copyright is considered prima facie evidence in litigation, meaning the court will accept, on face value, that the copyright is valid unless it can be proven otherwise. 

A successful advertising campaign promotes goodwill and brand identity, spurring sales, revenue, and profit.  But success begets imitation.  All too often, imitators attempt to hijack a brand and, with it, all the blood, sweat, tears, and money invested in it. While there are some similarities, the unfortunate reality is trademark enforcement is more nuanced than a game of whack-a-mole.  Not every “mole” is worth whacking, some that are whacked may not respond favorably, and sometimes the mallet just is not strong enough to play. So, what should a trademark owner consider when determining whether to take enforcement action?  The first step is to identify the scope and strength of the trademark.  Next, it is important to determine whether enforcement will obtain the desired results.  Lastly, the impact of inaction should be examined.

A well-devised intellectual property (IP) portfolio can go a long way to ensure a startup biotech company’s business success in the marketplace. Patents allow a patent holder to exclude others from making, using, offering to sell, selling or importing a similar product based on what is claimed in the patent while the patent is in force (35 U.S.C. 154). Biotech startups generally invest in utility patents to protect core inventions and serve as barriers to entry against competitors. When faced with budget constraints, biotech startups can tap into less expensive IP protection options to boost market position, drive up value, attract venture capital funds and generate revenue, including cross-licensing and/or settlement agreements.

Last week, Chief Judge Stark issued a ruling from the District Court in Delaware that applies WesternGeco broadly to increase patent damages from foreign sales resulting from direct infringement.  Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc., Civil Action No. 04-1371-LPS (Slip Op., October 4, 2018).  This might occur where a patented product is made in the U.S., but sold abroad, or where the distribution channel for an infringing article includes warehousing in the U.S.  The Judge ruled that WesternGeco overruled the prior law limiting these damages to U.S. sales—now, foreign sales are subject to the full panoply of U.S. patent damages any time there is infringement in the U.S.  The Judge also certified this decision for interlocutory appeal, paving the way for the Federal Circuit to consider this development sooner rather than later.

Much of the havoc wrought in the software patent system by the landmark decision Alice v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014) stems from the unworkable two-part patent eligibility test based on vaguely defined and nebulous Abstract idea and significantly more constructs… In a patent eligibility landscape riddled with Alice-based rejections and invalidation it behooves patent practitioner and applicants alike to appreciate that not every innovation that achieves “a new, useful, and tangible result” is patentable… It is now more imperative than ever for practitioners to probe inventors with the right set of questions directed at identifying any distinctive technical features in the implementation, structure, configuration or arrangement of the software invention.