Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"

Information technology giant IBM recently announced that it had agreed to join the LOT Network, a nonprofit patent risk management consortium designed to immunize its members from lawsuits filed by patent assertion entities (PAEs). The move brings an additional 80,000 patents and patent application under the aegis of the LOT Network, which currently offers its members immunity to 2.3 million global patent assets should those patents ever be sold to companies that make more than half of their gross revenue from patent assertions. Since the IBM announcement last week, LOT Network has added a few new members, including Japanese carmaker Toyota, which just announced today that it has agreed to join the consortium. Since we last covered LOT Network in August 2018, the organization has more than doubled in size from about 275 companies up to 623 companies. Since it was founded in 2014, LOT Network’s membership has increased by a compound annual growth rate of 115%.

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court finally unequivocally answered the question about whether copyright owners need to receive a Registration Certificate from the Copyright Office before filing suit for infringement and thus resolved a difference of opinion among various regional circuit courts. (Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC. Since this decision was issued, federal district courts have cited it in at least 63 decisions. What should artists, writers, and businesses do now to protect their creative work? How should attorneys alter the standard advice they give their clients? Let’s start with a review of what the ruling actually says.

Two things are true about the world of trademarks—it is rarely boring, and something is always on the horizon. The following are some of the significant trademark decisions of 2019, as well as two critical cases to watch as 2020 begins: 1. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Iancu v. Brunetti rejected the Lanham Act’s ban on offensive marks on the grounds that such a ban violates the First Amendment Right of Free Speech. The case involved clothing brand FUCT, which stands for “Friends You Can’t Trust,” and its founder, Erik Brunetti, who sought to register the brand’s name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The USPTO refused to register the name, determining it was immoral and scandalous. Brunetti argued to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that the mark was not vulgar, and that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act was unconstitutional because it violated the First Amendment. However, the TTAB affirmed the USPTO’s refusal and Brunetti appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC).

The U.S. District court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, overturned a $10.1 million jury verdict on January 17 against Japanese gaming giant Nintendo under the Supreme Court’s Alice test, which the High Court recently declined to clarify amidst confusion. In August of 2017, a Texas jury entered a verdict against Nintendo, finding that the company had infringed upon a patent asserted by Texas-based medical tech firm iLife Technologies Inc. The jury agreed that iLife proved that it was owed $10.1 million in a lump sum royalty for the sales of a series of games for Nintendo’s Wii U console. The jury also found that Nintendo didn’t prove invalidity of the asserted patent. In its analysis overturning the jury verdict, the district court reasoned that “[a]t its core, Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of ‘gathering, processing and transmitting…information.’”

The primary purpose of the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) is to provide federal remedies to individuals and companies that have had their trade secrets misappropriated. That is not, however, its sole purpose. One of the DTSA’s more controversial provisions actually protects certain alleged misappropriators by precluding DTSA liability when an individual discloses trade secrets in the context of “whistleblowing” activity. Indeed, the DTSA’s immunity provision dictates that a whistleblower may not be held criminally or civilly liable for disclosing a trade secret, provided that the disclosure satisfies certain requirements. 18 U.S.C. § 1833. This immunity provision creates serious risk for companies: A whistleblower could expose a company to civil and criminal penalties stemming from the company’s alleged misconduct and simultaneously reveal valuable trade secrets, and the company would have no recourse. Fortunately, the immunity provision itself and the applicable case law, which is still in its infancy, can be used to develop a strategy for trade secret holders to avoid and/or mitigate this risk.

Sometimes it seems that trade secrets are always fighting for respect. I recently ran into a friend who teaches at a European university. He somehow found a way to squeeze into the conversation a pronouncement: “You know, trade secrets are not property.” Stay with me; this gets interesting. I sighed, because I knew what was coming. I’d heard it many times before. “The essence of property,” he said, “is the ability to exclude others, and that doesn’t exist with trade secrets. Anyone is free to discover the same information, or to reverse engineer a product to learn how it is made.” I acknowledged that trade secret rights are not exclusive, and it’s easy to reverse engineer some things. “But what about secret formulas, like Coca-Cola’s, and secret algorithms, like Google’s? And companies often make products using processes that you can’t figure out by looking at what’s public.” He was ready with the ultimate squelch: “Sure, but all of that is not property, because you can’t exclude anyone; you might not even know when someone is using the same so-called secret. If you can’t order them off, it’s not property.”

On January 13, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision affirming the District Court’s judgment of invalidity as to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,720,320 (the ‘320 patent) and the award of attorney’s fees. The CAFC also affirmed the ruling of infringement as to the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,707,855 (the ‘855 patent). Adrian Rivera and Adrian Rivera Maynez Enterprises, Inc. (ARM), owner of the ‘320 patent, initiated the lawsuit against Eko Brands LLC (Eko), owner of the ‘855 patent. ARM claimed Eko infringed claims 5-8 and 18-20 of the ‘320 patent.

In general, a trade secret is any information used in business if the owner has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret, and the information derives independent economic value, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by the public. Almost every state has adopted some form of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. In addition, with the enactment of the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), trade secrets are also protected under civil and criminal federal law. See 18 U.S.C. § 1831, et seq. Due to the enactment of this Act and the weakening of patent protection in the United States, trade secrets are becoming an increasingly important means for companies to protect their intellectual property. This article provides a summary of important 2019 trade secret decisions and trends.

I was at the JP Morgan Healthcare Conference when I learned a week ago that the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) had denied Athena Diagnostic’s Petition for Certiorari. I was shocked. We feel the same when as a child we discover there is no Santa Claus—a trusted institution is not as represented. SCOTUS ignored a recommendation from the U.S. Solicitor General in the strongly worded Vanda opinion that the Court’s opinions had veered away from Congress’ law; a desperate plea from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that it needed better guidance and thinks the law is on the wrong path; 11 thoughtful amicus briefs; and Athena’s petition. The Court was also referred to my law review article with Anthony Prosser “Unconstitutional Application of 35 U.S.C. 101 by the U.S. Supreme Court” based on almost a year of legal research. During the month after final briefing in Athena and after the U.S. Solicitor’s opinion, we saw a significant uptick in downloads of our article (cited in the amicus brief to the Court I co-authored with Meredith Addy of AddyHart on behalf of Freenome and New Cures for Cancers)—over 30 downloads during the holiday season and prior to the Court’s conference on January 10, when most IP practitioners are otherwise distracted, providing an unconfirmable assumption that the Court was reading it. All to no avail.

Google v. Oracle America, a case pending before the United States Supreme Court, is a seemingly never-ending battle, since 2010, between two Silicon Valley behemoths. But now that battle may finally be nearing its conclusion. On January 7, the first of the amicus briefs were filed, signaling that both sides are marshaling their arguments for one final push toward the…

When discussing patentable inventions with data scientists, I often hear them dismiss their inventions under arguments such as these: “We’re using the same tools as everyone else,” “Augmenting data for the training set is well known,” “A similar thing has been done for car-bumper design” (said by the designer of a churro-making machine), “Configuring the neural-network hyperparameters is trivial,” and worst of all, “It’s obvious.” Data scientists often believe that their accomplishments are not patentable, but in-depth exploration of their work often uncovers patentable ideas. I am referring to data scientists that use machine-learning (ML) tools to uncover intrinsic relationships within a large corpus of data. Other data scientists design and improve these ML tools, and their work may also result in patentable ideas, which is a topic for discussing another day.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: The new China-U.S Trade Deal offers stronger patent dispute mechanism for drug companies; IBM joins LOT Network and tops the list of top U.S. patent recipients for a 27th straight year; the U.S. Supreme Court hears a pair of appeals in trademark cases and seems eager to overturn lower court rulings in both; Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman dissents on a pair of precedential decisions issued by the CAFC; tech giant Alphabet is the fourth U.S. tech company to hit a $1 trillion market capitalization; China announces that it received 1.401 million invention patent applications during 2019; Ed Sheeran loses a motion to compel and must disclose concert revenue information in “Thinking Out Loud” copyright case; USAA wins a second nine-figure judgment in a patent infringement case against Wells Fargo; and CompuMark reports that 85% of global brands were infringed during 2019.

A case now pending before the Ninth Circuit, LTTB LLC v. Redbubble, Inc., Docket No. 19-16464, has the potential to clarify the controversial doctrine of aesthetic functionality. Aesthetic functionality has puzzled courts for decades. Particularly before the U.S. Supreme Court issued its modern guidance on functionality in Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982); TrafFix Devices v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 26 (2001), and Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (2d Cir. 2009), courts struggled with how to apply the aesthetic functionality doctrine and issued opinions that, in some instances, muddied the already murky aesthetic functionality waters. Perhaps the most notorious aesthetic functionality case is International Order of Job’s Daughters v. Lindeburg & Co., 633 F.2d 912 (9th Cir. 1980), a case that many observers believed to be abrogated by subsequent Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit opinions but that has recently continued to wreak havoc on trademark law.

There are 10 candidates declared to succeed Francis Gurry as WIPO Director General, when he retires in September this year after serving two six-year terms. One of them will be nominated to be Director General by the WIPO Coordination Committee on March 5 and 6, before being formally appointed by the WIPO General Assembly. The Coordination Committee comprises 83 of WIPO’s 192 member states. The 10 candidates include eight men and two women. There are three candidates from Asia, three from Latin America, two from Africa, and one each from Europe and central Asia. There are no candidates from North America.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Romag Fasteners v. Fossil, Inc., Fossil Stores, I. Inc., Macy’s Inc, and Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc. to decide whether a successful trademark plaintiff must establish that infringement was willful as a hard prerequisite to an award of the infringer’s profits, rather than being just one of multiple factors to be weighed when determining entitlement to a profits award. Under the latter scheme, profits may be awardable even if the infringement was not willful. Taking the Justices’ comments at face value, it seems likely that Romag will prevail and profits may be disgorged for less-than willful infringement.