Thursday, May 9, 2013

Even IP Law360 gets "confused" when discussing Apple, Inc.'s trademarks

Even the tried and true, widely read in the legal profession, IP Law360 online electronic publication (or its editor/title writer) gets "confused" when it comes to the distinction between TRADEMARKS and PATENTS.  Today's (May 9, 2013) IP Law360 had an article entitled, "Apple Escapes Publishers' Patent Suit Over 'iBooks' Mark," by David Mcafee.  Regrettably, the lawsuit described in the article is really about an alleged trademark suit brought against Apple in the southern district of New York in 2011 (1:11-cv-04060), by a publisher of physical books sold under the name, "ibooks." Spoiler alert...judge ruled for Apple.

By no means is this an indictment of the author of the Law360 article.  In fact, the article's first sentence correctly identifies the issue as being a trademark matter.  No, this merely underscores the fact that the general public, business people, and arguably editors of IP Law360 do not appreciate the distinctions and differences between trademarks and patents. 

Now for the boring definition section of this post so as to dispel any likelihood of confusion between trademarks and patents...

Trademarks are words, slogans, logos, designs, sounds, colors, and alike which identify goods and services with a unique origin, producer or supplier. 

Patents (utility) cover the functional features or aspects of a machine, article of manufacture, chemical composition, processes, and software.  Design patents cover the look (ornamental design or appearance) of an article of manufacture.

© Stephen J. Weyer, 2013
Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com


Sunday, April 21, 2013

Innovative Intellectual Property Clinic at the University of Dayton School of Law Provides Students with a Real World Law Practice Experience


Guest blog post by Gregory Richards, a third-year law student at the University of Dayton School of Law and an inaugural member of its IP law clinic.  He has a technical background in the field of chemistry, with a focus on inorganic complexes and electrochemistry.  Greg recently passed the U.S. patent bar examination and is currently seeking a patent prosecution position at a law firm upon graduation from law school in May.

INNOVATIVE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CLINIC AT THE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON SCHOOL OF LAW PROVIDES STUDENTS WITH A REAL WORLD LAW PRACTICE EXPERIENCE

Once again, the University of Dayton School of Law (UDSL) is at the forefront of the movement to provide students with practical experience in the practice of business and intellectual property law.  This spring, the Program in Law and Technology (PILT) at UDSL launched the inaugural Entrepreneurship and Intellectual Property (IP) Law Clinic.  Much like traditional law school clinics, student associates represent clients under the supervision of licensed attorneys.  While traditional law school clinics focus on providing students with courtroom experience, the IP Clinic is geared toward students interested in working as transactional attorneys.  

With UDSL’s emphasis on experiential learning in mind, the IP Clinic was designed to provide students with practical experience.  Students meet with clients, perform legal research, draft memoranda and documents, and perform other client-related tasks.  Additionally, students are focused on helping innovators protect their inventions and aiding new enterprises select and implement their corporate structure.  Furthermore, the IP Clinic at UDSL provides an excellent complement to the PILT externship program, which offers students the opportunity to gain practical experience by working for governmental agency, law firm, corporation, court or legal aid.  
IP Clinic students truly are having the exact same experiences as we as practicing IP attorneys at law firms or as in-house counsel have every day, from conducting in-take interviews with clients, explaining complex legal issues to business people, developing creative solutions to protect clients’ IP rights, etc.  The IP Clinic gives UD students a leg up on their competition and distinguishes its students from other law school graduates interested in pursuing a career in intellectual property law.  
Stephen Weyer, member of the UDSL’s PILT Advisory Council and UDSL graduate, 1997.

The IP Clinic is collaborating with a number of University of Dayton units or offices, including the School of Business Administration, the Innovation Center, the Design and Manufacturing Clinic, the Office of Legal Affairs, and the University of Dayton Research Institute.  These units provide the clients and matters for the IP client students to tackle.  “The innovation, entrepreneurship and creativity that takes place right here on the university campus is fertile ground for IP Clinic students to learn how to meet the needs of actual clients,” said Kelly Henrici, executive director of the Program in Law and Technology, who is supervising the IP Clinic.  This diverse group of university clients exposes students in the IP Clinic to a variety of business and intellectual property law matters, including patent, copyright, and trademark law.

The IP Clinic also exposes students to the business/administrative aspect of the practice of law.  Throughout the semester, the students are responsible for their own time management, billing matters, document management, etc.  Part of this is accomplished using advanced case management software used by many law firms.  Accordingly, the IP law clinic truly mimics a law firm environment giving the students “real world” practical experience. 

In addition to the client-related work, students in the IP Clinic are required to attend a weekly class meeting.  This weekly class meeting provides the students with an opportunity to discuss their work with other members of the IP Clinic, receive feedback and advice on drafts, and promotes teamwork skills that are essential for effective lawyering.

The IP Clinic at UDSL is an innovative method of providing law students with practical experience in the fields of business and intellectual property law that is sure to facilitate the transition from student to practicing attorney.  We fully expect to see other law schools across the country follow the lead of UDSL by offering their own version of a clinical experience devoted to business and intellectual property law.
Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com


Monday, April 15, 2013

Patenting... Real. Comfortable. Genes II ? Judgment Day


Last December, I reported that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal in ASSOC. FOR MOLECULAR PATHOLOGY V. MYRIAD GENETICS, INC. to decide whether isolated human genes are patentable under the U.S. Patent Act (35 U.S.C. § 1 et seq.)   Today, is "judgement day" {well, sort of} as the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on whether isolated human genes are patentable.  The true "judgement day" will come when the Court issues a decision, expected to be by the end of the Court's session in June.  Many have strong opinions either for or against gene patents. In order to have an intelligent, informed debate, it is important to consider why we have a patent system at all.

The Framers of the United States Constitution knew of the importance of technological progress.
The Congress shall have the power...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. (U.S. Constitution, Article I, § 8, clause 8).
This provides inventors with an incentive to create new products and processes. It also gives companies and investors (e.g. venture capitalists and stockholders), incentive to invest capital looking for a return on their capital investment.

Congress has limited the duration of the monopolistic protection. In return for the protection, the inventor must disclose his or her invention to the Patent Office which, in turn, discloses the information to the general public.

The Patent Act was drafted to accomplishes two goals. First, it encourages innovation and discovery through its incentive of limited monopoly Second, the patent system promotes the disclosure of useful technology to the general public by putting it in the public domain.

Opponents of gene patents say, "Keep your hands off my genes." They argue that human genes are naturally occurring, not the creation of human hands, and thus, not the subject of patents. Therefore, opponents say that genes are in the public domain for all to use. Further, some opponents believe that patenting genes stifle innovation of other researchers who fear lawsuits for patent infringement from the patent owner if they conduct their own research pertaining to the patented gene. In addition, some proponents believe that for public policy reasons and pubic health concerns, physicians should not be prevented from access to the best diagnostics and therapeutic treatments which may include the gene discoveries of another.

Proponents of gene patents assert that biotech and pharmaceutical companies need patent protection for isolated genes. These companies spend millions (or even billions) of dollars to isolate genes and to discover the role that these genes play in disease or in the therapeutic treatment of disease. Absent patent protection, anyone could use the million/billion dollar discovery without having to invest a single dime. Further proponents of patenting genes say that no one would invest in companies if anyone could use their discoveries for free. As a result, biotech companies would cease to develop new diagnostics and therapeutic treatments predicated on isolated gene sequences. Therefore, without the financial incentive of patent protection, new genetic diagnostics and therapeutic treatments will never be made. Without patent protection for gene discoveries, entire industries will be lost and/or negatively impacted. Accordingly, proponents argue that patenting genes accomplishes the two goals of the Patent act, offering both economic development and providing a pathway for new discoveries of disease diagnostics and therapeutic treatments.

© Stephen J. Weyer, Stites & Harbison, PLLC, 2012
Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com


http://www.cnn.com
Meet us at BIO in Chicago (April 23-25)




Meet us at INTA in Dallas




Monday, April 8, 2013

Can you hear me now? Apple's EarPods accused of infringing Hearing aid company's HearPods

Apple Inc., owner of the U.S. federally registered marks, EarPods ® and Apple EarPods ® has been accused of infringing the trademark of Randolph Divisions' HearPods ®.  It's a struggle to believe that a consumer of hearing aids (presumably, a sophisticated consumer and one not likely to make an impulse purchase of a hearing aid) would think that Apple's iPod/earbud-style earphones, Earpods®, are associated with a company known for making hearing aids.  Therefore, it seems unlikely that such a consumer would be confused as to the origin of Apple's Earpods and believe there is a connection with the hearing aid company Randolph Division.  Further, unless you are both visually impaired and hearing disabled (i.e., the Helen Keller's among us), it's hard to envision that one would not see the difference between the marks "EARpod" and "HEARpod".  Finally, what makes the alleged infringement even more incredulous is that the markets for the two products, mobile audio/music and hearing aids, are completely different.  In the end, it seems like Randolph Divisions will have an uphill battle to prove trademark infringement.




Friday, March 29, 2013

An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure....Preventing an Intellectual Property China Syndrome

An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure

Preventing an Intellectual Property China Syndrome

Filing for intellectual property (IP) protection in China, even if you never intend to market or sell your products in China, can be very beneficial, and potentially cheaper in the long run.  If you use or plan to use a Chinese manufacturer to make your products, being proactive in seeking Chinese IP protection for your company’s intellectual property can help avoid a figurative production line meltdown.

A typical unscrupulous scenario is as follows.  You are a law abiding U.S. company, trying to make a buck by selling your products in the U.S.  You contract a Chinese manufacturer to make your products that you sell exclusively in the U.S. (or at the least, you will not be selling the products in China).  You may or may not have applied for U.S. IP protection that will give you the right to prevent others from making or selling your products in the U.S. and to prevent the importation of knock-off (counterfeit/infringing) products into the U.S.  Since you are not marketing or selling your products in China, you do not file for IP protection in China.  All is going great.  The Chinese manufacture is making your products, shipping them to the U.S. and the products are selling like hotcakes.

Next, a nefarious company then enters the scene.  Seeing no Chinese IP filed, the nefarious company submits its own application for Chinese IP protection covering the product that you are manufacturing in China.  China has a relatively simple registration process for some IP (e.g. designs and utility models).  The registration process does not include an independent investigation to determine whether the registrant is the actual, original creator of the IP; China just takes the word of the signed declaration of the registrant.  As a result, the unsavory company gets a Chinese registration covering your company’s IP.

The final blow comes when the ruthless company goes to your Chinese manufacturer with the fraudulently secured Chinese IP registration, and insists that your Chinese manufacturer cease producing your product or be sued for infringement.

Your recourse is relatively simple, but not cheap.  You can request an invalidity proceeding with the Chinese government to invalidate the improperly secured Chinese registration.  To do so, you need to have proof that your product was publically known (e.g. sold or advertised) before the Chinese IP registration was filed.  Oh, you will also need a Chinese attorney and will need to pay a Chinese government fee for requesting the invalidity proceeding, neither of which are inexpensive.

What could the U.S. company have done to prevent its manufacturing production line from being possibly shut down for fear of an infringement lawsuit from the ruthless company?  The U.S. company could have filed its own application for IP protection in China.  The U.S. company’s Chinese IP would act as a shield to prevent the ruthless company from falsely claiming its IP in China.  The typical costs (attorney and government fees) can be as much as 50% less to register your IP in China as compared with the costs for invalidating an improper registration of another.  Depending on the circumstances, being proactive in filing for IP rights in China may be more cost effective and beneficial than waiting to defend your rights against this dishonest practice.




Wednesday, March 27, 2013

No © fair use for you...NEXT !

A federal judge found Meltwater U.S. Holdings Inc. and its Meltwater News Service (Meltwater) liable for copyright infringement based on its reposting Associated Press (AP) news items on Meltwater's website The Associated Press v. Meltwater .  Although Meltwater asserted a fair use defense, insisting that its use of AP's copyright material was permitted, the judge was not buying it.

Meltwater operates a "for pay" news aggregate (also known as a clipper service) in which a computer algorithm selects news articles from the Internet, including ones from the AP.  Large portions and in some cases, virtually entire web items are reproduced on the Meltwater site.  Meltwater defends its actions as "fair use" insisting that it is merely reporting the news.  However, the judge found that Meltwater's marketing materials imply that its service is a substitute for AP's new service.  Basically, the judge determined that Meltwater wanted to have its cake and eat it too.  Paraphrasing the Soup Nazi (Seinfeld), the judge found, "No fair use for you!  Next."

What doomed Meltwater's fair use defense claim to copyright infringement?  Summarizing the verbose almost 100 page opinion in a Twitter-friendly, less than 140 characters, Meltwater reproduced too much of AP's content and its service was a substitute for the original.

One might wonder how others may avoid the same fate at Meltwater.  For example, should Yahoo, estimated 30 million purchaser of a 17 year old's app, Summly, be concerned?  Summly is an app which uses an algorithm to automatically summarize news stories posted online, and then present news summaries to its app users.  Since the app does not reproduce the news items it distributes verbatim (or even portions verbatim), it seems unlikely that the Summly app's use infringes another's copyright.  It should be noted that "facts" and the "information" of news stories are not protectable by copyright, just the "expression" of the facts (i.e. word selection, phrases, etc.)

Send email feedback- sweyer@stites.com
http://www.cnn.com
Meet us at BIO in Chicago (April 22-24)



Meet us at INTA in Dallas



 

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

Top ELEVEN Reasons for filing a U.S. Patent Application by March 15

Top ELEVEN Reasons for filing a U.S. Patent Application by March 15, 2013

11. Beat the U.S.Patent Office (USPTO) fee increases (starting March 19).

10. Tackle the easier task of preparing a patent application before moving on to the more complicated task of preparing your 2012 personal tax return.

9.  Avoid new class of foreign patent applications and foreign country use/sales as prior art being used to reject your patent application.

8.  Eliminate the threat that an earlier, oral disclosure of your invention can be used as prior art.

7.  Peace of mind in the more certainty of prior interpretations of the existing patent statute through established case law rather than the ambiguity of how the new patent law will be interpreted.

6.  Thwart the risk that a third party disclosure of your invention (up to a year before you file your patent application), will prevent you from getting a patent.

5.  Avoid new post patent grant review at the USPTO.

4.  Be able to rely on the "first-to-invent" rule to establish an earlier date of invention than that of your patent application filing date (allowing you to prove you were the original inventor before another).

3.  Your patent application filed by March 15 can later be used as the basis for a future continuing patent application which will be examined under the "old"/current patent laws rather than those starting March 16 (e.g. reason #4, above).

2.  Always better to file sooner rather than later.

1.  Frees up time to concentrate on filling out your NCAA March Madness Basketball Bracket.