Posts in Copyright

The most recent notorious markets report from the USTR seems to have further galvanized Alibaba into taking action to reduce the number of counterfeit products sold on its e-commerce platforms. In early January, Alibaba filed its first pair of lawsuits targeting retailers selling fake Swarovski watches on the company’s e-commerce platforms. Then in late February, Alibaba released an official corporate statement in which it blamed China’s ambiguous counterfeiting laws for contributing to the problem… Alibaba’s statement goes so far as to equate counterfeiting to drunk driving in terms of how strongly such actions should be criminalized.

Another covered business method review is overturned by the Federal Circuit because the Patent Trial and Appeal Board instituted a CBM on a patent that was not a CBM patent. China leads the world not only in stealing digital images protected by copyright but also in terms of trademark applications filed. The Catholic Church starts to take action in protecting its own intellectual property. Also, Alphabet’s self-driving car subsidiary files a lawsuit including patent and trade secret claims against ride sharing giant Uber.

An appellate court hands down a ruling in favor of Internet radio provider Sirius XM against a rock band trying to assert its copyright on pre-1972 music recordings. Networking technologies are at the center of a patent infringement suits involving two major international telecommunications firms. One U.S. Senator takes action on drafting legislation that might cap H-1B visas. Also, the highest federal court refuses to hear an appeal of a patent case from Maryland state court in which the judge refused to interpret a patent’s meaning.

The most active defendants in copyright lawsuits include department store chain Ross Stores, Inc. (NASDAQ:ROST), which was named as a defendant in 276 cases. Following Ross Stores are a series of retailers: TJX Companies, Inc. (NYSE:TJX), named a defendant in 123 cases; Amazon.com Inc. (NASDAQ:AMZN), a defendant in 84 cases; Burlington Coat Factory (NYSE:BURL), a defendant in 74 cases; and Rainbow USA Inc., a defendant in 66 cases. Except for Amazon, these are primarily off-price department stores offering brand name goods at discounted prices. Music publishers like Universal Music Group, Inc. (65 suits) and education publishers like Pearson Education, Inc. (NYSE:PSO) (50 suits) are also among the top defendants in copyright cases.

On the menu this week for Other Barks & Bites… Video game systems developed by Nintendo and Sony are targeted in a patent infringement suit filed in Delaware federal court. The infamous scan-to-email patent giving rise to the patent troll debate has finally been invalidated at the Federal Circuit. A multi-billion dollar copyright suits between two American tech giants gets new life from Oracle. California’s state legislature moves to create trademark protections for marijuana products at the state level, circumventing federal restrictions on such trademarks. And Zillow gets hit with a copyright infringement verdict.

While engaging in a manner most likely to lead to success is critical for any company, it is even more important for toy entrepreneurs for a variety of reasons. Unfortunately, all too frequently costly mistakes are made. Here are five mistakes that I see toy companies make far too often… One of the ultimate ironies is that many toy companies spend most of the time coming up with the perfect name for their company but then don’t take the necessary steps to secure that name. Usually, companies either fail to run a trademark search or wait too long to file the trademark. The best time to discover a trademark issue for your name of choice is at the outset because any conflict can easily be resolved by picking a new name; and trust me while that may not seem desirable in the long run it will save you a lot of time and money.

Kylie Minogue reports victory in a trademark opposition filed against Kylie Jenner, but the electronic records of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are cause for confusion. Also, the estate of Dr. Seuss supports its copyright infringement claims against a New York City playwright and all 12 districts of the Federal Reserve System seek invalidation of two patents on electronic fraud-proof payment systems, plus Netflix, Beyoncé and our weekly updates on what is happening on Capitol Hill and on Wall Street.

So what about the ZeniMax v. Facebook case? While you read many reports that make fantastical claims, it is important to remember that software copyright has been accepted and understood by the legal community as well as any law can be. Software copyrights have been formally codified since 1980, though copyrights on written works have been accepted since the founding of our nation. Nonliteral infringement is a long-standing and universally accepted result of copyright law and a legitimate reason for finding software copyright infringement. Was the verdict in this case correct? That is a different question entirely separate from whether software can be copyrighted and whether the legal theories were sound, but without facts to the contrary, it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that the jury made a correct decision.

On Wednesday, February 1st, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (N.D. Tex.) entered a case verdict which orders virtual reality developer Oculus VR to pay $500 million to Rockville, MD-based interactive computing firm ZeniMax Media Inc. The verdict is the latest activity in a case involving allegations of copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation levied against Oculus, now a subsidiary of social media giant Facebook Inc. (NASDAQ:FB) of Menlo Park, CA.

On Thursday, January 26th, Burbank, CA-based entertainment giant Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) and movie production firm DreamWorks of Universal City, CA, were named as defendants in a copyright infringement suit involving the 2016 romantic drama The Light Between Oceans. The suit, which also targets the screenplay author and NYC-based book publisher Simon & Schuster, Inc., charges that both the 2016 movie and the 2012 novel upon which it is based were both plagiarized from a 2004 screenplay written by the plaintiff, Joseph Nobile. The case has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.).

Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) holds the Chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee, and as such will wield a great deal of power over any intellectual property related legislative reforms that will occur during the 115th Congress. Earlier today Goodlatte unveiled his agenda for the 115th Congress. Not surprisingly, a portion of his agenda includes additional patent litigation reform in order to address what he characterizes as “truly frivolous lawsuits,” as well as reforms to keep America’s patent laws up to date and copyright reforms to help ensure “America’s global leadership in creativity and innovation continues.”

This week, a patent battle between two American tech giants expands its scope to China, patents covering a well-known multiple sclerosis treatment were invalidated in U.S. district court and Trumpcare emerges as a possible trademarked moniker for the next incarnation of the country’s healthcare system, Disney files a patent application on evaluating human emotions while on amusement park rides, Ajit Pai holds his first open FCC meeting as Chairman and not surprisingly says he wants to reduce regulations, plus a whole lot more.

The House Judiciary Committee will set the agenda for any intellectual property legislative reforms that will arise over the next two years during the 115th Congress, and the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet will take the lead for the full House Judiciary Committee. Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) is once again Chair of the House Judiciary Committee, and in that role will continue to have tremendous influence on any intellectual property related matters… At the start of the 114th Congress, Congressman Darrell Issa was made Chair of the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. Despite being an inventor himself, the bombastic Issa has aligned himself with Google and other Silicon Valley elites. Issa is not viewed as a friend of independent inventors, and instead lambasts patents trolls as often as he can. While no one likes a patent troll, Issa has taken the unusual step to equate patent trolls with all patent owners who enforce their patents.

In the official complaint filed by McCartney, the British rock legend is seeking to reclaim ownership of the Beatles copyrights under provisions of the Copyright Act, as amended in 1976. Section 304(c) of that legislation gives authors the right to terminate transfers to reclaim copyright interests for copyrights that were assigned to transferred to third parties before January 1st, 1978. Living authors, or surviving family members of authors who have died, have a five-year period starting 56 years from the date the copyright was secured during which they can send advance notice to copyright holders notifying them of an intent to terminate the copyright transfer.

On the menu this week for Other Barks & Bites, the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case challenging the Lanham Act’s disparagement provision, a six-figure damages verdict goes in favor of former USPTO Deputy Director Russell Slifer, a TTAB petition is filed to challenge the trademark application for an NFL franchise currently in the relocation process, an announcement by a Japanese academic-industry research project that claims to have doubled the effectiveness of solar cell panel conversion rates, the FTC takes action against a pharmaceutical company and much more.