Ron Abrams is Of Counsel with Brutzkus Gubner Rozansky Seror Weber LLP. Over the past two decades, he has counseled small and start-up companies on intellectual property matters, including trademark protection, and he has litigated numerous trademark and trade secret cases. Ron also represents trustees in major bankruptcy cases.
For 15 years, Ron was the CFO of his own corporation. He has served as a volunteer arbitrator for the California State Bar Mandatory Fee Arbitration Department, working on cases that were published in the United States Patents Quarterly and state and federal reports, and contributed to the research and writing of a well-cited patents article.
For more information or to speak with Mr. Amrams, please visit his firm webpage.
After TC Heartland, patent infringement filings by patent trolls should be greatly reduced because they can no longer simply file and maintain cases against domestic corporations in plaintiff-friendly districts such as the Eastern District of Texas. Unfortunately for Marshall, Tyler and other East Texas towns, the torrent of lucrative patent litigation-related business traffic may slow to a trickle.
With over 205 billion in cash reserves at last count, Apple certainly doesn’t “need” the full nine-figure damage award. And, unless Congress steps in and amends the damage award statute, Apple will likely find itself defending its “total profits” for devices even where accused of infringing minor design features. Given the current statutory language the Supreme Court could very well agree with the Federal Circuit and find that it is bound by the clear statutory language. Clearly it is time for Congress to step in and amend Section 289, possibly to add apportionment.
In anticipation of Supreme Court review of Tam, the Commissioner has issued an informal directive to trademark examiners that any application for a mark that is potentially violative of Section 2(a) should be “suspended” rather than refused on that basis until the Supreme Court takes up Tam and its companion cases. In addition, although the Tam decision was expressly limited to the “disparagement” provision in Section 2(a), the Commissioner’s directive apparently applies to all Section 2(a) bases for refusal (immoral, deceptive, scandalous, or disparaging). All non-Section 2(a) application issues will still be addressed prior to suspension.