Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

Driven by media coverage of extravagant returns for investors in cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Ripple, among others, some of which have exhibited 100,000 percent or more annual growth in the last year alone, the cryptocurrency market, and the blockchain technologies by association, have received a tremendous amount of exposure for an industry that is still in its infancy… The fallout from the increase in patent application filings is worth monitoring closely. Given the lack of related art in the space, these early patents can potentially claim a large swath of functionality in the cryptocurrency and blockchain technology-related space.

The memorandum points to Amgen for stating that the “newly characterized antigen” test could not stand because it contradicted the quid pro quo of the patent system whereby in order to obtain a patent one must describe an invention (the antibody, not the antigen recognized by the antibody). The memorandum states that in view of Amgen, “adequate written description of a newly characterized antigen alone should not be considered adequate written description of a claimed antibody to that newly characterized antigen, even when preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional.”

Consumers driving the Wellness industry seek more than just a clothing company, a new workout, or a healthy alternative to the standard lunchtime sandwich – they value brand integrity and want to build relationships with brands that align with the lifestyle they aspire towards. This means Wellness companies should have a solid brand protection strategy in place from the outset. Ideally one that is capable of scaling with your international ambitions, and which can help prioritize spending, save resources and attract investors. Early-stage checks on trademarks, designs and domain names are essential to ensure your business can trade with confidence.

Competitors like Mylan and Teva, rather than inventing better treatments or cures for dry eyes chose the shortcut. They attacked Allergan’s patent in the PTAB. Allergan responded by assigning their patent to the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe who in turn invoked sovereign immunity at the PTAB, and demanded their rights in a real court with a real judge and jury. Mylan, Teva, the PTAB, Congress, and class action lawyers have formed a mob to gang up on Allergan for defending their intellectual property rights. They filed hundreds of suits accusing Allergan and the Tribe of fraud, conspiracy, and sham transactions stemming from an “invalid” patent. The attackers are mistakenly focusing on the patent as the problem. The problem is not the patent, but rather all of the incentives that reward copying instead of innovating.

Modern discovery can be quite disruptive and expensive. Recognizing that there is a particular danger of abuse in trade secret cases, where defendants are often individuals or vulnerable start-ups, courts long ago began to manage this risk by requiring plaintiffs to identify the relevant secrets with “reasonable particularity.” In 1985, California decided to reinforce that requirement with a statute that prohibits a plaintiff from taking any discovery until it has complied. Some courts outside of California have embraced this approach as sensible case management, explaining that it prevents unbounded rummaging through the defendant’s own secrets. But a few have gone further, posing the issue as not just potential harassment of the defendant but also the risk that the plaintiff

For IP due diligence for investment in a start-up or young company, the most important conversation is with the key developer(s) of the product(s) or service(s) [the “Conversation”].  Ideally, the Conversation is led by an IP attorney who understands the technology.  The goal is to determine the source of the product design.  Was open source software used?  Is this a variation of something an engineer was working on at a prior company?  Was a published article used?  Perhaps consultants were used?  Was the design changed during development after some dead-ends?  Where there isn’t budget for a full-fledged investigation, this Conversation and follow-up will likely get 80% of the risks identified for 20% of the cost.

As autonomous vehicle and mobility technology continues to make headlines, federal legislation is making its way through Congress with the goal of removing government hurdles for the development, testing, and rollout of innovations in this space. Although this legislation primarily implicates R&D activity, IP portfolio managers at automotive OEMs and suppliers should be aware of several proposals that may ultimately impact patent filing strategies and information compartmentalization best practices in order to reduce risks from disclosure requirements that are part of the current legislation.

The article in IPWatchdog describing how the United States democratized the patent system, extending the right to own intellectual property to commoners, came to mind after reading two very different papers on patents, innovation and their impact on society.  Apparently the debate over the democratization of the patent system isn’t over.  Some still see inventors as potential threats to the social order requiring close government supervision. The competing perspectives on patenting are reflected in the prominent figures from English history each study cites.

Today is National and World Pi Day because the numbers of the day (3-14) match the first three digits for pi or , the Greek letter, 3.1415926535897…  Although most people think that  is relegated to just geometry and trigonometry, the number pervades all of mathematics and the natural sciences, even statistics.

On February 15, 2018 a New York district court judge – in Goldman v. Breitbart News Network – challenged the reasoning of Perfect 10, and she concluded that one who embeds content may be engaged in a public display, thus making the practice far more risky… In Goldman v Breitbart News, Judge Katherine Forrest ruled that the Ninth Circuit was wrong to rely on the Server Test, and that a website thus can face direct liability, under particular circumstances, for making a display by embedding a copyrighted work in a website. The case involved a copyrighted image of Tom Brady, Danny Ainge and others that was first posted by the photographer as a Snapchat Story, but was soon copied by several individuals on Twitter with accompanying tweets.

It has been a long time coming, but the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is almost here. This new privacy regulation requires substantial changes to the collection and storage of data and will affect multiple disciplines, including the brand protection industry. One of the ‘victims’ of the new law is the WHOIS database. How will these changes affect its records?

In the last several months, lack of a reasonable expectation of success was a major factor in the reversal of two obviousness rulings by the Federal Circuit. One originated from the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“Board”) (In Re Stepan Company, Aug. 25, 2017) (“In re Stepan”) and the other from a district court Genzyme Corporation v. Dr. Reddy’s Lab., Dec. 18, 2017, (“Genzyme”). In re Stepan emphasizes that reasonable expectation of success requires a motivation to do more than simply vary all parameters or try all possible choices until success is achieved. In Genzyme, the Court explained that a hypothesis presented in passing in a reference, without more, is not enough for an ordinarily skilled person to have a reasonable expectation of success. While In re Stepan has relevance for patent applicants facing conclusory obviousness rejections, Genzyme is cautionary for patent challengers banking too heavily on isolated, unsupported statements as a basis for obviousness.

When a court stays a litigation and an IPR results in a settlement, adverse judgement invalidating all claims, or a final decision invalidating all claims, then the IPR reduces overall costs, which are the total litigation and IPR costs for both plaintiffs and defendants to resolve the dispute. But if the PTAB denies the IPR petition or allows one or more challenged claims, then the IPR fails to resolve the disputes between the parties, and any imposed stay may be lifted. In these instances, IPRs increase overall costs… A closer look reveals that IPRs have a nominal impact to reduce overall costs—just 6%.

The founding fathers intentionally created a patent system affordable by the masses, and which was approachable and far less administratively complex. As imperative as that was for U.S. economic success, perhaps the two most important and distinguishing features of the U.S. patent system as compared with the British patent system relate to the fact that there was no “working requirement” and patents were viewed as assets that could be sold.

Esports is a truly global phenomenon, with some analysts estimating worldwide viewership at approximately 300 million, potentially rising to 500 million by 2020. With so many eyeballs on esports – and with so many of those eyeballs being in a millennial category that is young, affluent, globalized, and technologically-driven, but increasingly challenging for brands to engage with – esports presents an exciting opportunity for sponsors. And, as with any other sport, sponsorship can be a significant revenue generator for rights holders. But, intellectual property rights are complex in esports. When entering into an esports sponsorship arrangement, both rights holders (whether they be players, teams, tournament organizers or games publishers) and sponsors face many of the same issues that the parties to a deal in traditional sports do.