Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a plot point in futuristic sci-fi novels and films. In many aspects of our lives, machines are increasingly performing tasks previously handled by human intelligence. The current and potential applications of AI span a breadth of industries… Whether it’s patent search, online advertising or aviation, AI helps by acting as a multiplier for human function and creativity. As humans continue to innovate, producing an overwhelming amount of work which translates into an incredible amount of data, AI will be the key to decoding and uncovering necessary information.

The Internet of Things (IoT) has been upon us for some time now, though many are just beginning to see it — the interconnected network of devices that increasingly surrounds us. We actually welcomed the first personal IoT device a while ago in the smart phone, a device whose functionality depends on its connection to a cellular network or the internet. Imagine the impact your phone has had many times over — with billions of interconnected smart devices — and you get a sense of the IoT’s expected scale… Unfortunately, protecting your IP in the IoT is likely to be both more complicated and lead to more patent infringement lawsuits than ever before.

The SEC has landed on a definition which includes both permissioned distributed ledgers and permissionless distributed ledgers in the term “blockchain.” This is not surprising, nor is it necessarily the result of a misinformed view. There are lots of market opportunities and reasons for enterprise permissioned distributed ledgers, as there was always market appetite for permissioned systems in general. These ventures use the term “permissioned blockchain” intentionally and purposefully. After all, the transactions are batched in blocks that are linked to each other. So, there is a chain of blocks, and some kind of consensus protocol. But is that sufficient for a blockchain, really? And what ‘blockchain’ is the SEC referring to when it references “the blockchain”?

As of September 1, 2017, the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine came fully into force. For three years Ukrainian legislative and executive authorities were obligated to implement the provisions of the Agreement in the national legislation, however much has not been done… With the Agreement in force without implementing Ukrainian legislation companies can approach the interpretation of European and national law in two ways. Competing companies can, and likely will, differ in their approach to and interpretation of certain provisions and they will have to fight their disputes in court.

Most assaults on public/private sector R&D partnerships are launched by those who believe patents are inherently bad and that through some undefined magic publicly funded inventions will be developed if they were only made freely available.  However, every couple of years attacks come from another, more threatening direction — claims by well placed, but inexperienced “experts” that if their pet theories were adopted technology transfer from the public sector would sky rocket. One idea being promoted is that universities should double or triple the number of their inventions to justify continued federal funding, thus triggering a spike in commercialization rates. In reality the only  spike would be in patenting dubious inventions to pad the numbers, leading to depressed licensing rates as portfolios were filled with junk.

Robins Kaplan LLP filed an Amended Complaint detailing allegations that The Walt Disney Company and Pixar misappropriated the central concept and characters behind the animated hit movie Inside Out from a nationally recognized child development expert, Denise Daniels, who had pitched her uniquely original material and characters from her show The Moodsters to top studio executives… Ronald Schutz, partner at Robins Kaplan and lead trial counsel for Daniels and The Moodsters Company, sat down with IPWatchdog to discuss the copyright infringement claims.

As businesses rapidly outsource their IT functions to the cloud, customers seeking cloud computing or cloud services must understand the risks, especially when sensitive, regulated or confidential data is stored in the cloud. Sensitive data carries business risk and may be subject to a host of legal and regulatory requirements. Cloud service agreements usually are based on the cloud services provider’s standard form agreement… The customer must read the indemnification terms closely, not just for the explicit language in the agreement, but for what the customer is really getting from the cloud services supplier and whether the indemnification terms will be of any help to the customer’s business if sued by a third party.

In one of the first district court cases to apply Halo, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania was confronted with a defendant who obtained a noninfringement opinion sometime around the final day of a 12 to 18 month project. See: Dominion Res. Inc. v. Alstom Grid Inc., No. CV 15-224, 2016 WL 5674713 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 3, 2016) (holding that the defendant’s state of mind on the final day of 12-18 month project was far too late to be defense to willfulness) (appeal pending). The court ruled that opinion letters obtained so long after infringement began, even if still during the period of infringement, did not absolve the defendant of willful infringement under a subjective recklessness standard. Shortly thereafter, the District of Delaware was confronted with a case in which the defendant obtained a noninfringement and invalidity opinion well before litigation, and the defendant even modified designs of the products at issue to conform to recommendations contained therein…

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition for Certiorari in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, which will result in the Court addressing the constitutionality of post grant proceedings… The impact of the resulting decision in this case may affect patent dispute outcomes not just moving forward, but possibly spanning 5 years into the past… At a (very) high level, there are three possible outcomes arising from the Supreme Court decision that is expected in 2018 that will impact the IPR process: no change, some change, major change.

The effects of proposed Rule 11 on the patent system will be like putting an additional bullet to a dying man. As far as patent litigation is concerned, the pending rule is intended to deliver what was missed in the AIA: shifting fees from infringers to patent owners.

Today’s environment demands an agile approach, one that involves substantial up-front planning, followed by continuously learning from both the client and the marketplace, using a strategy that involves constructing a defensive and offensive patent portfolio from a collection of laser-focused patents, rather than a single overarching patent intended to cover the invention in one fell swoop… More concretely, the strategy that we typically follow nearly always avoids the need to appeal, and therefore avoids the pitfalls of the PTAB, as follows. The foundation is to write a solid and comprehensive patent specification, one that is intended to cover the invention both broadly and deeply, in an effort to enable as many embodiments as possible for as long into the future as possible, encompassing both the client’s and competitors’ technologies. The first patent application that we file, however, typically has relatively narrow claims for a variety of strategic reasons…

Congressman Lamar Smith (R-TX), has sponsored a bill to amend Rule 11 — H.R. 720. The changes are made to remove the safe harbor provision and make sanctions mandatory. This bill has passed the House. A companion bill — S. 237 — has been introduced in the Senate with no action yet being taken… The proposed changes to Rule 11, if enacted, will have an impact of keeping unrepresented parties out of courts, and make the U.S. courts even more inefficient. It will have an adverse impact on patent owners in patent cases… Given the nature of patent litigation, experience teaches that it is inevitable that whenever a case is disposed of the winner will almost certainly try to shift litigation fees by any means possible, including by invoking Rule 11 sanctions. The parties with strong financial powers will have better chances to get sanction awards.

A recent trademark infringement case between Stork Market Inc v. 1736735 Ontario Inc. (Hello Pink Lawn Cards Inc), 2017 FC 779 has resulted in a win for the plaintiff and retribution in the amount of $30,000.  The copyright and trademark case deals with competitors in the business of renting and installing lawn signs for special occasions such as birthdays, anniversaries, and graduations. The trademark infringement case is based on claimed infringement of Stork Market Inc. and its registered trademarks of two images of a stork holding a baby above its head and under a banner that states the sex of the baby

A Couple of weeks ago, the Trump administration formally launched a “Section 301” investigation into the “theft of intellectual property” by China.  According to US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, the investigation will “look into Chinese laws, policies, and practices which may be harming American intellectual property rights…”  China is a large market for many American companies, not only for production, but also sales.  Chinese laws and policies with regard to trademarks may be confusing to many, but there are some key concepts to know and consider regarding trademarks in China.

“I can tell you that my work in China and Japan and Korea tells me that the companies there are quite delighted to pick up the slack where American companies don’t have quite the protections that they do under their law,” Judge Vader said.  These concerns about American companies not being able to compete with Asian companies echoed the message that Donald Trump frequently expressed during the presidential campaign. During the interview, Judge Rader also mentioned “a really excellent paper from a Hoover scholar and it said they had never found an instance of a strong, growing economy that didn’t correlate with a strong protective patent system.”