Header graphic for print

Beyond IP Law

A look at what's going on in the world of intellectual property.

Expectations of Privacy: Location Matters

Posted in Data Security, Privacy

Sometimes law enforcement needs a warrant to access cellphone data, sometimes a court order. Sometimes nothing is required.


Roaming while you roam.

Depending on where you use your cellphone, law enforcement may obtain your location records from your wireless provider without a court order or warrant — neither is required in Washington state. In urban areas where there are multiple cell towers, a phone’s location can be identified to within half a mile. Turning off your location services or powering down the cellphone alone will not shield you from law enforcement.



Are you where you said you’d be?

When processing data, cellphones communicate with the strongest available cell tower signal. Calls, texts and internet browsing generate cell-site location information (CSLI). CSLI is time-stamped and linked to the phone number. Cell towers emit different signals in each direction, so the phone’s movement is tracked by its angular position relative to a tower. From CSLI, law enforcement can track where you are; what cell phones are near you; with what phone numbers you communicate; how long you communicate; and what routes you travel. In essence, everything except the actual communication is recorded. If you aren’t a criminal, you may not care. Depending on how CSLI is produced, even the innocent can catch the attention of law enforcement.


Despite your innocence, law enforcement may receive your cellphone usage records.

“Tower dumps” entail producing CSLI for all cellphones that processed data sent through a tower. If your cellphone uses a targeted tower, your data may be captured. You go from having fun with your friends to law enforcement tracking you by your number.


Producing CSLI in real-time transfers your records contemporaneously as they are created by cellphone usage.  If this happens, you are probably having a bad day — this method may be used in exigent circumstances.  Collection of historical CSLI shows all CSLI for a cellphone for a specific period of time.


One person’s record is another person’s dirty laundry.

In U.S. v. Timothy Carpenter[1], the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals joined the Eleventh Circuit[2] in ruling that law enforcement agencies do not need a warrant to track a caller’s location through cell tower records. Timothy Carpenter and Timothy Sanders robbed nine cellphone stores (ironic, isn’t it?) in Michigan and Ohio within four months.

cautionThe FBI requested the “transactional records” of the Timothys’ wireless providers, aka, the Timothys’ historical CSLI. Court orders were issued pursuant to the Stored Communications Act (SCA) after the FBI showed there were reasonable grounds to believe the CSLI was relevant to the investigation. The FBI reviewed 127 days of CSLI for one Timothy and 88 days for the other. The government established through the historical CSLI that the Timothys were located within a half-mile to two miles of each armed robbery when they occurred. On appeal, the defendants argued that the Fourth Amendment required the government to show probable cause and use a search warrant to access the CSLI.


The opinion focused on the following:

  1. There was no search, because the FBI collected the wireless providers’ data routing information, which was gathered in the ordinary course of business.
  2. CSLI does not refer to the content of the defendants’ private communications.
  3. Every cellphone user who has paid roaming fees knows that wireless carriers collect locational information, so there was no expectation of privacy.
  4. The CSLI is so comparatively imprecise compared to GPS, that there is no expectation that the cellphone user can be located exactly.
  5. The SCA requires the government to meet the “reasonable grounds” to get a court order, not the “probable cause” standard to obtain CSLI.


Tracking or stalking? Duration matters.

The concurring opinion in Carpenter questioned whether the business record standard of proof applies in the review of an alleged violation of Fourth Amendment rights. The rationale behind the question is that a business’s production of credit card records showing purchases, for example, may be sufficiently distinct from the production of cellphone records showing personal location to require a more stringent analysis. The concurring justice also found the scope of the location monitoring troubling. Lawfully tailing a suspect is one thing. Lawfully tailing a suspect for a period of three to four months transmutes the surveillance into the realm of privacy invasion.


So, how do I keep law enforcement out of my data?

iOS and Android operating systems and apps offer some protection of CSLI location data. Start by turning off the location services for all your existing apps. Download apps that discard the location data cached on your cellphone. Get and stay off the grid by using localized Wi-Fi connections. Rely on an offline map or app that anonymizes the cellphone, encrypts the location data and permanently deletes your data within a certain amount of time. Regularly monitor new technology used by law enforcement and cybersecurity experts.


After all, when you build a better mousetrap, law enforcement will build a better mouse. Justice William O. Douglas called upon his Pacific Northwest ideals when he wrote, “The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.” Cheers to freedom.


[1] www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/16a0089p-06.pdf
[2] https://www.eff.org/document/us-v-q-davis-opinion

Foundation for the Lost Boys and Girls of Sudan v. Alcon Entertainment (N.D. Georgia, March 23, 2016)

Posted in Copyright, Intellectual Property

Rarely does one think of copyright issues surrounding how research is conducted for feature films that are based on real life events, but 54 Sudanese refugees are forging that new connection between research and copyright in one lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court of Georgia sitting in Atlanta. 

Those refugees, who survived starvation, disease and the militia attacks in Darfur, arrived in the U.S. and then sat down with film producer Robert Newmyer and screenwriter Margaret Nagle back in 2003 where they shared their life stories in a series of recorded interviews. The court found the 54 refugees to be joint authors of the script for the 2014 “The Good Lie” film starring Reese Witherspoon. The refugees created original expression in their oral telling of their stories that were fixed in tangible medium in the recorded interviews. “While some common elements of the Lost Boys’ story were publicly available, Newmyer and Nagle wanted to create a movie with real, personal and emotional details otherwise unavailable to the public at large,” says the lawsuit. “Newmyer and Nagle needed the details from the Lost Boys’ personal stories and permission to use those details in a screenplay and subsequent film. The title of The Good Lie, for instance, is said to refer to a lie once told by one of the refugees on the taped interview to would-be-captors that saved his life.

The defendants argued that the 54 refugees’ answers in the interview do not possess the modicum of creativity to constitute an original work of authorship under copyright law.  U.S. District Judge Leigh Martin May found otherwise in her recent 54-page ruling:

“The Interviews, however, did not consist merely of ‘ideas, facts and opinion made during a conversation,’ like the interviews by journalists in the cases Defendants cite,” responds May. “Rather, the Interviews were a creative process designed to create material for a screenplay and film. All that an ‘original work’ must possess is ‘some minimal degree of creativity’ … even a slight amount will suffice. Plaintiffs’ telling of their personal stories in response to questions designed to elicit material to create a fictional script for a feature film likely includes enough creativity to render the Interviews an original work of authorship.”

A major flaw in the case arose when it was shown that the 54 refugees do not have U. S. Copyright registrations of the taped interviews. The defendants argued that the case must be dismissed for the plaintiffs’ failure to obtain the requisite registrations; however, the court held that the failure to register was solely due to the defendants’ refusal to provide the 54 refugees with copies of the interviews. The defendants were found to have been the sole obstacle to the plaintiff having the tape recordings to satisfy the U.S. Copyright Office requirement that the tapes be submitted as specimens of the work at issue.

The court found that the umbrella organization, the Foundation for Lost Boys and Girls of Sudan, and the 54 refugees’ lawsuit may proceed based on copyright infringement, breach of the joint venture agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion of plaintiffs’ ideas, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, promissory estoppel and other claims. The complaint alleges that Robert Newmyer and others orally promised the 54 refugees that the Foundation  would be one of the joint  members of the movie venture; and, that the Foundation would be the sole beneficiary of any fundraising efforts associated with the movie. The court held in its March 2016 opinion both that a jointly authored copyright arose in the recorded interviews; and also that an oral promise to be joint participants in the venture is enforceable notwithstanding Newmyer’s untimely death in 2005.

This lawsuit is noteworthy even beyond the allegations of the Hollywood exploitation of Sudanese refugees as it is an ambitious attempt at a declaratory judgment over authorship predicated upon tape recorded interviews. This is a case to watch.


Synopsys Win Is a Win for Copyright

Posted in Copyright, Intellectual Property

Static timing analysis (STA) is a simulation method of computing the expected timing of a digital circuit without requiring a simulation of the full circuit. This complicated area of measuring effective timing and power characterization flows in asynchronous circuits is often the basis of patent applications. The code of these complicated analytical tools also forms the basis of copyrights and copyright applications.

The Northern California jury’s award yesterday to Synopsys of $30 million against ATopTech was not on the basis of a patent infringement but for copyright infringement. The software of ATopTech’s product “Aprisa” infringes the Synopsys product “Prime Time”; and the jury awarded the damages allowed under the Copyright Act of the summation of the profits that ATopTech generated ($22 million) plus the lost profits that Synopsys failed to accrue by reason of the infringement ($8.2 million) for a total exceeding $30 million.

This case represents a trend in the intellectual property world post-Alice. Since June of 2014 when the Supreme Court struck down the patents in Alice for “abstractness”, the successful enforcement of patents has proven unpredictable. Over 70 percent of the patents in inter partes disputes have been found invalid — a new low water mark for patent enforceability in the U.S. As a consequence, intellectual property portfolio owners have moved the basis of their enforcement actions from patents (where the result is less certain) to copyrights where the result, as seen today in the Synopsys case, is more predictable and for sizable awards.

A Warning to Phishers in the Yahoo! Pond

Posted in Domain Name, Intellectual Property

In a recent February 15 decision by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), approximately 40 domain names were ordered transferred from their registrants to Yahoo! (WIPO Case D2015-2323). The domains included yahoopasswordreset.com, yahootechnicalsupport.net, yahootechsupport.net, yahoosupportnumber.com, yahoo-customerservice.com, yahoomailcustomersupport.com, yahoo-tech-support.com, etc. The domain names were registered by multiple parties, however, Yahoo! was able to identify common management and control of the parties. Yahoo! alleged that the registrants sought to obtain remote access to users’ computers through a phishing scheme that compromised users’ personal and sensitive information for financial gain by “spoofing (Yahoo!’s) technical support.” This common control was established through the use of the same MSN email account, the same IP address and the same physical address in the registration details. There were also similar patterns of operation that were established.  Yahoo! filed extensive documentation to identify the patterns and the WIPO panel was convinced.

Only two of the registrants sent communications in response to the WIPO notices. The first originally claimed that they were doing nothing wrong, and then subsequently denied any connection to the website. The other merely stated that they were no longer associated with the domains.

The WIPO panel had little trouble establishing the three prongs of the test:

1.  The disputed names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark owned by Yahoo!.

2.  The registrants have no rights or legitimate interest to the domains:

The panel stated that “Phishing” is a form of Internet fraud that aims to steal valuable information such as credit cards, social security numbers, user Ids, passwords, etc. A fake website or email address is created that is similar to that of a legitimate organization and this is used for identity theft and other predatory activities. See, e.g., Halifax plc. v. Sontaja Sunduci, WIPO Case No. D2004-0237. The domains in question resolve to websites that give the impression of being customer support or are used for email accounts.

3.  The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith:

The panel believes that establishing a phishing website is a strong example of bad faith. “Such conduct is squarely of the type that the Policy is designed to prevent.”

While the common control may not have been immediately evident, the WIPO panelist was quite willing to determine the common control. When dealing with multiple entities, it would pay dividends to have as much evidence gathered at the time of filing and to be prepared to go back and identify other linking factors. The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) process can move quickly. Yahoo! filed its initial action in late December 2015, and a decision was issued on February 15, 2016.

Building a Valuable Patent Family Using the Technique of Functional Deconstruction

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent

There are several advantages to pursing protection for a key innovation in the form of a “family”[1] of patents and pending patent applications. These include the possibility of obtaining protection in the form of claims[2] covering different aspects of an invention, and different infringing actions (of a user, maker or seller of an invention) as those actions would be described from different perspectives (e.g., server-side, client-side, internally, externally, etc.).

It is important to note that some of those uses or perspectives may not be apparent when the application is filed, and may depend upon the business environment, business models being pursued, or technologies that are developed to solve problems that arise in the industry. Each of these aspects of a business may change over time in response to economic developments or efforts made by competitors.

A family of patents and applications may also provide the option of having a choice of which among multiple claim sets is asserted or licensed; this may (in some cases) enable the assertion of claims in some patents without putting claims in the un-asserted patents at immediate risk.[3] A family of patents also increases the likelihood that a targeted party will have to expend resources to fight an assertion or an aggressive licensing effort.

In order to obtain the benefits of pursing protection for an invention in the form of a family of patents and applications, it is necessary that the initially filed description (termed “the specification”) and figures be sufficient to support the other perspectives, uses cases or implementations, and that they do so in a way that satisfies the enablement and written description requirements of the patent law.[4] Enablement requires that the sum of the information disclosed in the description and figures contain enough information to “enable” one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the invention without encountering significant obstacles that would require further inventive efforts to overcome. In some sense, an enabling disclosure in the hands of one of ordinary skill is one sufficient to allow that person to produce the invention using standard engineering techniques and abilities. The “written description” requirement has been interpreted to mean that the sum of the description and the figures are sufficient to indicate that the inventor was in possession (i.e., they recognized the implementation approach and/or use case) of the form of the invention that is represented by the claims being asserted.

However, drafting a patent application in a way that can provide the proper support is a non-trivial exercise. One way to accomplish this goal is to follow a process that attempts to preserve the possibility that the application may be used to support claims directed to other likely use cases and implementation methods. This may be done (in part) by considering alternate industries in which the solution represented by the invention might have value and alternate ways in which a function or operation that is part of the invention could reasonably be implemented.[5]

In some sense the task is to develop a specific tool that can be used to obtain leverage in order to assist in gaining or maintaining a competitive advantage. However, certain constraints apply: (1) the tool will not be available for at least 2 to 3 years, but it must be described in detail at present; (2) the possible situations in which the tool will be needed are only generally known at present, and the ways in which it is desired to use the tool may change between now and when the tool becomes available; and (3) the specific form of the tool that will be needed is only known in a general sense at this time (e.g., the tool may need to be capable of being implemented in one of several ways, all of which must be properly supported).

Given the practical considerations and constraints, how does one prepare a patent application in a way that ensures a greater likelihood that it contains adequate support when filed for claims that are intended to protect against uses that may not be known or fully understood until years later? One way is to craft patent applications that not only describe an invention and its use by the company itself, but also provide support for claims covering a generic implementation of the solution represented by the invention, where that solution may be relevant to multiple use cases, operating environments and industries. Using this approach, the patent application is not simply a description of a single product feature or process, but instead represents a description of a solution to a problem or class of problems, with the solution being expressed in varying levels of detail and in terms of being applicable to multiple operating environments.

An important part of the process is deciding how to characterize an innovation; in order to do this, it is helpful to consider a new product feature or service from a different perspective than it might typically be considered. Instead of viewing a feature or service as providing a new option for a user, it should be viewed as providing a solution to a specific technical and/or business problem. This is easier said than done, as it requires an engineer or patent attorney to figuratively “step back” and formulate a “generic description” of a higher-level problem that is being solved, rather than focus on the details of an implementation that produces the new feature or service.

Such a generic description will typically be based on a number of considerations, including (a) the context in which the feature or service is used (using general, non-limiting terms to describe the operating environment for the feature or service); and (b) what does the feature or service enable a user to do? Based on the answers to (a) and (b), it may be possible to formulate a statement that, at a high level, describes the technical or business problem for which the innovation provides a solution.

Next, it is necessary to determine other possible use cases or situations in which the invention may be applicable and hence other entities for which such a patent would have value. In order to do this, it is helpful to consider other contexts in which the same or a similar problem arises (where this is based to some degree on the generic description of the invention developed previously). For example, if the problem being solved relates to how to optimally allocate bandwidth among multiple content delivery channels given a certain constraint, then it may be helpful to consider other industries in which a similar constraint arises or in which multiple streams of “product” are delivered via different delivery channels (where, for example, those “channels” may be communications channels, different networks or different physical delivery paths, and the “products” may be email messages, downloaded content or physical packages).

One of the keys to describing an innovation in a way that can support multiple use cases and implementations is a technique I refer to as “functional deconstruction.”   This is an organized way to identify information needed to prepare an effective application and to structure that information into a description of the innovation that provides value to a company by creating a useful business asset.

Functional deconstruction is a form of system analysis, where instead of focusing on the details of a specific implementation of an invention, the operative elements or process steps are generalized and expressed as broader concepts. These broader concepts may be classes of elements or groups of processes that operate to perform a similar function (e.g., sorting, ordering, scaling, selecting, estimating, filtering, comparing, generating a type of output, etc.).

In order to practice this approach, the first step is to isolate each of the elements of a system or process that can be used to implement a generic example of the invention. In some ways, this step is similar to that of generating the “problem statement” referred to previously.   The goal is to identify the primary functional elements or components of a generic implementation of the invention, and to do so using high-level and nonspecific language where feasible. For example, this might be accomplished by generating a high-level, functional block diagram of a system for implementing a generic example of the invention.

The result of this approach will be a set of elements, steps or functional components that are needed to implement a generic version of the invention. For example, there may be an element that permits a user to input data, an element that processes the input(s) to extract a specific characteristic, an element that compares that characteristic to determine a relationship between what the user entered and what the system has previously stored, and an element that transforms one form of input into a different one having a certain characteristic. It is important to make sure that the set of elements, steps or functional components includes those needed to perform what are believed to be the novel steps or functions of the innovative device, process or method.

After identifying the set of elements, steps or functional components, it is necessary to generate a list of the values or types that each element can take and still be capable of implementing the invention. This is a form of listing the “variations on the theme” for each element. The variations may be different devices that can be used, different data processing techniques (though all produce an equivalent output for purposes of the invention), different filters, different transforms, different ingredients (though all have a common characteristic), or different physical structures that can perform a function that is equivalent for purposes of the invention.   Communications with the inventor may be needed at this point to isolate those “variations” that are practical in a business sense and/or technically feasible, or at least to remove those that are not. In addition to listing these variations, it may also be helpful to include several similar, but arguably different ways of describing each function or step of an innovative method, or each function or operation of the elements of a system or device (these might be termed “substantially functionally equivalent synonyms” for the purposes of implementing the invention).

Next, it is possible to generate various combinations of the possible values or types for each functional element and from those to construct a set of possible implementations of the invention. These possible implementations should be constrained in that only those combinations that are practical in both a business and technical sense should be part of the set.

Given the above information, a patent application can (in theory) properly support claims directed to one or more of the following:

(a) the embodiment of the invention implemented by the inventor (which is typically the product feature the inventor developed);

(b) possible uses of the invention to solve a similar problem that arises in different operating environments (and certain modifications to the implementation that are necessitated by the different environment); and

(c) multiple possible ways of implementing each of the primary functional steps or elements of the invention (which may be applicable to the original and/or to other environments).

In theory, the developed information enables the patent application to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements in so far as supporting a wide range of claims. This permits the introduction of claims that specifically address different operating environments and different implementations of the conceptual basis of the invention. As a result, the application can be “tuned” in response to recognizing a suitable strategic value proposition (such as a situation in which having leverage or a stake would be beneficial). Thus, by thinking in advance about how to describe and generalize an innovation and focusing on the underlying conceptual foundation for the invention, the value of a patent application directed to that innovation can be increased substantially. As a result, it can be used to generate one or more patents or applications that are part of a family and function as business assets.


[1] A family of patents and/or applications refers to two or more patents or pending applications that are related by virtue of having a common priority date and common source of the initial description of the invention (such as a provisional patent application that includes a sufficient amount of detail to provide an enabling disclosure). While similar in some ways (such as having basically the same description and figures), there are commonly differences between members of a family in that different patents or applications contain claims that focus on different elements, different potential infringers (e.g., end-users, service providers, makers or sellers), or different perspectives of how an invention may be practiced or used (e.g., from a server-side perspective, a client-side perspective or other perspective for a system of cooperating elements, etc.). Further, in some cases, a continuation-in-part (CIP) application may be filed that describes an invention having a priority date and basic description in common with other applications, but also adds additional information which is not entitled to the same priority date.

Note that although many of the process steps described herein are most applicable to software implemented inventions, they also are relevant to electronic and hardware structures used to implement inventive processes.

[2] The claims of a patent define the legally enforceable aspects of what a patent describes as an invention.

[3] Note that an entity may be a direct infringer of a claim in a first application and also be a direct or contributory infringer of a claim in another application, where both applications claim priority from the same original application. This is because the claims in different patent applications, even related ones, do not necessarily cover mutually exclusive inventions.

[4] 35 U.S.C. §112(a) – The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.

[5] A more detailed description of the process discussed in this article may be found in my article entitled “A Key Obstacle to Implementing a Patent Strategy and One Way to Overcome It.”

Selecting the Appropriate Patent Counsel and Why It Matters

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent

In the interest of full disclosure, “yes,” this particular blog post is a marketing piece. But, it is also intended to be educational and inform prospective clients why it matters who they select to work with to identify innovations, draft patent applications and strategically manage their company’s patent portfolio. This brings up two related questions: why should it matter; and assuming it does matter, how do I identify the right person?

Why Does It Matter?

To answer the first question — a properly constructed patent portfolio is more than a collection of government-issued property rights. Because it is a set of property rights backed by the judicial power of the U.S. government, it is a business asset. A patent application (which is really a misnomer, as a patent application is closer to a 30-50 page report) uses text and images to describe a use of one or more technologies or structures in a specific way to solve a problem. Each report must be prepared and expressed in terms that satisfy very specific requirements, as expressed by law and court decisions. Further, the author of each report may choose to include or exclude certain language or concepts to accomplish their goal, where that goal is more than to obtain a patent; it is to obtain a patent with a certain set of enforceable definitions of the property right (termed “the claims”). This is why the contents of a patent application matters, and also why it is so important to select the “right” person to draft a patent application. This is particularly true if the application is directed to a complex technology and/or is expected to protect a fundamental aspect of the product, service or business model.

The patent application, if allowed, will be issued as a U.S. patent. This enables the owner (who is not necessarily the same as the inventors, if they have assigned their rights in the invention to another party) to use U.S. law and courts to prevent others from doing certain things. These include making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the claimed invention. But an important (and often overlooked) aspect of owning a patent or patents is that an owner of a patent can obtain both tangible and intangible benefits without having to sue someone if they view a patent as a business asset that can be helpful in achieving certain business goals.

In one sense, a patent application is a tool to convert an idea into a business asset. Because this asset may have multiple uses or potential uses (some of which may not be fully understood when the application is filed), ideally the tool should be capable of being adapted so that it may be used in those multiple ways. These use cases may include:

  • Reducing the likelihood of being sued by creating the threat of a counter-suit (where this may involve submitting a new set of claims in an application in an attempt to cover a competitor’s product or service);
  • Increasing the likelihood of being able to offer something of value to a company that the owner wishes to engage with in a business relationship;
  • Enabling the execution of a patent cross-license with another party, with an accompanying payment to (or lesser payment from) the patent owner;
  • Protecting its own market or at least erecting a barrier to entry of a close competitor; or
  • Increasing the likelihood of obtaining additional capital by serving as collateral for a loan, demonstrating inventiveness or providing an exit strategy for investors via licensing or sale.

A properly constructed patent portfolio is one that increases the chances of having leverage over (or providing something of value to) another party in a business relationship. Any situation in which a claim or claims arguably cover a product or service of another party, a product or service in that party’s product development pipeline, a product or service of a competitor of that party, or even a product or service of the competitor’s competitor may provide value to the patent owner. The variety of possible uses, along with the importance of (and requirements on) how concepts are described in a patent application is why it matters who a company selects to prepare its applications. This is because the language and concepts described in a patent application are much more than simply a translation of what an inventor said into “legalese;” companies that do not understand this difference have often been disappointed by the value of their patent portfolio.

How Do I Identify the Right Person?

Because of the complexities of preparing a patent application that can be used to support claims of varying scope and contexts, it is best to look for a patent attorney or patent agent who has indications of being able to handle the technologies and business models that are most relevant to a company. These indications typically include at least some (if not all) of the following:

  • A technical degree (preferably an advanced degree or an undergraduate degree) and several years of experience as an engineer, researcher, scientist, etc. in the most relevant mathematical or scientific discipline (applied math, physics, electrical engineering, biology, chemistry, chemical engineering, biochemistry, software engineering, computer science, fluid mechanics, mechanical engineering, etc.);
  • Experience in protecting innovations in the same general category as those expected to be developed by the company (this is a bit nebulous, but examples might include eCommerce platforms, SaaS, web or cloud-based services, authentication methods, virtual reality systems, artificial intelligence methods, machine learning, data mining, telecommunications, semiconductor processing, signal processing, etc.) — this enables the patent attorney or agent and the inventors to have a larger common knowledge base, and as a result, to be much more likely to communicate effectively when it comes to identifying and describing the protectable aspects of the product or service;
  • At least five years’ experience, but preferably 10, in which the person has focused almost exclusively on patent prosecution and has also had significant experience with either patent licensing or patent litigation support;
  • Experience as an in-house patent counsel as well as in a law firm; this enables the person to have a better understanding of the business issues that may be involved and to present issues in terms of business decisions (in some cases this may be gained from working in a law firm with someone who has served as an in-house counsel); and
  • If in a law firm, experience serving as a virtual patent counsel for a company of the same relative size or stage of development as the company that wishes to hire them — this ensures that the patent attorney has had experience interacting with senior business, legal and technical executives (such as founders, CTO, GC, etc.) and understands their concerns regarding budget, market developments, investors, etc.

For additional information regarding the uses and ways of developing an effective patent portfolio, see the following publications:

Jawbone Successfully Leverages Patent Portfolio as Collateral in Fund Raising Efforts

Posted in Intellectual Property, Patent

Fitness device maker Jawbone was recently featured in a Re/code article announcing that the company had raised $165 million in new funding. The article mentioned another aspect of the Jawbone’s fundraising efforts; the company raised an additional $280 million using its patent portfolio as a significant part of the collateral in a previous arrangement with BlackRock Inc., the largest asset management company in the world.

The BlackRock deal is an example of viewing a patent portfolio as a business asset; BlackRock presumably felt that if Jawbone could not pay back the convertible note, then the patent portfolio might be the most valuable (and possibly only) asset available to enable them to recoup part or all of the loan amount. Regardless of how much value was given to the patent portfolio by BlackRock (because valuing a patent portfolio is a combination of using mathematical models and making certain estimates that are dependent upon how it might be used), the fact that BlackRock was willing to accept it as collateral demonstrates an important aspect of a properly developed patent portfolio.

A patent application represents a way of converting an innovation into a business asset. This asset has value to the business because it can be used in multiple ways to preserve or increase revenue, avoid or lessen risks, and generally provide a company with options it would not have in the absence of a properly constructed patent portfolio. A properly constructed patent portfolio is one that contains assets that have (or can be modified to have) multiple value propositions, some of which benefit the company and some of which may benefit other players in the market.

In some sense, patents enable the value associated with R&D investments to be realized in ways that are not limited to the sale of a product. This can provide an “exit strategy” in the event that the business is not successful, in which case some of the capital invested may be recouped via sale or licensing of the patents. And as demonstrated by Jawbone, capturing the value of innovations in this way can also assist in raising capital during operation of the business, in part because it suggests that new products and services are being developed and with that the possibility of increased market share and new sources of revenue.

The multiple value propositions and potential uses of a properly constructed patent portfolio should provide companies with an incentive to evaluate their products and technology in an effort to identify potential innovations. Business and transactional attorneys should also be aware of these value propositions and are encouraged to seek the advice of a suitable patent attorney (one with both the knowledge and skill set needed to understand the technology, and the ability to craft patent applications having strategic value) when dealing with current or prospective clients.

Lane Powell’s patent attorneys have prior experience as in-house patent counsel and in establishing effective patent programs for clients and are experienced in protecting a wide variety of technologies in multiple industries (including semiconductor manufacturing, flash memory design and operation, telecommunications, eCommerce, wireless data and mobile devices, signal processing, artificial intelligence network security, authentication methods, SaaS and cloud-computing). They have assisted companies ranging from startups to publicly-traded companies to identify innovations and develop effective strategies for protecting and leveraging those innovations.  Please contact Alan Minsk or Kevin Jablonski for further information.

Jagla Moderates INTA/OHIM Examiner Training Highlighting Business in Regulated Industries and the Regulatory Impact on Trademarks

Posted in Intellectual Property, Trademark

A diverse panel of International Trademark Association (INTA) members met with Office of Harmonization for the Internal Market (OHIM) officials, OHIM examiners and representatives from the national offices in Alicante, Spain, for the 2015 INTA/OHIM Industry Training Seminars organized by INTA’s Government Officials Education and Training Committee. The training took place on October 5 in OHIM’s offices. The theme of this year’s meeting was “Trademarks in Regulated Industries.” The overall premise of the morning session was to acknowledge that there are agencies other than trademark offices involved in the companies’ decisions regarding the selection and use of trademarks.

INTA/OHIM EventRepresenting the alcoholic beverage industry was Jose Ramon Fernandez, Director of European Corporate Affairs for Pernod Ricard. The banking industry was represented by Carrie Hefte, Senior Vice President for Wells Fargo & Company. The pharmaceutical industry was represented by Maria Fernandez-Marquez, Senior European Corporate Counsel for Pfizer GmbH. The tobacco industry was represented by Ronald van Tuijl, Director of Intellectual Property for JT International, SA. The panel was moderated by Frances Jagla of Lane Powell PC.

The morning session was opened by H.M. Bello, Director of the OHIM Academy, and Ronald van Tuijl, President-elect of INTA. The session was attended by Senior OHIM representatives, OHIM examiners, and examiners and representatives from multiple national offices. In addition, over 50 attendees participated via webinar. After introducing their respective companies and responding to specific OHIM questions ranging from the importance of 3D marks to acquired distinctiveness to an overall “how is the office doing,” the panelists described the regulatory realities for their industries. These regulatory discussions helped to provide the examiners with a framework to identify specific challenges to companies doing business in regulated industries. Included in the discussion was the impact of geographical indications in the alcoholic beverage industry; the advent of the e-cigarette and “vaping “ products, and their classification in the tobacco industry;  the  relevant public degree of attention to products in the banking industry; as well as “why are so many trademarks for pharmaceuticals unpronounceable and impossible?” (such characterization was vehemently disputed by Ms. Fernandez-Marquez).

After a networking lunch among the panelists, INTA representatives and Senior Examiners, the afternoon sessions involved breakouts for each industry. The sessions gave the panelists one-on-one time with OHIM to provide additional information regarding their industries, including the challenges faced at OHIM and the national offices. This also gave OHIM the opportunity to ask questions of the panelists and to help define where they can improve upon or add new services to an industry.

Fifty-eight Problems and Trademarks Are Just One: Beyoncé, Jay Z, Kanye, Pharrell and Rihanna Sue Fashion Retailer

Posted in Intellectual Property, Trademark

It’s become a hard-knock life for ElevenParis, a French fashion retailer with stores in the U.S. After selling t-shirts and other merchandise with these not-so-subtle designs:


and this label:


the kings and queens of rap and pop hustled together to bring 58(!) causes of action in a lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York this week.

Among other claims, the complaint alleges violations of rights of publicity, unfair competition, and trademark infringement and dilution. The claims stem from the artists’ undeniable fame and federal trademark rights in marks such as BEYONCE’, KANYE WEST, CLOTHING BY KANYE WEST, PHARRELL WILLIAMS and RIHANNA. And it doesn’t help the defendants’ case that all of the pop plaintiffs own their own clothing lines, with most using the artists’ names as part of the brands.

The suit does not mince words and alleges that “Defendants are habitual, willful intellectual property infringers that, without authorization, usurp the trademarks, copyrights and other rights of A-list celebrities and world-recognized brands and deceive consumers into purchasing such products at the consumers’ expense and for defendants’ profit.” The allegations accuse defendants of continuing to sell unauthorized products “[e]ven after receiving warnings from Plaintiffs to cease and desist from selling the infringing products and to further cease and desist from using Plaintiffs’ names, images, likenesses and/or trademarks (or any marks colorably similar thereto).”  In addition, the plaintiffs claim that “Most egregiously, as of the date of the filing of this Complaint, Defendants’ ELEVENPARIS store located in New York City boldly offers for sale dozens of infringing merchandise including, but not limited to, the t-shirts and bags shown in the images above. The sale of this merchandise is in direct contravention of both a written agreement with at least one Plaintiff, as well as ongoing settlement discussions in which Defendants have represented and warranted that they are no longer selling infringing merchandise anywhere in the world.”

Sounds like the defendants are in for a fight from the divas who run this town.

Earning Trademarks With Every Coupon?: How Johnson & Johnson Secured the Mark EARNING TRUST WITH EVERY BOTTLE

Posted in Intellectual Property, Trademark

A recent ruling from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“the Board”) found a coupon to be an acceptable specimen for the U.S. Trademark Office (“Office”) showing proper trademark use. Johnson & Johnson submitted the coupon to the Trademark Examiner in support of the mark EARNING TRUST WITH EVERY BOTTLE for their usual line of products: “Facial and skin cleansers; facial and body washes; soaps; shampoos; and body lotions.” The Trademark Examiner issued an Office action in which he found the coupon to be an unacceptable specimen and eventually made the refusal to register final. After remanding to the Examining Attorney after a Request for Reconsideration, the Board finally reversed the refusal and found the coupon to be an acceptable specimen showing use of the mark in commerce.

The decision tracks the language of Section 45 of the Trademark Act (“the Act”) which states that a mark is deemed to be used in commerce when “it is placed in any manner on goods or their containers or displays associated therewith or on the tags or labels affixed thereto.” The holding turned on whether the coupon could be considered a “display” within the meaning of the Act. Ultimately, because the coupon displayed Johnson & Johnson’s goods, showed the applied-for mark next to the goods, identified the retailer where the goods could be bought, and was dispensed to the customer in the very store where the goods were located, the Board found that the presentation of the coupon to the customer began the association of the mark with the goods.

So does this mean that every clipping from the Pennysaver is enough to earn trademark rights? Probably not. But with a well-known brand and a coupon that nails the specifics of mark identification, the decision could represent a foot in the door for more creative point of sale “displays.”