Advising Businesses In A Troubled Economy… Intellectual Property: Traps To Avoid Sponsored by University of Houston Law Foundation.

Advising Businesses In A Troubled Economy…

Intellectual Property:Traps To Avoid

Sponsored by

University of HoustonLaw Foundation

IP Comparisons pages 1-4

What does it protect?

What's required?

Provisional Patent Application

Allows subsequent disclosure without losing foreign rights

A cover sheet and any description

IP Comparisons pages 1-4

What does it protect?

What's required?

Utility Patent

Functional features

New and "non-obvious"

IP Comparisons pages 1-4

What does it protect?

What's required?

Design Patent

Nonfunctional aspects

New and "non-obvious"

Design Patent On A Tennis Racquet?

• Is it Functional???• What if it had 2 handles?• Or• 2 heads?

Design Patent On A Tennis Racquet

• 2 Handles: D247,131

Design Patent On A Tennis Racquet

• 2 Heads: D247,057

IP Comparisons pages 1-4

What does it protect?

What's required?

Trademark, Service Mark

Words, names, symbols, or devices

Used to identify and distinguish goods(see page 76)

IP Comparisons pages 1-4

What does it protect?

What's required?

Domain Name

Exact spelling of your website

Spelling variation; no bad faith

• www.HeadleyIPLaw.com• www.headley.tel• www.patent-lawyer.tel • www.trademark-lawyer-

tel• www.copyright-

lawyer.tel

Domain Names

IP Comparisons pages 1-4

What does it protect?

What's required?

Trade Dress Overall impression of nonfunctional features

Used to identify and distinguish

IP Comparisons

What does it protect?

What's required?

Copyright Computer programs, photos, music, websites, architectural drawings

Originality

IP Comparisons

What does it protect?

What's required?

Trade Secret Secrets Confidentiality agreements & obvious security measures

• Its Website Got Your Client Sued in Alaska.

Page 5

Jurisdiction Traps

• Alleged patent infringement • P, Brit, sells patented products in

CA• No exclusive licensee, many non-

exclusives• No enforcement actions in CA• D.J. possible in CA?

New case

Jurisdiction Traps

• “A patentee should not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum solely by informing a party who happens to be located there of suspected infringement.”

New case

Jurisdiction Traps

• “Jurisdiction over foreign patentees like Oxford continues to be available in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. See 35 U.S.C. § 293.”

• Autogenomics, Inc. v. Oxford Gene Technology Limited, No. 2008-1217 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2009).

New case

Jurisdiction Traps

Patent Traps

• Attorney Not Registered

• Invention Already Described

• Grace Period in the U.S. ended

Page 9

Page 9

Page 10

Patent Traps• The Applicant Is Not The Inventor

• The Inventor Lost the Race

• Employee Still Owns The Invention

• Improper Venue new case

10

13

13

• Lear (Michigan) sued TS Tech (Ohio) in E.D. TX.

• selling infringing pivotal headrest assemblies to Honda

• E.D. denied transfer: several cars sold in E.D.

• Petitioned Fed. Cir. for mandamus

New case

Patent Traps - Venue

• 5th Cir. 2008 Volkswagen case• “inordinate weight to plaintiff’s choice”• “cost of attendance for witnesses” --

ignoring “100-mile rule” = “clear error”• In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d

1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 12-29-2008)

New case

Patent Traps - Venue

• MHL(Michigan) sued (1) Audi, Nissan, Hyundai, Kia, Porsche, BMW, Isuzu, Subaru, & Volkswagen and (2) GM, Saturn, Ford, Land Rover, Volvo, Chrysler, & Mercedes-Benz

• E.D. denied transfer• VW petitioned - mandamus

New case

Patent Traps - Venue

• “the existence of multiple lawsuits involving the same issues is a paramount consideration”

• “judicial economy is served by having the same district court try the cases involving the same patents”

New case

Patent Traps - Venue

• Denied mandamus.

• In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., Volkswagen AG, and Audi AG, No. 897 (Fed. Cir. 5-22-09).

New case

Patent Traps - Venue

• Sanofi (Germany) sued Genentech and Biogen in E.D.

• Same day, G & B filed D.J. in N.D.Cal.• E.D. denied transfer• Defendants petitioned - mandamus

New case

Patent Traps - Venue

• “not necessary …to evaluate the significance of the identified witnesses’ testimony”

• “The significant weight given to the inconvenience of the European witnesses is in direct conflict with the more appropriate approach of several other district court decisions”

New case

Patent Traps - Venue

• “improperly used its central location as a consideration” (no witnesses in E.D.)

• “Sanofi is a German corporation that will be traveling a great distance no matter which venue.”

New case

Patent Traps - Venue

• “the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.”

• “antiquated era argument was essentially rejected in Volkswagen”

New case

Patent Traps - Venue

• Granted mandamus.

• In re Genentech, Inc. and Biogen Idec Inc., No. 901 (Fed. Cir. 5-22-09).

New case

Patent Traps - Venue

Trademark Traps

• Assumed Availability

• Failed To Apply For Federal Reg.

• Insisted on a descriptive mark new

17

18

Pick A Mark

• For: Hospitality & Lodging services

“Motel”?

Pick A Mark

or“Marriott”

?

Pick A Mark

Pick A Mark

• For: Legal services

•“Trial Lawyer”?or

•“ Patent Lawyer”?or•?

Pick A Mark

Time: Start to Finish

• Applied: May 18, 2008

• Registered: March 17, 2009

Trademark Traps

• Used another’s trade dress new

Trademark Traps

• Failed To Use International Arbitration Panels For Domain Name Disputes

18

Fighting Trademark Infringers

• Standard TM Lawsuit$$$$$$

• ACPA lawsuit $$$

• TTAB proceeding $$

• International ADR $

Intl’l ADR -- ICANN

• Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers

• Non-profit corp. formed in 1998

• Recognized by U.S. government: technical coordinator of the Internet’s domain name system.

18

ICANN: The Numbers

• 21 Generic top-level domains (gTLDs) (such as .com, .net, .org)

• 11 Internationalized domain names (IDNs) (such as δοκιμή, 測試 , and .(إختبار

• 308 Country-code top-level domains (ccTLDs) (such as .au, .ca, .jp., and .uk)

20-21

23-25

22-23

ICANN: The Future

1st Q 2010: Expected launch of new gTLD Program

• “Four overarching issues”:• Trademark Protection• The Economic Analysis of new gTLDs• Financial Analysis• Objection Process

ICANN ADR

• Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) (1,823 cases in 2006)

• Ask:- what language?- what jurisdiction if challenged?-domain name identical/confusingly similar?- no legitimate rights/interests?- bad faith?

Pages 26-27

Trademark Traps

• Did Not Use The ACPA To Get Rid Of A Cybersquatter 29

ACPA

• Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”)

• Elements:• bad faith intent to profit• registers, traffics in, or uses name:

• identical or confusingly similar, OR• dilutes famous mark

Pages 29-47

ACPA’s Advantages

• Liability without • regard to the goods or services of the parties• commercial use

• In rem action against domain name IF• In personam jurisdiction impossible, OR• Can’t find defendant

Page 30

Page 31

ACPA In Rem Actions

• Sue in judicial district of registrar or registry

• ~ 900 current ICANN accredited registrars for generic TLD’s

• ~310 are located outside the U.S.• ~300 more country code TLD’s

31

Copyright Traps• Creator Was Not An Employee

• Outside Employee’s Job Scope

• Creator Did Not Assign Copyrights

• Violated website’s “terms of use”

51

52

53

53

• Facebook sued Power-Ventures for collecting information from Facebook’s website

• Users must assent to “Terms of Use”• PV “scrapes” user data from Facebook

on behalf of registered users

New case

Copyright Traps - Websites

• Website = protected compilation • Accessing a website = copying

Ticketmaster L.L.C. v. RMG Techs, Inc., 507 F. Supp. 2d 1096, 1106 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (granting preliminary injunction).

• Denied motion to dismiss. Facebook v. Power-Ventures, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42367 (N.D. Cal. 5-11-09).

New case

Copyright Traps - Websites

Trade Secret Traps

• Ex-Employer Gave Valuable Trade Secrets

• Ex-Employee Took Negative Knowledge

• Combination of Known Elements Taken Was Unique

56

Privacy & Other Traps

• Website Attracted both children and the FTC.

• Hijacked & Mousetrapped Surfers

58

59

Patent Forms

• 1. Corporate policy for protecting IP 61

• 2. Invention assignment66

• 3. Employee promise to assign 68

• 4. Encouraging innovation70

• 5. Invention disclosure 75

60-75

Trademarks, Trade Secrets,& Copyrights

• Guidelines for selecting trademarks 77

• Employee promise to keep secrets 78

• Copyright assignment from contractor 82

77-83

Patent Websites• Searching & Fees:

uspto.gov• Examiner’s manual: same• Free pdf copies:

pat2pdf.org• Foreign patents: wipo.int• Law:http://uscode.house.gov/search/

criteria.shtml

84

Trademark Websites

• Searching & Fees: uspto.gov

• Examiner’s manual: same• Domain name disputes:

icann.org• Law:http://uscode.house.gov/search/

criteria.shtml

85

Copyright Websites

• Searching & Fees: copyright.gov

• Law: copyright.gov/title17

85

Copyright Enforcers

• CCC: www.copyright.com• ASCAP: www.ascap.com• BMI:

www.bmi.com/home.asp• RIAA: www.riaa.com• BSA: www.bsa.org

86

Winston Churchill

Success is not final,

failure is not fatal:

it is the courage to continue

that counts.

Thanks

For

Listening!

Tim Headley & Sarah Beth Foley