IP Rights in Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Protected Works, Third-Party Marks, Content Created for AR/VR, Content Created in VR Today’s faculty features: 1pm Eastern | 12pm Central | 11am Mountain | 10am Pacific The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 1. WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2019 Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Kimberly Culp, Director, Carr McClellan, Burlingame, Cal. Brian D. Wassom, Partner, Warner Norcross & Judd, Southfield, Mich.
51
Embed
IP Rights in Augmented Reality and Virtual Realitymedia.straffordpub.com/products/ip-rights-in-augmented-reality-and-virtual-reality...Oct 30, 2019 · IP Rights in Augmented Reality
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
IP Rights in Augmented Reality
and Virtual RealityProtected Works, Third-Party Marks, Content Created for AR/VR, Content Created in VR
The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions emailed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 1.
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2019
Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A
• Employees: All your base are belong to us• First to file• File first or NDAs• Freedom to Operate Opinions• Ounce of Counsel > Pound of Infringement
12
Zenimax v. Oculus VRCauses of Action: common law trade secret misappropriation; copyright infringement; breach of contract; tortious interference w/ contract; etc.Trade secrets included: confidential programming code, methods, plans, designs, concepts, improvements, modifications, research data and results, know-how related to virtual reality headsets. Verdict: No misappropriation of trade secrets
13
GeoVector Corp. v. Samsung Electronics, 234 F. Supp.3d 1009 (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 14, 2107)
Causes of Action: Direct and indirect patent infringement; misappropriation of trade secrets under CA and NY lawNot a Trade Secret: Expert analysis of Samsung’s products, GeoVector’s products, augmented reality principles, the use of those principles in Samsung’s products, and the patent process for protecting those principles
14
Voorhees v. Tolia et al, Case No. 16-8208-BRM-LHG (D.N.J. Jan. 30, 2018)
Claims: trade secret misappropriation under NJ law; breach of contract; fraud; breach of confidence; trespass; unfair competition; etc.Outcome: Case dismissed
15
Best Practices
Dialogue w/ team to identify trade secretsAll the agreementsPre-hiring diligence regarding candidatesCreate a culture and processes that protects your trade secretsStrategic off-boarding
16
TRADEMARK
17
Trademark 101
18
AR/VR Trademarks
19
Unauthorized Augmentation of TMs
20
AR Keyword Advertising
21
AR Keyword Advertising
22
SENSORY MARKS?
23
TRADE DRESS
24
GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACE
25
COPYRIGHT
26
27
Originality
28
Useful Articles
29
Media of Expression
30
AVATAR OF A COPYRIGHT
31
COMPUTER OUTPUT
Photo by Sai Kiran Anagani on Unsplash32
AUGMENTED REALITY
Image courtesy of Sebastian Errazurizand CrossLab33
Derivatives / Incidental Reproduction
34
Derivatives / Incidental Reproduction
35
Derivatives / Incidental Reproduction
36
Derivatives / Incidental Reproduction
37
Public Display
38
Public Performance
39
AR Devices as Copyright Cops
40
RIGHT OF PUBLICITY
41
Righ
t of P
ub
licity 10
1
42
Augmenting Identities
43
Posthumous Rights
44
Lohan v. Take-Two Interactive Software31 N.Y. 3d 111 (Mar. 29, 2018)
Issue: Whether an avatar could constitute a “portrait” within the meaning of NY lawHolding: YesHowever: “the Jonas character simply is not recognizable as plaintiff inasmuch as it merely is a generic artistic depiction of a ‘twenty something’ woman without any particular identifying physical characteristics.”
45
Davis v. Electronic Arts Inc.2018 WL 3956212 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2018
“There is little doubt that EA made efforts to render the avatars generic or anonymous to some degree. A reasonable inference is that EA was trying to have it both ways: it wanted its customers to believe they could have genuine reenactments of games with representations of the actual players, while simultaneously hoping to remove enough identifying features that the former players could not claim a license was legally required.”
46
STRATEGIES FOR MITIGATING RISK
47
TERMS OF USE / EULA
48
DMCA / CDA
“The term ‘interactive computer service’ means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions.” 47 USC s 230(f)(2)