Technology Law Source

Archives: Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Intellectual Property RSS Feed

PETA sues on behalf of selfie monkey

By Porter Wright on

Remember the dispute of copyright ownership over a selfie taken by a macaque in 2011? I wrote about it earlier this year when the owner of the camera that was used to take this shot sued Blurb, Inc., for unauthorized use of copyright.

Well, the monkey has apparently spoken. On Sept. 22, PETA filed a lawsuit against the owner of the camera and Blurb on behalf of the monkey, who PETA says wants to be known as Naruto, to have the monkey declared the owner of the copyright in the photograph.

As the previous post reports, the U.S. Copyright Office has stated that a photograph taken by a monkey (or any non-human) is unprotected intellectual property that may be used without permission. But that is just policy. U.S. law does not specifically state that a non-human cannot own a copyright. The Copyright Act only defines a “copyright owner … [as] the owner of that particular right” (see 17 USC Section 101). PETA argues that, because Naruto took the photo, she owns the copyright.

This suit faces challenges, but brings up a number of interesting legal issues. Can a non-human be declared the owner of property? If the monkey owns the copyright of the image, how does the monkey give permission for others to use it? Is it just monkeys (and how did PETA find Naruto)? What about elephants that paint artwork? Can non-humans infringe copyright?

Another interesting issue is the requirement that a copyright must be registered to bring a …

A tale of two remands (Part I) — how the Federal Circuit is implementing the new standard for appellate review of patent claim construction

By Marty Miller on

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court finally resolved an issue that divided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) for nearly 20 years. In Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a trial court’s underlying factual determinations with respect to extrinsic evidence used in patent claim constructions must be reviewed on appeal under the clearly erroneous standard rather than de novo.1

Before the Supreme Court’s decision in Teva, the CAFC reviewed patent claim constructions de novo, including any allegedly fact-based questions relating to the trial court’s claim construction. As a result, it was quite common for the CAFC to reverse a trial court’s claim construction well after the completion of a lengthy jury trial. The case would be remanded to the trial court (unless the CAFC determined that the error would not have affected the judgment), in some instances leading to an entirely new trial on the merits (and, perhaps, another appeal to the CAFC). After Teva, many hope that CAFC claim construction reversals will be less frequent, particularly when litigants are able to introduce extrinsic evidence such as expert witness testimony into the claim construction process.

The CAFC has now had an opportunity to reconsider on remand not only its decision in Teva, but also Lighting Ballast Control LLC v. Philips Electronics N.A. Corp. which the Supreme Court also remanded to the CAFC for reconsideration in light of Teva.…

Seminar shares tips to consider if you think a “patent troll” is targeting you or your company

By Donna Ruscitti on

Probably the most important takeaway from the second installment of Porter Wright’s Technology Seminar Series was this: No single thing defines a so-called patent troll — and if (or when) you get a letter accusing infringement, there’s no uniform way to respond. Instead, stop and take a breath. Then, be tenacious about collecting information about the accuser and assessing those compiled details. Use this assessment to develop a plan that allows you to handle the situation in a way that meets your comfort level regarding risk, cost and desired outcome.

Speakers Jim Liles and Rick Mescher walked attendees through several crucial aspects of analysis and action steps during the June 17 seminar titled “Proactive strategies for combating ‘patent trolls.’ ” Here’s an excerpt:

Common actions of a patent troll

Not all allegations by non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities (PAEs) are meritless. But allegations from entities that participate in any the following common practices are likely suspect.…

New gTLD program continues to gain momentum – nearly 6 million new domain registrations to date

By Porter Wright on

The new gTLD program, considered to be one of the most important Internet developments in recent years, continues to gain momentum since ICANN delegated its first new gTLD back in October 2013. ICANN has delegated more than 600 new gTLDs to date. Of those delegated strings, 365 are open to the general public. A little more than 1 million new domains had been purchased at this time last year; now, that number is nearing the 6 million mark. And don’t expect things to slow down. New gTLDs continue to roll out in quick succession, spurring about 20,000 new domain purchases every day.

What’s selling?

During the past several months, the leaderboards have seen a great deal of movement, with each new gTLD jockeying for the top spot as they become available to the public. Though some have remained dominant, such as .xyz and .club, more recently released gTLDs including .网址 (URL or internet site) and .science have made huge strides.

The top 10 gTLDs in terms of number of domain registrations:…

U.S. Supreme Court throws a small bone to patent trolls

By Marty Miller on

In one of its only pro-patentee decisions in recent years, the Supreme Court held last week that an accused infringer’s good-faith belief of patent invalidity is not a defense to a claim of inducing infringement. Even though the court reaffirmed that a good-faith belief of non-infringement is a defense to inducement, the court’s decision benefits patent owners, including so-called patent trolls.

A patent grants its owner the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, offering for sale and importing the patented invention in the U.S., as well as the importation into the U.S. of goods manufactured overseas using a patented process.

A direct infringer is someone who engages in one of the prohibited acts (making, using, selling, etc.). There is no requirement that the accused direct infringer was even aware of the patent, let alone knew that they were infringing.…

End of Cuban embargo could prove costly for unprepared trademark holders

By Porter Wright on

President Barack Obama has called on the U.S. Congress to lift the U.S. embargo on Cuba and normalize trade relations. French President François Hollande recently urged the same of the U.S., saying there is growing interest in doing business with Cuba. When the embargo is lifted, U.S. companies should be prepared to enter the Cuban marketplace. Being prepared means seeking trademark registration.

Cuba is a first-to-file country for trademark protection; in other words, a registration is awarded to the first applicant, even if that applicant has no legitimate claim to the trademark. Currently, an exception to the embargo permits U.S. companies to obtain trademark registrations — as well as submit patent applications — in Cuba. Proactively seeking a trademark registration in Cuba may avoid problems when the embargo is lifted.

An applicant can apply for a Cuban trademark registration using the international Madrid Protocol mechanism if it has an existing U.S. registration. A Cuban trademark application is screened against existing registrations by the Oficina Cubana de la Propiedad Industrial (OCPI). If a registration exists for the mark of the application, the OCPI will reject the application.

Generally, if your brand is well-known in the U.S., it is more likely that a trademark squatter might register your mark in Cuba to demand payment from you in exchange for the trademark. It is more expensive for trademark owners to obtain rights from others rather than to seek early trademark registration in first-to-file countries.

Though it may take time to reach normalized …

Google’s patent shopping spree starts May 8

By Marty Miller on

Google has been one of the most vocal critics of so-called patent trolls, more formally referred to non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities (PAEs), as well as a proponent of measures designed to improve software patent quality. At the same time, Google is one of the largest patent holders in the world. Though Google files its own patent applications, it also actively acquires patents from others. In 2011, for example, Google paid $12.5 billion for Motorola Mobility and its purported 17,000 patents. In 2014, Motorola Mobility was sold to Lenova for $2.9 billion. But Google kept almost all of those 17,000 patents.

Apparently looking to further expand its patent portfolio, last week Google announced a Patent Purchase Promotion. Described as an “experimental marketplace” for patent owners to sell their patents to Google, the program runs May 8-22, 2015. Patent owners interested in selling their U.S. patent to Google can make a binding offer to sell via an online portal.

If Google is interested, submitters will be notified by June 26, 2015.1 Following notification of Google’s interest, a brief period of due diligence will follow. Google will then decide by July 22 if it accepts the offer, and payment will be made within 30 business days thereafter.…

Katy Perry’s left shark – take 2

By Porter Wright on

In February 2015, I wrote a comment about Katy Perry’s ineffective attempt to assert copyright to stop a 3D printer from selling figurines similar to a shark costume used in her Super Bowl XLIX halftime show. In an attempt to establish rights in various expressions of that shark, Perry (Killer Queen, LLC) filed U.S. trademark applications for BASKING SHARK, DRUNK SHARK, RIGHT SHARK, LEFT SHARK and for three  applications that depict designs of a shark. Each of the applications recite the goods to be used with the trademarks as cell phone covers, stickers, mugs, T-shirts, sweatshirts, hats, plush toys, action figures, certain costumes, certain figurines, and live musical and dance performances. Those applications have now been examined by the U.S. Trademark Office.

Trademarks, which provide protection for brands and other source identifiers, differ from copyrights, which cover original works of authorship. Although Perry did not come up with the term “Left Shark,” originality is not a requirement for rights in a trademark; however, other requirements may be of issue for her applications.

Perry’s word mark applications appear to be in line for allowance with some amendments, but two of the applications that cover a shark design — a front view of a standing shark and a side view of a standing shark— have been refused because the Trademark Examiner determined that the designs are of a character and do not function as trademarks. (Note: The third application for a shark design used a photo of an actual 3D shark figurine …

Have you taken appropriate measures to ensure your intellectual property is secure?

By Holly Kozlowski on

If manufacturing or selling goods in China is part of your current or future business strategy, it is not too early to ensure protection of your intellectual property in China. On May 8, Porter Wright is holding half-day seminar titled Strategies for protecting IP rights in China to discuss U.S. businesses’ experiences as they enter the Chinese market. During this in-person event taking place in Columbus, Ohio, business leaders have the rare opportunity to gain insights directly from Beijing-based IP attorneys. Skilled IP practitioners from the U.S. and China will discuss real-world scenarios and strategies about how businesses can ensure their intellectual property is protected. Topics are:

Wu-smallObtaining patent protection and challenging patent validity in China Get an overview of the types of patent protection available in China, and how U.S. businesses can leverage these patents to protect their new technologies and products. If a Chinese business or other Chinese patent owner makes an accusation of patent infringement, also understand procedures that can be taken to invalidate a Chinese patent. Speaker: Gary Wu, Kangxin Partners

Liles-J Web 2007Preventing unauthorized importation of your products from China Sometimes, regardless of efforts to protect your company’s IP, it happens: A rogue manufacturer or other party copies the product you are manufacturing in China and starts selling it in the U.S. (and elsewhere). Learn what steps you can take to minimize risk, pursue legal options, decommission unlawful operations and maintain the value of your intellectual property. Speaker: Jim Liles, Porter Wright

Li-croppedDeveloping your business based on …

Who owns the photo?

By Porter Wright on

You may have heard about the dispute of copyright ownership over a selfie taken by a macaque in 2011. The wildlife photographer who owned the camera claimed ownership when a website published the photo without his permission.

Under U.S. law, copyright in a photograph is the property of the person who presses the shutter on the camera — not the person who owns the camera, and not even the person in the photo. Unless a written agreement exists that makes the photo a work made for hire, any person you ask to take your picture with your camera owns the copyright in that photo — not you. How many of us have those photos on our cameras or cell phones? Selfies appear to be a better idea. But do monkeys own copyrights?

The answer is: “No, they do not.” The U.S. Copyright Office issued a document in December 2014, reiterating that it will not register works produced by nature, animals or plants. According to the Copyright Office, a photograph taken by a monkey is unprotected intellectual property. The monkey selfie falls into the public domain and may be used by anyone without permission.

So maybe the answer to owning those vacation photos of yourself is a drone? The Copyright Act states that copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship that are made either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Copyright in photos from a drone operated directly by a human most likely are owned by …

A potential game-changer in trademark registration proceedings

By Porter Wright on

In trademark infringement litigation, the critical and usually pivotal issue is whether there is a likelihood of confusion between two allegedly similar marks. Eliminating a defendant’s ability to defend against an allegation of likelihood of confusion can be tantamount to establishing liability against the defendant. Yet, that will be the situation for many defendants following the U.S. Supreme Court’s March 24, 2015 decision in B& B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. In that case, the Supreme Court held a defendant can be precluded from contesting “likelihood of confusion” if that issue, or a non-materially different issue, was previously decided between the parties in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), a tribunal in the U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

At first blush, the decision might not appear unusual. The doctrine of “issue preclusion,” a doctrine that prevents a party from relitigating an issue previously decided between parties, is long established law. TTAB decisions, however, are different for several reasons. First, the TTAB is part of an administrative agency (the USPTO), not part of the judicial system. Second, TTAB decisions are based on “the mark as shown in the application [for trademark registration] and as used on the good described in the application,” not the mark as actually used in the marketplace. Third, and perhaps far more significant in practical terms, many trademark registration proceedings in the past have been conducted under the assumption that the stakes involved in the proceeding were relatively modest. TTAB proceeds were viewed as …

Protecting your brand in the age of gTLDs dot sucks

By Porter Wright on

ICANN has made it possible to serve up every brand owner’s worst nightmare; welcome to [yourbrand].sucks. ICANN and registries of new gTLDs have painted a rosy picture of the new Internet landscape, advocating that the introduction of new top level domains, like .app and .restaurant is a way to increase choice and competition. Unfortunately, the introduction of the new gTLDs has created a harsh reality for brand owners who are forced to decide how far they are willing to go to protect their valuable brands through the preemptive purchase of domain names with otherwise undesirable gTLDs.

Would-be gTLD domain registries were required to pay at least $175,000 to obtain the right to offer domain names with a new gTLD of their choice, so it was understood that the cost to domain registrants for a second level domain wouldn’t necessarily be cheap. Plus, the registrars need to mark the prices up to account for integration, registration and the continued maintenance of the domains. When brand owners find themselves paying top dollar for second level domain names only for the purpose of preventing someone from disparaging their brand, exorbitant registration costs may feel like blackmail.…

Sixth Circuit adopts broad view of trade secret preemption

By Jay Yurkiw on

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals recently took a broad view of preemption under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) and held that Ohio’s version of the UTSA preempted state-law claims for tortious interference with prospective business relationships and conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets because those claims arose from the same set of facts as a trade secret misappropriation claim. Stolle Machinery Co., LLC v. RAM Precision Industries, No. 13-4103 (6th Cir. Mar. 16, 2015). In reaching its holding, the Sixth Circuit noted that federal and state courts across the nation are divided about the scope of trade secret preemption under the UTSA, and the Supreme Court of Ohio has not yet addressed this issue.

The UTSA provides for damages and injunctive relief to a plaintiff whose trade secrets have been misappropriated. The UTSA contains a preemption clause that preempts “conflicting tort, restitutionary and other laws” of a state which provide civil remedies for misappropriation of a trade secret.…

gTLD update: .adult and .porn on the horizon

By Porter Wright on

The Internet was in a tizzy back in 2011 when ICM Registry began selling .xxx domain names for use by adult entertainment providers, selling nearly 250,000 addresses and netting more than $50 million. Just last year the registry sold sex.xxx for $3 million dollars, the highest price paid for a non-dot-com address. Which leads us to wonder if the addition of .adult and .porn will generate the same concerns and profits. ICM Registry has set aside nearly 1,000 domain names such as sex.porn, hoping to replicate the success they had with .xxx. But the concern for many trademark holders, as was the case with .xxx, is how to protect their brands during the launch of .adult and .porn?

ICM Registry has set up an elaborate registration period, in effect now through the launch to the general public, which is expected in early June. The two gTLDs opened their Sunrise periods March 2, which will give trademark holders who are registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) the opportunity to secure their registered trademark within the new top level domains.  Domains names are available on a first-come, first-served basis to validated marks in the TMCH. The cost of registration fees will be the standard registration fees without any additional sunrise application fees.

Once the Sunrise period has closed, .adult and .porn will launch a Sunrise B period from April 6 to April 30 for .xxx Sunrise B applicants. Sunrise B applicants consist of trademark owners who participated in the .xxx Sunrise B …

Expediting patent examination in the United States

By Marty Miller on

Though the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has reduced patent prosecution time a bit during the past five years, it still takes, on average, at least 18 months before the patent examiner acts upon an application. Throw in two or more office actions, and the average pendency of a patent application is more than three years from the filing date to either issuance or abandonment. However, a number of programs are available that can significantly reduce prosecution time.

Track One prioritized examination (PE) was introduced in September 2011 and provides expedited examination of a patent application for an additional fee. Though the additional fee is $4,140 ($2,070 for small entities), examination is significantly compressed. On average, PE results in either a notice of allowance or a final rejection in about seven months. Applicants must request PE at the time the application is filed, or at the time a request for continued examination (RCE) is filed.1

Accelerated examination (AE) also continues to be available, but is generally less desirable than prioritized examination. An AE petition only requires an additional fee of $140, but the other requirements are burdensome. In particular, the applicant must not only conduct a patentabilty search before filing the application, but also submit an Examination Support Document (ESD). The ESD must identify where each claim limitation is supported in the specification and describe how each claim is patentable over the closest prior art — including identifying any claim limitations that are disclosed in the prior art. As …

Katy Perry’s left shark

By Porter Wright on

By now, you probably have heard of the infamous “left shark” in Katy Perry’s Super Bowl XLIX halftime show, who went off script and did its own moves during “Teenage Dreams” and “California Gurls.”

So much buzz built about the shark that a 3D printing service, Shapeways, starting offering Left Shark models online, which prompted a letter from Perry’s attorneys insisting that the service stop sales immediately, claiming that the shark character was protected by copyright.

Shapeways sent a response stating that it did not appear that Perry owned the copyright for Left Shark (because a copyright is owned by the “author,” in this case the costume designer, and she did not design the costume), and that she had no basis because courts have held that costumes are useful articles and, thus, ineligible for copyright protection.

But wait! Though a costume may be classified as a useful article, courts also have held that design elements that are separate from the function of “clothing” are eligible for copyright. In fact, the U.S. Copyright Office lists a registration for “Shark costume; Children’s shark costume” (VA0000624682) owned by the Children’s Museum of Indianapolis.

Whether Perry does, in fact, own the copyright is yet to be determined, but this exchange is a lesson for business owners who send cease-and-desist letters without thinking about the consequences. In the past few days, the Internet has spiked with anti-Perry comments, and the model has been downloaded more than 11,000 times. Probably not the result Perry desired.…

The saga of strict de novo review of patent claim construction comes to an end — U.S. Supreme Court tweaks the standard of appellate review

By Marty Miller on

As we reported last year, one of the issues that has divided the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the CAFC) for nearly 20 years is the proper standard of appellate review of patent claim construction rulings. No less than four CAFC en banc decisions addressed the issue. In each instance, the majority applied a strict de novo standard for appellate review with no deference to the trial court even with regard to underlying factual determinations, while vigorous dissents objected to this standard.

The dissenters have been vindicated, as the Supreme Court has now held that a trial court’s underlying factual determinations with respect to extrinsic evidence used in patent claim constructions must be reviewed on appeal under the clearly erroneous standard. This decision should, at least in theory, result in an increase in claim construction affirmances by the CAFC. It remains to be seen, however, whether there will be a significant increase.

Patent claim construction basics1

The scope of a patent is defined by its claims, and construing those claims is the heart and soul of nearly all patent litigation. The meaning of the words and phrases used in the claims  is critical to not only the question of infringement, but also patent validity.

The task of construing the meaning of patent claims is a question of law for the court — not a jury — to decide. Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390-91 (1996). Claim terms are given their ordinary and customary …

Life sciences patent subject matter eligibility — two steps forward, one step back

By Holly Kozlowski on

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released its revised Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 on Dec. 16, 2014. For the life sciences industry, the revised guidance provides significant relief from the previous guidance released March 4, 2014. However, just one day later, the joy that many life science patent practitioners felt from the revised guidance was tempered when the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s holding of invalidity of several patent claims of Myriad Genetics based on patent subject matter ineligibility.

The good news

The revised guidance still employs a three-step analysis to determine subject matter eligibility, but has several notable changes. The first step of the analysis still questions if the claim is to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter as required by Section 101. However, the second step of the analysis questions if the claim is “directed to” a judicial exception, rather than the previous “involving” a judicial exception. As an example, the revised guidance notes that process claims that merely use a nature-based product are not necessarily subject to the analysis. Additionally, all claims — i.e., both products and processes — are subject to the same analysis.

Further, if a claim is identified as directed to a “product of nature” exception, the analysis compares the nature-based product to its naturally occurring counterpart to identify “markedly different” characteristics based on structure, function or properties. Only if there is no markedly different characteristic does the …

Supreme Court charts clear course for trademark tacking determination

By Porter Wright on

The U.S. Supreme Court created some wake by issuing their first substantive trademark ruling in more than a decade this week. The Supreme Court decided to hear a case on appeal from the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Hana Fin., Inc. v. Hana Bank, 735 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2013) cert granted, 134 S. Ct. 2842 (2014).

Of significant importance to the case is the trademark doctrine of tacking, which allows a trademark owner to make slight modifications of a trademark over time while maintaining the original first-use priority date. The doctrine holds that the original mark and the later, slightly altered, mark may be tacked when they are considered to be “legal equivalents” that “create the same, continuing commercial impression.” Van Dyne-Crotty, Inc. v. Wear-Guard Corp., 926 F.2d 1156, 1159 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

The issue addressed by the Supreme Court is whether a judge or a jury should determine whether tacking is available — that is, whether the original and revised marks are legal equivalents — in a given case.…

gTLD update: ’Tis the season for new gTLDs

By Porter Wright on

ICANN has been making a final push this December after a couple sluggish months and has delegated 40 gTLDs since our last gTLD update. Those newly delegated gTLDs are:

  • .docs
  • .tires
  • .dev
  • .schwarz
  • .iwc
  • .osaka
  • .sew
  • .garden
  • .lidl
  • .doosan
  • .sky
  • .cartier
  • .samsung
  • .商店 (shop)
  • .adult
  • .porn
  • .trust
  • .eurovision
  • .fashion
  • .latrobe
  • .irish
  • .网店 (webstore)
  • .aquarelle
  • .memorial
  • .legal
  • .money
  • .coach
  • .everbank
  • .谷歌 (Google)
  • .madrid
  • .firmdale
  • .グーグル (Google)
  • .mormon
  • .lds
  • .party
  • .八卦 (gossip)
  • .cricket
  • .science
  • .reit
  • .android

Though ICANN has picked up the pace, there are only a small number of gTLDs about to enter or in the sunrise phase this month.…

Changes are coming for trademark registration holders in Canada

By Porter Wright on

In late 2015 or early 2016, significant changes will occur in Canada under the Canadian Trade-Marks Act. Entities holding a Canadian trademark registration that has a renewal date close to this time period will face issues regarding the renewal term period and potential fee increases.

Under the current provisions of the Canadian Trade-Marks Act, registrations are valid for a period for 15 years. The Canadian Trademark Office has indicated that registrations having a renewal date before the change will renew for a period of 15 years. Registrations with a renewal date after the change will have 10-year terms. In that the exact date of the change is not yet known, any Canadian trademark registration having a renewal date from about September 2015 to about April 2016 could have either a 15-year or 10-year renewal period, depending on when the change is enacted.…

Supreme Court decision likely to affect TTAB proceedings

By Porter Wright on

Early in December 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc. At issue are inconsistencies by the 12 regional federal courts appeal in giving preclusive effect in trademark infringement cases to a denial by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of an application to register a trademark in an opposition action. Issue preclusion prevents a party to a lawsuit from re-litigating an issue once it has been decided in a previous case where the party was given a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue. The issue here is “likelihood of confusion.”

B&B owns a U.S. registration for the trademark SEALTIGHT. When Hargis applied to register SEALTITE, B&B opposed the registration. The TTAB held for B&B. B&B then sued Hargis in district court, alleging trademark infringement. The district court found that the TTAB’s ruling for B&B did not have preclusive effect on the district court case. B&B appealed to the Eighth Circuit. The Eight Circuit held that the TTAB and the district court used different tests to reach their findings of a likelihood of confusion, so refused to apply issue preclusion. B&B appealed to the Supreme Court.…

Sony Data Hack: “You Can’t Lose What You Ain’t Never Had”

By Brian Hall on

Back in the 1960’s, legendary bluesman Muddy Waters wrote a song called “You Can’t Lose What You Ain’t Never Had.”

Now, it is Sony Pictures that is singing the blues, as damages continue to mount following the cyber attack on its data networks just before Thanksgiving. A shadowy group with possible connections to the North Korean government has claimed responsibility for the hack, which, to date, has resulted in exposure of Sony intellectual property (e.g., movie scripts), trade secrets (e.g., film budgets), employee personal information (e.g., employee and former employee home addresses and social security numbers) and other sensitive information (e.g., actor travel aliases and phone numbers).

I’m no cybersecurity expert, but I’m at the point where I seriously doubt any currently available data security technology is totally hack-proof. Who knows, there may have been precious little that Sony could have done to prevent the loss of its intellectual property and trade secret information to determined hackers. Let’s face it, some of the most highly sophisticated corporations and government agencies have been victimized by cyber attacks in the last year. But the same really can’t be said for their employee data.…

FTC’s focus on “patent trolls” not limited to competition concerns

By Allen Carter and Jay L. Levine on

The FTC sent a message to “patent trolls” earlier this month, though how well that message will resonate remains to be seen. On Nov. 6, the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection concluded its investigation into MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC’s practices involving its so-called “inquiry letters” by agreeing to accept a consent order. The consent order addresses two sets of misrepresentations contained in various letters that MPHJ sent to alleged infringers of MPHJ patents. First, the FTC found that MPHJ misrepresented that they had sold a substantial number of licenses within a certain price range; second, they misrepresented that they intended to initiate a lawsuit if they did not receive a response from the letters’ addressees.

The FTC outlines in its complaint how MPHJ and Farney Daniels, P.C., MPHJ’s attorneys, engaged in a three-stage campaign to promote and sell licenses for then-recently purchased patents. Farney Daniels and MPHJ had signed a written agreement splitting the proceeds of the letter campaign. In the first stage, they sent approximately 16,465 letters to small businesses (between 20 and 99 employees) that did business in veterinary services, lawn and garden services, building maintenance services or medical laboratories. The letters informed each business that it was likely infringing patents by using common office equipment. Next, they sent a second wave of letters to most of those same businesses, once again informing them of their likely infringement, but this time also offering to license the patent. The letter stated that MPHJ needed to hear back within two …

LexBlog