Archive for May, 2012

Share via email

By: Bill Harding

In my last post, I shared my experience selling a software line of business valued by the buyer entirely for the business’s intellectual assets rather than for its tangible assets.  As it turns out, my experience is not unique.

In today’s economy, intangible assets constitute nearly 80 percent of corporate value.  The other 20 percent of market value comprises physical and financial assets found on a typical business’s balance sheet.  Worldwide, the total asset value of patents (just one type of intellectual asset) is estimated at $1 trillion.  Intellectual asset licensing revenues in the United States alone increased from $15 billion in 1990 to $110 billion in 2000, and is expected to be $500 billion by 2015.  Clearly, intellectual assets are big business.

With so much company value on the line, Intellectual Asset Management (IAM) is absolutely critical to success in modern business.  IAM is the discipline of creating, managing and exploiting intangible assets to realize value for the owner.  Over a decade ago, practitioners in the IAM field adopted the Intellectual Property (IP) Value Hierarchy as a business leader’s roadmap for improving an organization’s IAM capability.  Not unlike process improvement models applied to improve organizational capability in other business disciplines, the IP Value Hierarchy consists of levels representing a continuum of intellectual asset process maturity that a business entity may attain.

The focus of organizations operating at each level may be summarized as follows:

- Defensive Level:  Identify the company’s assets, protect those assets from competitors, and avoid encroaching on others’ intellectual rights.

- Cost Control Level:  Minimize the cost to establish and maintain the company’s rights to intellectual assets.

- Profit Center Level:  Use intellectual assets proactively to generate revenue for the company, primarily through licensing or selling assets.

- Integration level:  Tie intellectual asset decisions to the company’s business plan, and embed the IP function into departments across the organization.

- Visionary Level:  Foster an IP culture throughout the organization, and proactively drive intellectual assets to exploit future trends and gain market share.

The key to a business improving its IAM capability is less a change in organizational practices than it is a transition in thinking.  Specifically, as a company graduates to higher levels of maturity in the IP Value Hierarchy, intellectual assets are viewed less as legal rights to be managed exclusively by the legal department and more as business tools to be strategically employed throughout the company.

Share via email

At first blush, it makes sense. You, the owner or chef of a restaurant, invest a lot of time, energy, and trial and error into a new creation, only to see a knockoff down the street scoop it up, perhaps after hiring your departed sous chef. Wanting blood, and some money too, you call a lawyer to find out your options, and sitting on your hands and watching your, ahem, trademark, recipe be mishandled and misappropriated just won’t do.

According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office:

A mere listing of ingredients is not protected under copyright law. However, where a recipe or formula is accompanied by substantial literary expression in the form of an explanation or directions, or when there is a collection of recipes as in a cookbook, there may be a basis for copyright protection. Note that if you have secret ingredients to a recipe that you do not wish to be revealed, you should not submit your recipe for registration, because applications and deposit copies are public records.

The USPTO provides further explanation: “Copyright law does not protect recipes that are mere listings of ingredients . . . Copyright protection may, however, extend to substantial literary expression—a description, explanation, or illustration, for example—that accompanies a recipe or formula or to a combination of recipes, as in a cookbook.” And don’t try to sneak your recipe in either, unless you want to give everyone in the free world a courtesy copy: applications and deposit copies are public records, so your secret ingredients will be forever available for use and abuse. In short, keep it in your pants.

That is, in short, why Coca-Cola (supposedly) keeps its recipe in a sealed vault. Should the formula escape, there’s no legal protection afforded it. However, the law sets the lowest bar for personal and business conduct. Ethics and common courtesy inform us that one should not use someone else’s idea, at least not without proper attribution. Just like your fourth grade research project, anyone lifting a recipe should, in my judgment, give credit where it is due.

Cookbooks are a different story. The introductory flourishes preceding each recipe, the illustrations, and other original works of authorship may be copyrighted.

What about that errant sous chef? The solution to employees running off with recipes is to ask all employees to sign an intellectual property assignment.  It’s never too late, but an IP assignment matters most before the recipes are invented. It’s trickier to get the genie back in the bottle, but in early stages of growth, make sure your employees assign all recipes developed during the course of their employment to your restaurant.  This is also important for the all-important sale of your restaurant, because the buyer will likely insist that you provide proof and/or assurances that your recipes are owned by the restaurant. The IP assignment should be an unimposing, short agreement. It’s important that your employees receive “consideration” when they sign to make it enforceable. A small bonus or promotion is sufficient.

Aaron Thalwitzer is an attorney practicing civil litigation and intellectual property law with Zies Widerman & Malek in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida.

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

You may recall a while ago that I posted an article about how Facebook was suing Faceporn for trademark infringement. At the time that I wrote that article, Faceporn was taken down.  I believe that the Faceporn that was the subject of that article, however, was the .com version.

This case is about a Norwegian site called Faceporn.  To tell you the truth, I’m not even sure if they are the same site, but I’m sure they are peddling the same stuff.  I’ll give you three guesses about the content!  Be that as it may, according to this CNET article, the Court in California indicated that Facebook has no case against Faceporn because there was no evidence submitted that Faceporn has corrupted anyone in California with its product.  Really?

I suppose I am a bit surprised that Facebook was not successful this time.  As you know, Facebook is notorious for a little bit of over-enforcing its trademark rights.  For example, we know that Facebook as gone after all sorts of websites that use either “Face” or “Book” in anything that even remotely resembles social networking.  I remember them going after “Lamebook” which they settled (see this article) as well as “Shagbook” (see this article), the “Facebook Of Sex” (see this article) , “FriendFinder” (see this article) and, of course, my all time favorite, “Teachbook” (see this article).

I understand that there is a desire to protect the brand, but isn’t Facebook a victim of its own success?  Would anyone be trying to play off the name if it wasn’t successful?  Of course not.  I am a bit frustrated at the notion of companies thinking that they own words, but at the same time, I am somewhat surprised that the Judge in this case did not believe that there was any damage to the Facebook trademark.  It seems as though there was at least a potential claim for trademark dilution here.

This is the perfect example, however, of the ultimate litigation tactic – spend the opponent into the ground.  As we all know from the recent IPO, although it did not go as well as planned, Facebook still has a ton of money, and access to the resources to make anyone’s life a living hell.  Don’t kid yourself about the price of the stock being in the low $30’s after being initially offered at $38.  I think they are not going to have any trouble paying their attorney bills, and I think the attorneys on these cases are not going to have much trouble paying for college tuition for their kids.

Share via email

Although frequently an option of last resort, filing a patent infringement lawsuit is the most direct and aggressive manner of enforcing a patent.  By filing a lawsuit in federal court, you can command a response from an otherwise unresponsive party, stand up to an unreasonable and uncooperative party, or demonstrate a position of extreme assertiveness and willingness to go the distance.  In addition to posturing, there are a number of strategic implications to filing suit that should be fully weighed and considered before taking such a momentous step.

First, filing suit is widely considered to be an aggressive, even hostile, way to broach an alleged infringement.  In essence, it says “we are extremely confident in our case and are uninterested in negotiating outside the scope of a lawsuit.”  From the perspective of the target of the suit, they may not have ever heard of your company, your patent, or your competing product.  Needless to say, if this is the first event in the relationship between the two parties, it does not create a friendly atmosphere.

Making such an aggressive first move can have a number of consequences, depending on the character and resolve of the target party.  If they are more timid, more litigation-averse, and comparatively smaller than you, such an aggressive move may serve to frighten them into settling the lawsuit on terms favorable to you.  However, if they are not afraid to litigate and feel threatened, but not frightened, filing suit may serve only to strengthen their resolve against a perceived bully, making them less likely to be reasonable across the settlement table.

Filing suit right off the bat can, in some ways, be seen as a defensive maneuver.  Specifically, as discussed in my last post, sending a cease and desist letter can have the unintended consequence of enabling the recipient to file a Declaratory Judgment action, asking a court to determine the validity of the patent(s) asserted in the letter.  In order to head off this unfortunate circumstance, filing your own lawsuit before contacting the target party prevents you losing control of the litigation process.

A fair question is why is it so important as to who files suit first?  The decision to file a lawsuit brings with it a number of decisions that can be made by and large solely by the filing party.  Perhaps most important is what jurisdiction the suit is filed in.  Many believe there is a “home court advantage” in filing in your own jurisdiction when then opposing party is located outside the jurisdiction.  This is sometimes believed to curry favor with potential jurors who may become involved in the litigation process.  Moreover, it makes the opposing party do the traveling, potentially making them less comfortable than if they were litigating closer to their headquarters.  A second commonly held belief is that some jurisdictions tend to be patentee-friendly, meaning either the court or potential jurors tend to side with the patentee, who created, instead of the opposing party, who copied or stole.  The extent to which either of these perceptions are valid is continuously debated, but sometimes the mere perception of a strategic advantage can be a useful tool.

The decision to file a lawsuit comes with the consequence of ceding a significant degree of control to the court.  Once the suit is filed, a schedule will be made for all of the phases of trial, including discovery, preliminary motions, settlement negotiations, and trial.  Moreover, the judge and jury will have ultimate control of your fate, instead of what you are willing to agree to in negotiation.  Additionally, the cost of litigation, as it progresses, grows exponentially, often becoming a substantial fraction of the amount in controversy.  Frequently, taking a patent dispute through litigation makes little financial sense for either party, especially when the likelihood of success is considered.

This post concludes my series on an introduction to patent enforcement.  I hope it serves as a quick reference to those dipping their toes into enforcement waters, and provides some answers to the most basic of questions.  If you are considering pursuing patent protection, or have a patent in hand and are seeking to enforce it, I strongly urge you to contact an attorney or patent professional who can discuss your individual circumstances and needs with you.  Patent law is a labyrinthine world that, with the right guide, can lead to significant reward.  Thanks for reading, and please continue to read my and all the other terrific authors who post on TacticalIP.com.

Share via email

An Office Action is issued by an examiner for the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), rejecting an application to register a trademark. They typically include issues with “informalities”, like an inadequate sample to show use of the mark, insufficient information regarding the nature of the entity seeking the mark, or insufficient information for the examiner to determine what goods and/or services the applicant provides.

An Office Action could also provide an actual basis for rejection of the mark, usually because of likelihood of confusion with an existing registered mark and genericness or descriptiveness of the mark for which registration is sought.

You have six months to respond to an Office Action. If your problem is “informalities”, you may just have to correct the deficiencies and/or provide additional information. If the examiner takes issues with the mark itself, such as likelihood of confusion, genericness, or descriptiveness, you may have to provide facts and argument to overcome the rejection. If the examiner still doesn’t approve the mark, a Final Office Action (aka a filing refusal) will issue, which you may appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

Office Actions are formal legal proceedings with rules, procedures, and consequences, which must be observed and followed. If the PTO refuses or rejects your application, the U.S. Government will be represented by a trained trademark attorney whose entire job is trademarks, and lots of ‘em. It can take years to resolve an Office Action, but there may be options for resolving your issues registering your mark of which the Examiner may not be aware.

The primary issue with trademarks is the concept of “confusion”. The PTO is concerned with protecting consumers from being sold goods or services from someone they think is someone else. In other words, they want to make sure that your competitor isn’t tricking people into thinking that he’s selling your stuff.

Your response to an Office Action is a permanent and public record, and they can and will be used against you in a Court of law! It’s not that you shouldn’t say anything like in criminal court, but you may be “estopped” from claiming anything beyond the scope of your response. Accordingly, it may be best to avoid arguments that compare your mark to another mark and claim that your mark won’t cause confusion between the marks.

This is but a precis of a primer. For more information, see the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure or contact a trademark attorney.

Aaron Thalwitzer is an attorney with Zies Widerman & Malek in Melbourne, Brevard County, Florida who practices civil litigation and intellectual property law.


Subscribe

Login



WEDNESDAY, MAY 22, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 13289 access attempts in the last 7 days.