Posts Tagged ‘infringement’

Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

Someone brought to my attention a very well put together video on some of the nuances of the America Invents Act.  Essentially, the video discusses the first to file requirement and shows us that it is now truly a race to the patent office.  We can pick the video apart all day long, but take it for the joke that it is, and not as an indication that anything and everything under the sun is actually patentable.  By the way, I especially like the cameo appearance by USPTO Director David Kappos.  I thought he did a great job in his acting debut.

 

 

Share via email

By Daniel Davidson

In a lawsuit filed by Atlas Productions, LLC, which made the 2011 movie Atlas Shrugged: Part 1, Netflix, Inc., Relativity Media, LLC, and a Relativity subsidiary, RML Acquisitions III, LLC, are accused of accepting exclusive rights to offer the movie, post-theatre, without handing over any consideration in return.

The 9 page complaint accuses the Defendants of breach of contract, account stated, open book account, unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation, and copyright infringement against Netflix exclusively.  Specifically, the complaint (which you can review in its entirety here) alleges that Relativity and RML owe Atlas Productions a total of $1.5 million, pursuant to the complaint, in two installments.  None of which has been handed over for those exclusive release rights.

In a review of Netflix’s website, the Atlas movie can be found.  The movie can now even be found on Blockbuster’s online store with a whopping three star rating.  Could this be a case of Relativity and RLM getting in a little bit over their head and subsequently finding out they have the exclusive rights to sell…dirt  (I am purely going off Blockbuster’s review)?

As for the copyright infringement aspect of the case, if Atlas Productions can prove their rights (simply done with a copyright registration), and their allegation that they never received satisfaction for their license agreement, Netflix would have committed copyright infringement.  An option for Netflix could possibly be to turnaround and sue Relativity and/or RLM because Netflix is not named as a party to the contract.  Just speculating, but it is possible that the two Rs misrepresented that Netflix was able to offer the movie to the public.

This complaint could also be a way for Atlas Productions to flex their muscles and show the Defendants that they weren’t kidding when they asked for their money.  Maybe baseball bats will be next?  I’m picturing a scene straight from Casino.  Cheers.

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

By: Mark R. Malek

Sorry for the lack of articles on TacticalIP regarding basic IP rights, but duty called.  I’m going to get back to the series of articles directed to some of the nuances of patent law.  You may recall in my previous article on this situation I indicated that one option might be to enter into a mutually beneficial licensing agreement, or even a cross licensing agreement.

A licensing agreement (I am going to focus on patent licensing agreements for the sake of this article, but you should understand that it is possible to license any intellectual property) is one in where the patent holder grants the licensee (he/she who is the beneficiary of the licensing agreement) the right to make, use, sell, or offer to sell the invention covered by the claims of the patent.  I’ll get into details of licensing agreements in another article but, in short, there is normally some sort of fee for the right to use the patent.  These can be paid up licenses, i.e., the entire fee for the right to sue the patent is paid up front and the license is granted for a certain period of time.  License fees can be paid per use, or as a percentage of sales, or any number of combinations.

Another option is cross licensing.  This is when you and the patent holder license each other the rights to use one another’s patents.  Why would you want to do this?  Perhaps this is your best option.  The reason why the patent holder is interested in your patent is because it is likely an improvement of the original.  We all know that continued success in business does not come with one product.  Sure, there are some one product wonders, but what happens to those companies that do not do anything else, or try to update their products?  They are here today, gone tomorrow.  A couple of examples off the top of my head – beanie babies and silly bands.  Being a father of young children, I have seen these come and go…quickly.

In the case of cross licensing, the original patent holder sees value in what you are doing and is hoping to improve their product line by being able to offer a product that is improved.  You may not want to be creating competition, but sometimes it may be your only option.  There are ways to work such agreements so that everyone wins.  For example, you can insert terms that you agree to a minimum retail price of the product (which prevents one party from drastically undercutting the price of the other party).  You can also set up territories, or include a number of different terms to make sure that the cross-licensing agreement works more like a partnership.

My next series of articles will deal with some mischaracterizations of patent protection, and a discussion about how patents are NOT monopolies!

Share via email

Danie Roy

After ignored requests to voluntarily block The Pirate Bay, UK Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are now being ordered by the High Court to block the popular link site.

Like any good internet provider, the UK ISPs did not take blocking sites lightly. Even though The Pirate Bay is a site infamous for infringing copyright, requests to block content should always be considered a big deal. Not simply acquiescing to anyone who requests a content block does, after all, prevent innocent sites from being blocked (although I think we can all agree that The Pirate Bay is anything but innocent).

So, what happens now? Well, the UK ISPs will block The Pirate Bay, probably using a redirect. How will they enforce it?Well, after that, there’s not a whole lot the ISPs are required to do… which is why they probably won’t be held accountable when tech savvy pirates bypass it. Now, keep in mind, I don’t condone bypassing blocks to The Pirate Bay… and I’m quite sure we all know I don’t condone the use of The Pirate Bay. However, as someone who has been on the internet for longer than 10 minutes and also has a basic understanding of how the internet works, I know that those blocks are very easy to bypass. You don’t even need to be a “1337 H4X0RZ!1″ to do it, either. And no, I’m not going to tell you how.

I tend to agree with Virgin Media, who pretty much summed up the most reasonable take on this whole thing:

As a responsible ISP, Virgin Media complies with court orders addressed to the company but strongly believes that changing consumer behaviour to tackle copyright infringement also needs compelling legal alternatives, such as our agreement with Spotify, to give consumers access to great content at the right price.

We’ll see how this plays out.


Subscribe

Login



SUNDAY, MAY 19, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 8404 access attempts in the last 7 days.