Disney is being sued over the ownership rights to a visual effects technology it used in this year’s “Beauty and the Beast,” 2015’s “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” and 2014’s “Guardians of the Galaxy.”

Rearden, a company founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Perlman, filed a lawsuit against Disney Monday in a U.S. district court in San Francisco, alleging copyright, patent, and trademark infringement stemming from the use of a facial-capture technology called MOVA Contour.

MOVA, which was used in “Beauty and the Beast” to convert actor Dan Stevens’ facial movements into those of the Beast character, was developed by Perlman and his associates in the late 1990s. To use MOVA, actors’ faces are airbrushed with glow-in-the-dark paint that is only visible under a black light. A light strobes rapidly–unseen to the human eye–allowing a camera to capture those movements for animators to then use as the foundation for the animated character.

According to the lawsuit, “Disney used the stolen MOVA Contour systems and methods, made derivative works, and reproduced, distributed, performed, and displayed at least ‘Guardians of the Galaxy,’ ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron,’ and ‘Beauty and the Beast,’ in knowing or willfully blind violation of Rearden Mova LLC’s intellectual property rights.”

The lawsuit arose from another ongoing dispute between Rearden and Chinese-based company Shenzhenshi Haitiecheng Science and Technology (SHST). According to court documents from a lawsuit between SHST and Rearden, Greg LaSalle, a former associate of Perlman, helped develop MOVA while employed by Perlman’s companies, Rearden and OnLive.

OnLive went out of business in 2012 and the MOVA Assets were transferred to a company called OL2. When LaSalle transferred from OnLive to Rearden he signed an employee contract containing a Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement (PIIA), in which he agreed to assign all proprietary information that he acquired during his employment to Rearden.

Following Rearden unsuccessful attempts to launch MOVA commercially, Perlman transferred the MOVA Assets to LaSalle. Perlman later claimed that LaSalle’s PIIA gave Rearden sole ownership rights to the MOVA Assets. Despite those claims, LaSalle sold the technology to SHST in May 2013, according to court documents from the SHST lawsuit.

However, Rearden claims that SHST should not have even been able to buy MOVA, because MOVA Assets–along with their ownership rights–were transferred to a Rearden subsidiary in April 2013. The complaint also notes that LaSalle was not a Rearden employee at the time of the sale, and therefore did not have the authority to sell the technology.

As part of the complaint, Rearden requested an injunction to prohibit Disney from “reproducing, distributing, performing, or displaying” the three movies that used MOVA.

The lawsuits that Rearden and Disney are entangled in are complicated to say the least. But these cases demonstrate the complex nature of intellectual property law, a field that has only become more complex in our increasingly globalized world.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Disney Sued Over “Beauty and the Beast” Visual Effects appeared first on Law Street.

This week, India’s National Pharmaceutical Pricing Authority (NPPA) imposed measures that significantly cut the prices of a variety of “essential” drugs, including drugs that treat cancer. These price controls are by no means unprecedented. For decades, the Indian government has worked to keep drug costs low, which has often meant bucking international drug patenting and pricing norms. In doing so India nurtured and developed a massive generic drug industry. While the Indian government must not be admonished for keeping drug costs low, its longstanding obsession with cheap drugs may distract from broader health care accessibility issues.

In 1970, India passed a newly revised Patents Act, which upended the Indian pharmaceutical industry. The act stipulated pharmaceutical patents would only be issued to drugs that exhibited “one or more inventive step(s).” While this language seems relatively innocuous, it totally changed the way in which pharmaceutical corporations conduct business.

Drug patents allow holders to charge high prices because patents ensure market exclusivity for a given period of time. However, in order to maintain market exclusivity, drug companies engage in a practice known as “evergreening.” In most countries, patent laws are such that pharmaceutical companies are able to extend patents and maintain monopolies by making trivial modifications to an already patented product. According to the American Medical Association, these slight alterations allow patent holders to claim they are releasing a new, innovative drug and extend their exclusive rights over said drug “despite the absence of any compelling pharmacologic difference.” In the United States, companies do all sorts of things to “evergreen” drugs including “obtaining additional patents on other aspects of a drug, including its coating, salt moiety, formulation, and method of administration.”

The language in India’s 1970 act is such that companies selling drugs in India would no longer be able to get a patent unless they were offering a new and “inventive” drug. Companies would no longer be able to patent known drugs in an attempt to extend a market monopoly. As a result, a drug that might have enjoyed patent protection elsewhere, would not be protected under Indian patent policy. Soon after this policy shift, India’s generic drug industry exploded, and domestic drug prices plummeted. Before long, India became one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical exporters.

India has made changes to its patent policy over the years, but its generic drug industry continues to operate and thrive under legal conditions set in motion by the 1970 act. Ironically, India’s largest manufacturers are beginning to push back against price-oriented policies that brought them into existence.

While India’s patent polices undermined evergreening practices, price controls were instituted as an additional means of keeping drugs affordable. The creation of a generic drug industry worked to cut costs by undermining market monopolies but, as time went on, India’s most prominent manufacturers of generic drugs were able to brand their products and charge premiums. Price controls were used to ensure these premium prices were not excessive compared to the average cost of other generics.

Whereas India’s patent laws prevent multinational corporations from charging exorbitant prices in monopolized markets, India’s price controls prevent domestic manufacturers of generic drugs from charging more for a drug that bears their brand. Just as multinational corporations argued India’s patent policies stifle innovation, domestic manufacturers arguing that price control affect their ability to operate. In 2012, the government even went as far as suggesting “a future where we will not issue any brand or trade names.”

India’s government should not be criticized for ending price gouging tactics. Multinational corporations should not be able to exclude swaths of people from access to drugs by manipulating patent policy and extending market exclusivity, and cheap generics are crucial in a country where around 78 percent of the population pays for health care out-of-pocket. However, while access to cheap drugs is vital, the government’s health care policy is largely defined by its longstanding obsession with the generic industry and domestic drug prices.

Decades of policies ensuring cheap and readily accessible drugs have helped improve access for many but may have distracted from more holistic attempts at improving health care accessibility. Yet, notwithstanding cheap drug prices, studies have show health care costs are responsible for half of all Indian households falling into poverty. This most recent round of price controls on essential generic drugs came as no surprise, and that might be an issue. India’s pushback to the international patent regime is commendable but cheap drugs should not be treated as the end all be all of health care accessibility.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post India’s Low Drug Prices: Do They Lead to a Struggle for Health Care Accessibility? appeared first on Law Street.

A two-year legal battle between the world’s two most well-known Kylies seems to be settled…for now. In 2015, Kylie Jenner, who became famous thanks to the reality show “Keeping Up With The Kardashians,” attempted to trademark her first name. She filed a request with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) so that she could use it for advertising purposes in the U.S.

But Australian pop legend Kylie Minogue wouldn’t have it. Her team filed a notice of opposition in February 2016, claiming that Jenner trademarking their shared first name would damage the pop diva’s brand.  Minogue has sold perfume, make up, skincare products, jewelry, and other items under her own name. The opposition notice describes her as an “internationally renowned performing artist, humanitarian and breast cancer activist” who is widely known by her first name.

Kylie Minogue wins a legal battle against Kylie Jenner over the “Kylie” name trademark: https://t.co/RX0gIIlVs9 pic.twitter.com/0hJROzAGuq

— Entertainment Weekly (@EW) February 7, 2017

Even though most young Americans now associate “Kylie” with the Kardashian-Jenner clan’s youngest, Minogue has been a globally-known pop star since 1979. And her lawyers didn’t have very nice words for then-19-year-old Jenner when she filed the lawsuit: “Ms. Jenner is a secondary reality television personality,” whose “photographic exhibitionism and controversial posts have drawn criticism from, e.g., the Disability Rights and African-American communities,” the notice of opposition read.

Minogue already has very similar trademarks such as “Kylie Minogue Darling,” “Lucky–the Kylie Minogue musical” and “Kylie Minogue,” as well as her website kylie.com. The musical doesn’t exist yet, but she has plans to produce one some day. Shortly after filing the documents, Minogue tweeted:

Hello….. My name is KYLIE #lightyears

— kylie minogue (@kylieminogue) February 28, 2016

The case has been suspended at least twice in the past year due to settlement negotiations. On January 19, Minogue withdrew her opposition. Jenner’s application for the trademark may proceed, and the case was listed as “terminated” on January 26, so it’s possible that there was a quiet agreement reached.

In the midst of all this, Jenner released her cosmetic line “Kylie Cosmetics” last summer. She also lost a separate battle in which she aimed to trademark her full name in November 2015. She planned to use “KYLIE JENNER” to sell a very long list of clothing and accessories–“Belts; Bottoms; Coats; Dresses; Footwear; Gloves; Headbands”–and so on. But the USPTO denied the request, as the name is “confusingly similar” to other trademarks such as totally unrelated clothing brand “Kylee,” and Jenner’s brand with her sister, “Kendall and Kylie.” But Jenner filed an appeal on January 23, so the process is likely not over yet. Seems like Jenner’s lawyers have been pretty busy!

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What Happened in the Kylie vs. Kylie Legal Battle? appeared first on Law Street.

“Siri, I’m upset.”

“All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of thing shall be well.”

Okay — so she’s not the deepest or most prophetic robot that ever tried to cheer me up, but we have all come to simultaneously know, love, and hate Siri. She saves us time by writing out our grocery lists (despite her confusion of homophones), keeps us from getting lost (although she tends to take the long way) and sometimes, on a Monday, simply provides just enough sass to keep us drudging until 5:00p.m. Apple is very proud of its little lady. Referring to the robotic personal assistant, the company advertises, “Your wish is its command.”

So, when the U.S. Trademark Office turned down Apple’s 2012 application for protecting Siri’s trademark as a “social network,” Apple stood up for its loyal virtual assistant. This week, the company filed an appeal with the Trademark Office, claiming that the examiner was not correct in his conclusion and that Siri deserves another chance.

Initially, it was determined by the examiner that Apple is not currently using Siri as part of any social networking business. Therefore, Siri cannot be protected by a social network mark. However, Apple argues that in many ways Siri accompanies social network websites such as Facebook and Twitter. For example, Siri can post and update statuses to both sites via a user’s voice command, allowing Siri to serve as a direct tool for online social interaction.

Some wonder whether this move from Apple’s legal team means that Siri’s social media future is bright, with more innovative, multi-platform media capabilities to come. This is somewhat expected, as our society inches closer and closer to artificial, technological assistance. We already have Siri and the Roomba robot vacuum. It’s only a matter of time before we’re able to fill our cubicles with a bunch of Wall-Es, right?

Others write this legal move off to be merely proactive. After all, Apple’s fierce legal team loves intellectual property and has been accused many times of creating a litigation bubble around its products, making it exponentially more difficult for competitors to enter the market with rival products. Apple is known to get crafty with its legal practices. In the past, the company has cited design patents when questioning the originality of Samsung technology (Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.), protected its products with utility patents, trade secrets and copyright, and even obtained trade dress to uphold certain shapes, colors, or materials of a product as its own (the sneakiest of all the IP tactics).

The word “Siri” has definitively been Apple’s for two years. Apple holds the trademark for Siri as voice recognition software; however, Siri’s primary function seems to be unclear across the board.

I wondered if Siri was worried, so I asked her if she was upset. It turns out, she’s quite the optimist, answering, “Everything is fine. All of my circuits are operational.”

Only time will tell whether Siri’s purpose can be legally defined. In the meantime, we can still appreciate her as our trendy, ditzy assistant whom we resent but would never dare fire.

The post Apple Appeals to Trademark Office on Behalf of Siri appeared first on Law Street.

If you are going to a pharmacy for a particular drug, you’re often offered a choice — do you want the name brand or the cheaper generic? Generics have long been lauded for their ability to provide the same benefits to patients while also offering a less hefty price tag; however, recently generics have been getting more expensive, and people are wondering why. Congress announced this week that it’s going to launch an investigation into why the price of generic drugs is rising.

When a drug company develops a particular drug, it gets to hold the patent for approximately twenty years (some nations or jurisdictions give protections for a bit longer). During that period, that company is the only one that can produce that particular drug. After the patent expires, however, other companies can make a “generic” version of the drug.

There are certain regulations created by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make sure that the generic drugs are able to be distributed. The FDA requires that a generic drug has the same active ingredients as the one that it is imitating, but not necessarily the same inactive ingredients (such as coloring). A generic has to perform the same function as the name brand, and it must of course meet the same health and safety standards.

Generic drugs tend to be less expensive than the name brands — and given the high cost of American health care, offer great and affordable options for consumers. However, it seems like the cost of these drugs is increasing. For example, the patent for Ambien, a popular sleep aid, recently expired. Now it’s a lot easier to get a generic version of Ambien for a cheaper price, and more people are able to get the product they need.

A study completed in August discovered that some generic prices have been dropping, while others have been rising almost exponentially. According to the Wall Street Journal:

The prices paid by pharmacies more than doubled for one out of 11 generics. And in a few cases – notably, the tetracycline antibiotic and the captopril blood pressure pill – the cost increases not only exceeded 1,000%, but topped 17,000%…. Yes, 17,000%.

Doctors have reported how troubling this kind of price increase can be in certain generic drugs for the patients who rely on them. Some patients who are on fixed incomes, such as those on Medicaid, may not be able to pay for the non-covered costs of the drugs if prices skyrocket that much. They may try to skip their prescriptions in an attempt to make ends meet. Not only is this obviously problematic for the patients themselves, but it also leads to more emergency room visits and a less healthy society in general.

That brings us to the investigation that Congress is evidently undertaking to try to figure out why exactly these generic prices are climbing so sharply and how to reverse the trend. The analysis is being pushed by Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Representative Elijah Cummings of Maryland. We can all say a lot about the inadequacies of Congress, but this is a good move on its part. It’s really important that we get the prices of generics under control, because price increases like this are almost always passed directly to the consumer. With as many healthcare problems as we have, this is an issue that needs to be nipped in the bud as soon as possible.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Chris Potter/Stockmonkeys.com via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Congress to Investigate Rising Generic Drug Costs appeared first on Law Street.

Fall is officially here. The weather is changing, sweaters are back, and the infamous Pumpkin Spice Latte is in the hands of every bubbly blonde girl on the East Coast. So, in honor of this exciting time, here is a profile of the most amusing Halloween patent that was ever filed with the US Patent & Trademark Office.

First, let me set the scene and take you back to your Trick-or-Treating days. Super excited about your cheap, plastic costume, you traveled door to door in your neighborhood hoping not to get those lame pumpkin-shaped pretzels and, instead, eyeing up some Jumbo Reese’s. As you got older, you ditched the candy and scoped out all the spooky festivities in your town. If you’re a boy and you were lucky, your crush got so scared on that haunted trail that she ran right into your skinny, prepubescent arms.

For a serendipitous moment like that one, you have patents like this one to thank.

The ‘Haunting Aid’ (Patent #: US 6776687) is an invention designed specifically for haunting purposes. Filed October 11, 2002, the device uses LED lights and comes together to form a face with glowing eyes that will stare and blink right back at you. It seems pretty simple until you read the patent and realize that the creator of this gadget takes his Halloween haunting to a whole other level.

Inventor Frank Becking, hailing from California, writes, “This relates to components for spooky entertainment, particularly those suited for haunting mortals, for example, on hallows eve” and “may even be useful in producing mass-hysteria.” He’s quite the economic thinker as well, citing that the “main cost to consumers comes in terms of lost sleep.”

Becking even slips some formal Halloween theory into the mix, exploring why “for some reason, red eyes make werewolves howl, while green eyes make ghosts positively haunting.” He also admits that the lighted eyes in his invention are an “effort to produce a macabre appearance.”

Although the inspiration for this patent is not apparent, the nature of the text serves as a reminder of two things:

You are never too old for Halloween and yes, patent law can actually be fun.

The post You Can Thank This Patent For Your Best Halloween Memories appeared first on Law Street.

Trade secrets are pieces of information that businesses or companies use to gain some sort of competitive advantage. In the United States, we have trade secret laws that allow companies to protect this valuable type of information from being stolen by other companies or individuals. Read on to learn everything you need to know about trade secrets, the laws that protect them, and the arguments for and against these protections.

What Are Trade Secrets?

Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, a trade secret is defined as:

Information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable through appropriate means by other persons who might obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

Some well-known tangible examples of trade secrets include:

• The recipe for Mrs. Fields Chocolate Chip Cookies
• The New York Times bestsellers’ list methodology
• The WD-40 formula
• The Twinkies recipe
• The recipe for McDonald’s Special Sauce
• The Coca-Cola recipe
• Google’s algorithm

Less tangible examples of trade secrets include consumer information or lists. Each of those secrets have made their corresponding products incredibly popular, but should they fall into the hands of competitors, they would lose their competitive advantage.

 What are Trade Secret Laws?

Trade secrets are protected by federal law, state law, and contracts between businesses and employees or associates.  This triple layer of protection differentiates them from, and in some cases makes them more effective than, patent laws. Trade secret law applies to a much wider range of information than other forms of intellectual property (IP) law, such as patents. Unlike patent protection, which expires after twenty years, trade secret protection does not expire.  Trade secret protection does not need to consist of information that is defensible by other IP laws.  Even if information does not qualify for patent, copyright, or trademark protection, it can still qualify for trade secret protection. A big, valuable difference between trade secrets and patents is how they’re disseminated to the public. A patented piece of information is owned by the patent holder; they release it into the public and in return get to profit off of it for as long as they own that patent. A trade secret stays secret, and gives the company its competitive value.

Trade secret protection, however, is not applied to information that is common knowledge or is publicly available. For example, if a telemarketing company used the entire phone book as a potential customer list, the company could not claim trade secret protection over the contents of the phone book. Moreover, unlike patents, trade secret protection can be bypassed if the information is obtained independently of the owner of the secret e.g. through reverse engineering or independent or accidental discovery.  The protection cannot be circumvented through improper means such as industrial espionage or misappropriation.

Perpetrators of misappropriation of trade secrets can be subject to federal and state civil and criminal liabilities; however, a company must be able to demonstrate that it undertook reasonable methods of protecting the alleged trade secrets in order for trade secret protective legislation to apply.  If the company cannot show that it undertook reasonable measures to protect the information, then it can lose its trade secret rights even if it is illegally obtained.

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act 

The Uniform Trade Secrets Act was created in 1979 and updated in 1985 in an attempt to create consistent American law across state borders. It was written on the heels of a Supreme Court decision — Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. — that legitimized the use of trade secret laws. After that court decision, many states created their own versions; however, given that many American companies operate across state lines, it’s understandable why consistency was desired.

As of 2013, 47 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands adopted the UTSA, the only exceptions being New York, Massachusetts, and Texas. Those states have their own laws that provide trade secret protections.

In addition to protecting the trade secrets of companies, the UTSA puts remedies in place for when the laws are breached. These include injunctive relief: essentially a court-ordered prevention from a company using its competitor’s trade secret it obtained, as well as provisions allowing the payment of damages.

What are the benefits of trade secret laws?

Proponents of trade secret protection argue that the law recognizes that a company’s realm of economically valuable information extends beyond patentable and copyrightable content. This gives companies protection from unfair competition. It also alleviates companies’ fears that former employees can weaken their competitive position in the market by working for competitors or selling information. Unlike patents, trade secret protection has no registration costs, takes effect immediately, avoids procedural legal encumbrances, and lasts as long as the company needs.

Trade secret laws also promote collaboration, as strange as that may sound. If two companies embark on some sort of research mission together, they are more likely to be forthcoming and fully collaborative if they know that their confidential information is protected by law.

The Downsides of Trade Secret Laws

Opponents of trade secret protection argue that it gives businesses far too much power. Since the protection lasts until the secrets are discovered, the public’s use of beneficial innovations and freedom of information is restricted in the service of individual profits. Contractual trade secret restrictions can harm employees’ employment availability because the confidentiality and non-compete requirements remain with them after they change employers. These employees are limited in where they are able to work after changing jobs and limited in the knowledge and skills they can employ at any subsequent employment they find.

Case Study: Coca-Cola

The formula for Coca-Cola is one of the most famously sought-after trade secrets in the world. Coke actually loves the mystery surrounding its formula and tries to hype the public up for publicity and marketing reasons:

The history behind the Coca-Cola formula is fascinating, and makes it the perfect example of a trade secret. Starting in 1887, one of the first presidents of the company, Asa Chandler, demanded that no one ever write down the formula again for fear it could be stolen. According to the company, at any given time only two individuals actually know the formula. It is passed down in a ritualized manner, and those two individuals never travel together in case anything tragic ever happens.

New Horizons in Trade Secret Laws

As the world becomes increasingly globalized and the internet is an increasingly important part of the business landscape, trade secret laws are seeing some changes. Trade secret theft is much easier when companies have access to hackers and other tools of corporate espionage. Also, our companies have become not just fluid across state borders, but across international borders as well. American companies are sometimes worried that international competitors, who aren’t necessarily held to the same laws as American companies, will gain hold of valuable trade secrets.

Action in Congress 

In light of these concerns, American lawmakers have attempted to strengthen trade secret protections. Earlier this year, two bills were introduced in the House (H.R. 5233: “Trade Secret Protection Act of 2014”) and in the Senate (S. 2267: Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014.) Both of these bills would create a private federal civil remedy option for companies whose trade secrets have been stolen.

International Action

China, now one of the United States’ most important global trade partners, has attempted to expand its trade secret protections. It is currently working on a trade secret law — it’s in draft status right now — but it’s part of a larger project that China is working on to expand its competition law protections. This action came after the United States had strong disagreements and legal action against China over the possible stealing of trade secrets:

The European Union is also working on strengthening trade secret protection laws. In May 2014, the EU clarified its position on trade secrets, and committed to making consistent laws throughout member countries. A press release from the EU published last winter read:

There are substantial differences in the laws in place in EU countries on protection against trade secret misappropriation. Some countries have no specific laws on the issue. Businesses find it difficult to understand and access the systems of other Member States and, whenever they become victims of misappropriation of confidential know-how, they are reluctant to bring civil court proceedings as they are not sure the confidentiality of their trade secrets will be upheld by the courts. The current fragmented system has a negative effect on cross-border cooperation between business and research partners and is a key obstacle to using the EU single market as an enabler of innovation and economic growth.

Technology and Trade Secrets 

Another new frontier in the issue of trade secret protections is protection for technological innovations, such as technology design concepts. Altavion, Inc. v. Konica Minolta Systems Laboratory Inc. was heard in California earlier this year. In this case, a small company called Altavion claimed that a process it had invented to authenticate documents had been stolen by one of its competitors, and that the process was a trade secret. The court ruled in Altavion’s favor.

Conclusion

Trade secrets are an incredibly important part of the American business structure. Many of the United States’ most well-known companies and products have some involvement in trade secrets. While the U.S. has taken admirable actions to protect those secrets, there are constantly new frontiers in the issue, including the advents of technology and globalization. As those topics expand, we should expect to see trade secret protections expand as well.

Resources

Primary

Uniform Trade Secrets Act: Text

European Commission: Commission Proposes Rules to Help Protect Against the Theft of Confidential Business Information

Additional 

Marquette IP Law Review: Why Do We Have Trade Secrets

Nature: The Good and Bad of Trade Secrets

IP Watchdog: Trade Secrets and Employee Mobility

WIPO: Patents or Trade Secrets?

Unemed: What You Need to Know About Patents and Trade Secrets

King Hall IP Law Assocation: History of Trade Secret Law

Uniform Law Commission: Trade Secrets Act Summary

PeterToren: Criminal Trade Secret laws

Listverse: How Trade Secrets Are Kept

TMS: Federal Trade Secrets Crimes

Hahn Loeser: Does Trade Secret Law also provide patent protection?

Journal of Economic Perspectives: Some Economics of Trade Secret Law

Association of Corporate Counsel: New Texas Trade Secret Law Helps Big Businesses

Beck Reed Riden: Does the Government Favor Businesses With Trade Secrets?

JD Supra: Technology Design Concepts Can be Trade Secrets

Managing IP: Trade Secrets Get Sexy

Buffalo Business First: Looming Changes in Trade Secret Protection

Time: Is this the real thing? Coca-Cola’s Secret Formula “Revealed”

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trade Secret Laws: Competitive Advantages at Work appeared first on Law Street.

I’d like to think my article from last week played a part in the important decision made today, but the true heroes are the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Congratulations, you get the Trevor seal of approval.

The USPTO canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name “Washington Redskins” today, saying that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus cannot be trademarked under federal law.

I’m actually dancing.

Lead attorney Jesse Witten of Drinker Biddle & Reath filed the case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on behalf of five Native Americans.  “We presented a wide variety of evidence including dictionary definitions and other reference works, newspaper clippings, movie clips, scholarly articles, expert linguist testimony, and evidence of the historic opposition by Native American groups to demonstrate that the word ‘redskin’ is an ethnic slur,” Witten said in a press release.

Federal trademark law does not allow trademarks that could be considered offensive or racist to groups, so the ruling has stripped the Redskins of six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “redskin.”

What does this mean for the Washington Redskins? They could potentially be forced to change the name of the team since they wouldn’t be able to make any money off of anything with the Redskins name or logo. But, Native Americans have been down this road before. In 1992 the Trial and Appeals Board rescinded the team’s trademark, only for it to be overturned in a federal court ruling after the team appealed.

The Redskins will still have rights to their name for the time being as they are expected to appeal the decision much like in 1992, but I have a strong feeling that this time it will be different and people will finally come to their senses and realize that the name is atrociously racist. So everybody please cross your fingers with me.

Daniel Snyder will fight tooth and nail to keep the name of his precious team, and I just learned today that the outspoken owner has a backup plan. Snyder had the name “Washington Warriors” trademarked more than ten years ago according to the Washington City Paper. This convinces me even more that he realizes the Redskins name is offensive, racist, derogatory, disrespectful, hurtful, obnoxious (I could go for days but I’ll stop with obnoxious), otherwise he wouldn’t need a backup name.

I guess I’m okay with Warriors

Native Americans won this battle but the war is not close to being over, it could be months and even years before we see the Redskins change their name and logo. But as a wise man named Trevor Smith once said, “we’ll fight and we’ll fight until we cant fight anymore, because our cause is just but our patience is poor!”

In all seriousness though, this was a great outcome for Native Americans around the country. The five plaintiffs should be extremely proud of their courage and determination as they could be the ones who finally get the organization to change its name.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [RedSoxFan33 via DeviantArt]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dan Snyder is Definitely Pissed Off by Redskins Trademark Loss and I Love It appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court set software industry precedent on Monday with the unanimous reversal of a 2006 ruling in the patent infringement suit between Akamai Technologies Inc. and Limelight Networks Inc. Akamai had originally testified that Limelight encouraged its customers to violate an Akamai patent by copying technology to improve website traffic efficiency. The initial ruling was made under the doctrine of “induced” infringement, which tests liability by determining if the violator “knowingly induces others” to fully commit the crime, rather than first party infringement.

With five dissenting votes the decision was one of much dispute because it did not fit the parameters of classic patent infringement. In December 2013, the Solicitor General advocated a review of this ruling based on the concept of “divided” infringement. This notion challenged the traditional definition of patent infringement, which typically includes a purposeful violation committed by a single entity. In the case of Akamai v. Limelight, multiple independent users took some steps toward infringement, thus muddling the controversy and ultimately leading to this week’s reversal. Many top tier companies, such as Facebook, Google, and Oracle supported the reversal, asserting that they would have faced mountains of claims and skyrocketing litigation costs across the board had Akamai won the suit.

The complexity of this case’s nuances bring up greater concerns about the growing disparity between the context of the Patent Act’s conception more than two centuries ago, and today’s technological advances. Copying someone else’s invention is now as simple as downloading a file with the click of a button. Had Limelight been defeated, we would have seen a staggering increase in the already heavy burden of patent infringement suits on the technology community.

The nature of the patent industry has developed in the twenty first century from tangible products to cloud-based software. According to the Wall Street Journal, as of 2012 technology patents accounted for more than half of all the patents granted that year. This trend in software research and development has essentially turned patents into the type of invaluable investments that brick-and-mortar manufacturing used to be.

Due to this change it seems that trolling is no longer exclusive to social media. We’ve seen the rise of non-practicing entities (NPEs), more commonly known as “patent trolls”. These players work to build and enforce litigation for other people’s patents in the effort to collect licensing fees. The reversal of the Akamai v. Limelight case lifted helped to restrict the possible business of this secondary patent industry that typically hindered innovation by tying up inventors in legal trials.

It seems to me that while top companies, like Apple and Google, continue to push the limits of technology, they are simultaneously presented with a paradoxical challenge. As the only safeguard against having their ideas stolen by or credited to others, patents continue to serve as the blood of the technology industry.

On the other hand, patent trolls and entrepreneurs that use patent licensing business models to prematurely buy, sell, and trade patents have effectively altered the industry. In a way, patents are no longer fostering innovation but are rather sold to the highest bidder who may not actually create the best product, despite their sole rights to it. Unfortunately, these third-party entities of patent trolls and NPEs are driven by money, and when money is paired against the dreams of inventors, money typically wins. This is especially true with startups that don’t have the gross capital and market share of companies like Apple. In the end, true innovators, and the consumer audience they hope to serve, are the ones that tend to be on the losing end.

—

Erika Bethmann (@EBethmann) is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Alexandre Dulaunoy via Flickr]

Erika Bethmann

Erika Bethmann is a New Jersey native and a Washingtonian in the making. She is passionate about travel and international policy, and is expanding her knowledge of the world at George Washington University’s Elliot School of International Affairs. Contact Erika at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Makes it Easier to be a Patent Troll appeared first on Law Street.

Patent trolls have long been a problem in the realm of intellectual property, but companies have yet to devise a solution to successfully combat against them. As the years have gone by, patent trolls have no longer solely affected the technology industry but have begun to target many other businesses as well.

Well, now the government is getting involved in this widespread issue. The Senate is considering a bill, the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act that would force the losers of patent lawsuits to cover the winner’s legal fees in order to minimize patent trolling. The bill is similar to one that passed the House this past December. Diane Feinstein, a Democratic Senator from California, stated, “I think we are united on the troll. The troll must go.” The White House also has said it supports the measure.

Will Congress’ actions, if implemented, help to prevent patent trolling? There is evidence that suggests it will.

Making the losing party pay the other party’s legal fees will discourage patent trolls from pursuing legal action. Engaging in litigation can be a taxing and costly process, especially for small businesses, who lack the funds to engage in huge lawsuits. And in 2011, small businesses encompassed 90 percent of patent troll victims. The cost to defendants in a patent lawsuit can range from two to six million dollars. However, now faced with potential consequences, these companies engaging in patent trolling will have to think twice before filing lawsuit and extract licensing fees.

In addition, the bill would help protect true innovators. The bill’s provisions deter patent trolling companies, which exist solely to make a profit and do not actually contribute real innovation. These companies don’t create anything themselves; instead, they buy old patents and use them to file suits against other companies. Since patent trolling companies make their money off of legal cases, the potential cost not only deters these companies from filing lawsuits but also discourages anyone from forming these ventures in the first place.

Meanwhile, businesses that are actually creating innovative products or services can benefit from the bill. 40 percent of small businesses affected by patent trolls stated that the lawsuits they were forced to undergo hurt their business and ability to innovate. With the decreased threat of patent trolls, businesses will feel freer to create unique and new products without worrying about frivolous lawsuits.

The bill potentially also evens out the bias in the legal system that has long worked in favor of plaintiffs in intellectual property cases. Suing a company or individual over patent rights is relatively simple and inexpensive, but defending them can be extremely complex and costly. The fact is, patent cases are difficult to defend, many businesses are forced to settle out of court, which still costs them. Knowing that losers will have to pay for legal fees will encourage businesses to hold out for court settlement, whereas patent trollers will have a much harder time to defend their bogus claims.

While the bill exhibits many benefits against patent trolling, another question arises in the discussion of the bill: How will it affect legitimate patent litigation?

Some worry that the bill, while working against bogus patent troll lawsuits, could also affect litigation of serious infringements on patent rights. Skeptics of the bill argue that the bill goes too far and it could make it more difficult for inventors to profit from their innovations. Combatting this fear, several senators note that any legislation they support will protect the rights of companies that have legitimate claims to sue. Plus, parties with real claims of patent infringement still have the advantage of being the plaintiff in lawsuit, and can be confident of winning if their claim is truly legitimate. While fears of protecting innovation are not unfounded, those entering lawsuits to protect their legitimate patents need not fear of taking legal action.

If the bill passes in Congress and is signed into law by President Obama, businesses entangled in frivolous lawsuits will gain vital help in protecting their companies from patent trolls.

[Reuters] [Forbes] [Nextgov] [The Hill]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post S.1720: A Real Solution to Patent Trolling? appeared first on Law Street.

On November 13, WikiLeaks, a nonprofit media organization that prides itself on divulging imperative information to the public, leaked a draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement. The agreement was being secretly negotiated among our government’s policymakers in order to avoid public uproar and backlash that may result in the watering down of some of the agreement’s regulations. If there is a need to smuggle proposed legislation into enactment in a democratic society for fear of being met with opposition, then maybe the law isn’t representative of the majority’s voice.

This law is far worse than SOPA and PIPA combined. It’s a “free trade” pact between 12 countries, including the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What it really is is an agenda effectuated by corporate powerhouses that want greater intellectual property protection at the cost of freedom of expression and creation.

Three key provisions of the TPP that will affect you and should elicit your interest:

Our internet service providers will become the copyright coalition. The Digital Millenium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) takedown notice procedures provide Internet Service Providers (ISPs) with safeguards against suit for copyright infringement committed by its users. If a user is accused of infringement, the ISP, upon receiving the takedown notice, must immediately delete the infringing content pending a determination of infringement in order to avoid liability for the posted material.  If you think this is unfair, the TPP takes it a step further. The TPP grants legal incentives to these internet middlemen in exchange for their participation as copyright police (essentially). Why does this matter? Well these provisions could potentially result in the filtering of user content for possibly infringing material. Websites that may contain infringing material, including social media hangouts, have a chance of being blocked by these ISPs so that the provider can circumvent liability for infringing material transferred through the internet. And think about it from an economic standpoint. How much would it cost for ISPs to comb through every bit of user-generated content to determine if there are copyright concerns? It’s definitely a lot more than simply running a prudent internet service that limits access to certain sites and web platforms.

Patent powers will be used for evil.  The TPP makes patents more easily accessible for the pharmaceutical industry by including an entire section in the agreement devoted to opening the pathways to patent protection for specifically this industry.  Additionally, patent applicants in this industry will be able to limit the availability of the scientific info that was utilized to create the medicine, which operates to give the pharm moguls a huge amount of leverage against other creators. The price of medicine will undoubtedly increase, and I think that was the whole purpose of this particular law to begin with.

Protection will infringe on constitutional rights. Our constitution aims to encourage invention and the arts by limiting the time period for which a holder of intellectual property can assert his or her rights. This law proposes to extend the years of copyright protection by 20 years and thus further minimize the amount of information available in the public domain from which new works can be created.

And that’s only just the tip! For the full leaked version of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, click here.  I strongly advise you to look it over or read a few summaries on it when you get the chance. The availability of knowledge and legal space for innovation will be dramatically decreased by the TPP.  And should our democratic values be neglected in the interest of corporate wealth? NO! So do something.

Please take a few seconds to sign this petition to stop the TPP here.

Gena.

—

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts.

Featured image courtesy of [hdzimmermann via Flickr]

Gena Thomas

Gena Thomas, a recent graduate of Howard University School of Law, was born and raised in Lafayette, Louisiana. A graduate of The University of Texas at Austin, she enjoys watching scary movies and acquiring calories from chocolates of all sorts. Contact Gena at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post End of the Internet as We Know It: Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement appeared first on Law Street.