Squire Patton Boggs Fights for Domain Name With Chinese Imitator

International law and lobbying firm Squire Patton Boggs hit another roadblock in its fight with a Chinese entity when a panel concluded that the current trademark holder in China maintained rights in the domain and dismissed the complaint.

World Trademark Review reports that a Chinese company appears to be practicing law using the same name and logo as that of the established firm Squire Patton Boggs, promoting its practice on a website located at squirepattonboggs.net.

“Delving deeper, we discovered the Chinese company is the same one that had previously used the brand of another international law firm, Norton Rose Fulbright (we reported on this a year prior),” writes Tim Lince. “Much of the text used on the Chinese company’s website was lifted from other law firm sites, and many of the images were either stock images or taken from movie posters, including those on the staff page.”

Read the World Trademark Review article.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




Widening Your Moat: Using Continuation Applications to Protect Commercially Successful Products

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free webinar, “Widening Your Moat: Using Continuation Applications to Protect Commercially Successful Products,” featuring Fitch Even partners Jonathan H. Urbanek and Mark A. Borsos.

The event will be Thursday, Sept. 28, 2017, at 9 am PDT / 10 am MDT / 11 am CDT / 12 noon EDT.

CLE credit has been approved for California, Illinois, and Nebraska. Other states may also award CLE credit upon attendee request. There is no fee to attend, but registration is required. Register at http://bit.ly/FitchEven_SeptWebinar

Protecting a commercially successful product is critical for any business. Although patents can help to prevent others from utilizing covered technology, recent trends in case law and post-issuance validity challenges introduced by the American Invents Act have made it more difficult for businesses to effectively enforce patents against competitors. Continuation applications can be an important tool for bolstering patent protection for key products, providing the patent owner leverage in negotiations and enforcement.

This webinar will provide tips and strategies on how to use continuation applications to
• Limit design-arounds that use similar technology
• Target commercial products
• Expand the scope of patent protection
• Mitigate invalidity challenges
• Avoid antitrust pitfalls

Following the live event, a recording of the webinar will be available to view for one year at www.fitcheven.com.

Register for the webinar.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




VMware Audits – What You Need to Know About Licensing Rules Pt. I

By 
Scott & Scott LLP

It is not unusual for companies to use virtualization technologies to reduce costs, ensure redundancy, and reduce physical size of the network. Some of these companies are turning to VMware to manage their virtualized environments. Virtualization can involve complex technical and licensing issues. Failure to properly license the environment risks subjecting the company to unbudgeted licensing and compliance fees. The following is a number of common questions and concerns related to licensing VMware.

1. Is a customer allowed to use software for evaluation purposes?
Yes, as long as the evaluation copy is not used in the production environment and is for testing only.

2. Can an affiliate use the software?
Typically a corporate affiliate is allowed to use the software if the affiliate is under common control or ownership of more than 50%. This means that any joint ventures or affiliates with less than 50% common ownership, control, or voting rights must be separately licensed. See VMware End User License Agreement (“EULA”), Section 1.1.

3. Can the software be transferred?
Subject to all of the terms and conditions of the VMware End User License Agreement, the software cannot be transferred unless the customer obtains written consent from VMware, which will not be unreasonable withheld. See Section 12.1 of the EULA.

4. Does the license expire?
The EULA indicates that all VMware licenses are perpetual unless the order for the software specifically limits the term of the license. This means that license will not expire unless it is terminated.

5. Can VMware be installed at any location?
No. VMware can only be installed in the territory specified in the order (for example, North America). Global corporations may consider alternative licensing options, or negotiating and specifying the territories in the original order to ensure all locations are properly licensed.

6. Can VMware be used with Oracle software?
Yes, but it may require additional licensing fees for use of the Oracle products in a virtualized environment.
It is important to carefully review the contemplated use cases for VMware against the licensing restrictions to ensure that the company is in compliance with its license agreement.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




Supreme Court Has Another Chance To Help Take Down Patent Trolls

When the U.S. Supreme Court hears  Oil States Energy Service v. Greene’s Energy Group, the justices will have the opportunity to banish patent trolls back under the bridge where they belong, according to Above the Law.

Gary Shapiro explains that Oil States hinges on inter-partes review – “the process used by the U.S. Patent and Trade Office to determine whether a patent under question was issued based on merit. If not, the patent can be rescinded. The process is similar to a trial: Lawyers make their case to the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB), and three highly qualified administrative patent judges hear their case and come to a decision.”

He says the process is expensive, but it’s much less costly than going to court.

Read the Above the Law article.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




4 Key Takeaways: Consulting Agreements – Who Owns the IP?

Kilpatrick Townsend recently published some notes on a presentation made by Silicon Valley-based Kilpatrick Townsend Counsel Alan Dow on issues in the intellectual property arena concerning consulting agreements.

In the article, Dow discusses four key takeaways: Consulting agreements make it possible for companies to own IP produced by consultants, work-for-hire clauses, conflicting obligations, and failure to protect trade secrets.

Read the article.

 

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




If You Trademark It, Then You Better Put a Ring on It

Engagement ringThe iconic jewelry store Tiffany & Co. is a model for trademark enforcement, aggressively and successfully policing its brand in the courts. Last year, Tiffany filed a lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corp., claiming that the warehouse giant sold more than $6 million of ersatz Tiffany engagement rings and improperly used the jeweler’s name on at least 200,000 in-store signs. This week Tiffany prevailed by winning a $19.4 million judgment in federal court.

Dallas lawyer Chris Schwegmann, a partner at Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst who tries intellectual property cases, has been following the Tiffany v. Costco dispute.

“This type of litigation not only discourages counterfeiters, but also ensures that Tiffany’s luxury brand doesn’t get diluted over time. I find it interesting that Costco argued that ‘Tiffany’ represents a generic term used to describe a ring setting, and not just a brand name. That’s a tough case to make against a company that aggressively defends its brand.

“Based on the sizable judgment, it is unlikely that other companies in the industry will try to make the same arguments against Tiffany & Co. That’s the benefit of aggressive trademark enforcement.”

 

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




Cloud Patent Claim Risks and Providers’ Evolving Contractual Responses

The cloudCloud Service Providers (CSPs) are evolving their customer agreements, points out Kemp IT Law.

Richard Kemp discusses how CSPs are addressing the growing risks to service availability from patent claims and in particular how Amazon Web Services (AWS) had included in their Customer Agreement an unusual IP non-assert term.

“From the way the AWS terms work, it’s also at best an open question whether they protect the customer from the risk that open source software used in providing the service infringes third party patent or other rights,” he writes. “Open source is a critical component of the cloud and customers need to understand and review this aspect when selecting their CSP.”

Read the article.

 

 




Understanding AIA 102: Prior Art Exceptions and Declaration Practice

Intellectual property IPFitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free webinar, “Understanding AIA 102: Prior Art Exceptions and Declaration Practice,” featuring Fitch Even partner Alan E. Schiavelli.

The webinar will take place on Thursday, August 17, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.

CLE credit has been approved for California, Illinois, and Nebraska. Other states may also award CLE credit upon attendee request. There is no fee to attend, but registration is required. Register at https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/8108721617713884931

More and more patent applications now being examined and granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office are first-inventor-to-file applications under the America Invents Act (AIA). The AIA redefined which documents and activities constitute prior art that may be used to reject patent applications and invalidate patents.

During this webinar, attendees will gain a basic understanding of the statutory framework of 35 U.S.C. § 102, including the categories of prior art defined by the statute, the exceptions to those categories, and the manner in which the exceptions can be invoked. We will also discuss a recent Federal Circuit panel decision some see as undermining Congress’s intent in establishing the AIA’s on-sale bar.

Specific topics will include these and more:

• Changes to prior public use and sale
• Prior art under 102(a)(1) and exceptions
• Prior art under 102(a)(2) and exceptions
• Declaration practice under AIA 102
• Ramifications of Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals

Following the live event, a recording of the webinar will be available to view for one year at www.fitcheven.com.

Register for the webinar.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




McKool Smith Secures $9.4 Million Verdict for Quincy Jones Against Michael Jackson Estate

McKool Smith has secured a $9.4 million jury verdict on behalf of legendary music producer Quincy Jones against the late music icon Michael Jackson’s production company, MJJ Productions Inc., in a breach of contract and royalty dispute. Jones produced a number of the King of Pop’s most acclaimed albums, including “Off the Wall,” “Thriller,” and “Bad.”

According to a release from the firm, the lawsuit centered on allegations that MJJ Productions Inc., which is controlled by Michael Jackson’s estate, failed to pay Jones royalties for the soundtrack to “This Is It,” a documentary that was released just months after Michael Jackson’s death, and Jackson’s Cirque du Soleil productions, which both feature several musical hits produced by Jones.

Read the article.

 

 




Are Mandatory Software Inventory Tools on the Horizon?

By 
Scott & Scott LLP

SoftwareSoftware licensing compliance is a complex task to manage. The metrics for measuring compliance often are a challenge to gather, and those metrics typically are different from software publisher to software publisher. This means that software asset management (SAM) teams need to use multiple tools and processes to gather required data and then apply different sets of licensing rules to determine whether the number of software licenses owned is sufficient to support the measured usage…for each publisher. In complex environments, the task is daunting and continuous – as soon as a license position has been calculated for one publisher, it typically is time to begin a new review for the next.

The publishers themselves typically don’t offer much help when it comes to ongoing compliance activities, or, at least, they don’t offer much help that I would recommend accepting. Most of them will be happy to come in to your environment and to initiate what amounts to a voluntary audit, but the outcome of such reviews almost always requires a license purchase – there typically are no options offered to reduce any inadvertent shortfalls through re-deploying or uninstalling software. Moreover, publishers historically have done little or nothing to meaningfully simplify their license metrics or to make the job of collecting measurement data less of a burden.

That may be changing, but not necessarily in a way that benefits licensees.

Increasingly, publishers seem to be moving toward deployment frameworks where, in addition to any software that companies use for their business purposes, they also must deploy tools developed by the publishers in order to measure their usage of the production software on an ongoing basis. While the availability of a functioning, publisher-specific measurement tool would be nice in theory, the fact that the paradigm seems to be shifting toward mandatory use of such tools is troubling. I am very hesitant to ever advise my clients to install any “mandatory” applications in their environments, especially when some such tools may incorporate functionalities – such as automated, “phone home” data transfers to the publishers or “high water mark” usage targets – that essentially eliminate any flexibility that the licensee otherwise would have to remedy over-deployments. If companies are forced to deploy measurement tools in order to use a product, then they should expect their licensing expenditures to increase significantly, absent implementation of very robust internal controls to prevent unintended usage of software products.

Here is a quick summary of how the three of the most high-profile software publishers are addressing this issue.

Oracle
Oracle does not yet require or even offer the use of a particular tool in order to measure usage of its technology products (like its Database and Internet Application Server lines). However, because of the way that Oracle sets its customers up for failure – through its bundling of all added-cost options in standard installation files and its counter-intuitive “policies” related to topics like virtualization – its products arguably are most in need of an Oracle-specific tool to gather measurement data.

During an audit by Oracle’s License Management Services division (LMS), a licensee typically is asked to deploy a number of automated, LMS-developed scripts in order to gather measurement data. One option, in theory, would be to use those scripts on an ongoing basis in order to maintain compliance. However, the output of those scripts ordinarily is not aggregated for a complete environment, meaning that it would be necessary to gather and somehow compile separate outputs for each of the servers in an environment. In addition, the Oracle script output contents may be easy for Oracle to process using whatever tools it has available to assist in that task, but they are not at all easy for humans to read. Moreover, Oracle offers no roadmap to help companies align the output contents with their licensing obligations.

As an alternative, LMS has identified a number of third-party tools on its website (scroll down to “Tool Vendors”) that are capable of gathering relevant measurement data. Those tools can be extremely useful in gathering and presenting information that companies realistically can use to facilitate licensing decisions. However, it is important to keep in mind that most of those tools will entail added costs in the form of third-party licensing fees. Unfortunately, given the number of pitfalls associated with Oracle’s licensing practices, those costs (or fees paid to experienced Oracle licensing consultants) often are a practical necessity when using Oracle’s products.

IBM
Big Blue does not yet require its customers to deploy measurement tools in all circumstances, but it does require them to use an IBM-developed tool in order to take advantage of a more favorable licensing framework in virtualized environments. Under IBM’s sub-capacity licensing model for products licensed based on Processor Value Units (PVUs), companies my purchase licenses based upon the number of PVUs allocated to virtual servers running IBM products, as opposed to the number of PVUs associated with the full capacity of the physical hosts where those virtual servers are running. This can result in immense savings, especially when the number of virtual servers running IBM products is relatively low, compared to the total number of virtual servers in the environment.

However, in order to take advantage of such “sub-capacity” licensing, and absent the applicability of a handful of narrow exceptions, companies are contractually obligated to deploy and use IBM’s License Metric Tool (ILMT) on all systems where that licensing model is to be used. The good news is that ILMT is a free tool and that its reports generally are easy to generate and to read, once the tool is properly configured. In addition, ILMT does not (currently) incorporate any “phone-home” functionalities, and IBM should only receive ILMT outputs when it requests them from the company during a license review.

The bad news is that ILMT is notoriously difficult to deploy and to configure to accurately measure usage. It is an agent-based tool that requires an ILMT component to be installed on every system where sub-capacity usage is to be measured, in addition to a dedicated collection server to receive data from the agents. If one of those agents has a problem, then the resulting reporting will be inaccurate.

In addition, once configured ILMT will capture the maximum, “high-water mark” of sub-capacity product usage during a reporting period (at minimum, each calendar quarter). Since companies are obligated to provide IBM with all historical ILMT reports upon demand, they should expect that any spikes in product usage – even if associated with inadvertent, temporary system re-configurations – will result in audit findings and increased licensing fees.

Unfortunately, unless a company can demonstrate that it satisfies one of the extremely narrow ILMT exceptions (and most companies are not able to do so), ILMT is the only option for avoiding full-capacity licensing charges for virtualization environments. IBM thankfully has not yet indicated – to my knowledge – that it intends to require an ILMT-like tool to measure usage in non-sub-capacity scenarios. However, given IBM’s embrace of IT intelligence automation (reference the strides it has made recently with its Watson technology), it may be only a matter of time before all IBM software effectively audits itself.

Microsoft
Unlike with Oracle, usage of Microsoft’s products is relatively easy to measure using ordinary SAM processes, and unlike with IBM, Microsoft historically has not required companies to use any particular tools in order to measure such usage in any scenarios. Unfortunately, that may be changing.

Microsoft long has had a relationship with a company called Unified Logic, which in the past was among a number of firms that Microsoft hired in order to conduct software audits. Unified Logic has developed a tool – called Movere – that gathers (among other things) the information that a company may require in order to assess Microsoft licensing requirements. By itself, that certainly is not a bad thing – good tools are an important piece of the SAM puzzle (though, they’re not the whole puzzle, as discussed below). However, we increasingly are seeing Microsoft require companies to use Movere as part of Microsoft’s non-contractual SAM engagements and sometimes in order to facilitate procurement or dispute-resolution discussions. Microsoft seems to be especially fond of Movere, in part, because it purports to identify the “high-water mark” of product usage for a given analysis period. As with IBM and ILMT, companies should expect even inadvertent, temporary over-consumption of Microsoft products reflected in Movere’s output to result in increased licensing fees.

Movere is not yet identified as a required tool in Microsoft’s contracts, but Microsoft’s standard audit clause now is drafted in a way that Microsoft arguably could require companies to use the tool during an audit. In addition, in Enterprise Agreements, the contractual true-up obligation for some products now references the “maximum” usage of those products during the true-up period, which aligns with what Unified Logic claims Movere is capable of measuring.

Past Movere, we also have started to see some mandatory-tool language begin to appear in some Microsoft agreements. For example, companies licensing software under a Services Provider License Agreement (SPLA) that want to host O365 client software for their clients now may sign a SPLA addendum that identifies them as a “Shared Computer Activation Qualified Cloud Provider.” That addendum obligates the SPLA licensee to deploy a “machine cookie” (once made available by Microsoft) in the registry of each machine used to host the O365 software, and that “machine cookie” then automatically gathers and reports to Microsoft information related to the usage of that software.

It seems like it is only a matter of time before that concept is adapted to require the use of Movere or a similar tool.

Being contractually obligated to deploy any tool – especially one that phones home to tattle about a company’s “high-water mark” – is bad enough. However, perhaps the worst part of this new paradigm is the fact that tools are simply a means to an end. In our experience, they almost never are an end themselves, in part, because they almost never provide a complete and correct picture of a company’s software consumption. Sometimes that is due to the fact that a particular IT environment is not compatible with a particular tool, requiring a more flexible approach to data collection. More importantly, though, every license review requires discretion and discussion in order to identify exceptions to licensing rules and instances where tool-gathered data simply are incorrect and in need of correction. The fact that software publishers to some degree seem to be moving toward a myopic, tool-centric approach to licensing is troubling.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




Munck Wilson Mandala Adds 7 New IP Attorneys

Munck Wilson MandalaTexas law firm Munck Wilson Mandala has added seven intellectual property lawyers to the firm. The seven formerly were with Howison & Arnott.

“As one of the largest IP practices in the Southwest, Munck Wilson Mandala now has 27 registered patent attorneys, 60 plus attorneys firm-wide, and over 500 years of technical and IP law experience,” the firm says on its website.

The seven include:

  • Gregory M. Howison, partner
  • John J. Arnott, partner
  • Brian D. Walker, partner
  • Andrew C. Graham, senior counsel
  • Edward I. Jorgenson, senior counsel
  • Steven R. Greenfield, senior counsel
  • Keith D. Harden, associate

Read more about the lawyers.

 

 

 




Qualcomm Accuses Apple of Infringing Six Patents in iPhone, iPad

Chipmaker Qualcomm Inc. will ask the U.S. International Trade Commission to bar Apple Inc. from selling some iPhones and iPads in the United States that use chips made by competitor Intel Corp on the grounds that the devices infringe on six Qualcomm patents, Reuters is reporting.

Qualcomm said it will ask the U.S. ITC to ban imports of the Apple devices that use the chips. The company also filed suit in federal court in California on Thursday to request monetary damages.

Reporters Diane Bartz and Stephen Nellis write: “In its complaint to the ITC, Qualcomm asked the body to ban ‘iPhones that use cellular baseband processors other than those supplied by Qualcomm’s affiliates.’ Qualcomm did not name Intel, but Intel began supplying chips for some iPhones starting with the iPhone 7.”

Read the Reuters article.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 

 




Drafting and Negotiating IP & IT Provisions in M&A Transactions

WebinarPractical Law will present a free 75-minute webinar with Rita Berardino, Senior Legal Editor, Practical Law Intellectual Property & Technology, and presenters from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who will discuss IP and information technology (IT) considerations in drafting and negotiating M&A agreements.

The event will be Wednesday, June 28, 1-2:15 p.m. EDT.

Intellectual property and technology assets have become increasingly significant components of a company’s business strategy and the focus of many M&A transactions, the company says on its website.

Topics will include:

  • Common structures for M&A transactions.
  • Key IP and IT provisions of M&A transaction documents, including:
    • Drafting and negotiation of IP and IT provisions.
    • How courts have interpreted these provisions.
  • Key ancillary IP and IT agreements, including licenses and assignments.

A short Q&A session will follow.

Presenters:

  • Manja Sachet, Partner, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Jason Greenberg, Associate, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Jennifer McGrew, Associate, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
  • Rita Berardino, Senior Legal Editor, Practical Law Practical Law IP&T (Moderator)

Register for the webinar.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




Judge Rips Lawyers in IP Rift; Will Award Fees to Defendants

copyright-symbol-intellectual-property-ipA New York federal judge has ruled that no “reasonable attorney” would have sued news organizations for broadcasting or publishing seconds-long clips from the 45-minute live Facebook video of a childbirth, reports Ars Technica.

And the media outlets defendants are entitled to recover what may amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs, writes David Kravets.

“No reasonable lawyer with any familiarity with the law of copyright could have thought that the fleeting and minimal uses, in the context of news reporting and social commentary, that these defendants made of tiny portions of the 45-minute video was anything but fair,” U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan of New York wrote.

Read the Ars Technica article.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




The Difficulties of Being Obvious: Practical Advice for Overcoming Obviousness Rejections

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free webinar, “The Difficulties of Being Obvious: Practical Advice for Overcoming Obviousness Rejections,” featuring Fitch Even partner Stephen Favakeh and Fitch Even patent agent, Thomas James.

The webinar will take place on Thursday, June 22, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.

CLE credit has been approved for California, Illinois, and Nebraska. Other states may also award CLE credit upon attendee request. There is no fee to attend, but registration is required.

Following the live event, a recording of the webinar will be available to view for one year at www.fitcheven.com.

Register at https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/2784708194098019841

In the predictable arts, an obviousness rejection is typically based on a combination of multiple references, the firm says on its website. Attempting to overcome such a rejection can be a perplexing and frustrating experience. This is particularly true when the patent examiner is combining references to arrive at the claimed invention in what can be a highly subjective manner. Nevertheless, when it comes time to respond, there will usually be more than one way to get the job done.

The webinar will address best practices for responding to obviousness rejections, covering these topics and more:
• How to take the prevailing and latest Federal Circuit case law into account in your responses
• Making effective claim amendments specifically tailored to overcome the obviousness rejection
• Developing persuasive arguments in support of patentability over a combination of references

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




The Scope of AIA’s Estoppel Provision: Are We Still Flying Blind Six Years Later?

Fitch, Even, Tabin & Flannery LLP will present a free webinar, “The Scope of AIA’s Estoppel Provision: Are We Still Flying Blind Six Years Later?,” featuring Fitch Even partner Eric L. Broxterman.

The webinar will take place on Wednesday, May 31, 2017, at 9:00 am PDT / 10:00 am MDT / 11:00 am CDT / 12:00 noon EDT.

Congress drafted the “estoppel” provision in the American Invents Act (AIA) to ensure that petitioners did not abuse the post-grant review procedure established by the USPTO. The estoppel provision precludes the petitioner from later challenging the same patent claim, either in the USPTO or in civil litigation, on any ground that the petitioner “raised” or “reasonably could have raised” during the post-grant review. Almost since its enactment, there has been a debate over the appropriate scope of this provision. Given that the estoppel effect was largely untested, the first participants in these proceedings flew blind to some extent.

Now, roughly six years later, rulings regarding the application of the estoppel are inconsistent and tend to leave practitioners more confused and no better off than the first post-grant review trailblazers.

This webinar will provide information on what you need to know about this provision, including these topics:
• Overview of the estoppel provision
• The provision’s legislative history
• The impact of recent decisions applying the provision
• Why the provision is not scaring off petitioners of post-grant reviews

CLE credit has been approved for California, Illinois, and Nebraska. Other states may also award CLE credit upon attendee request. There is no fee to attend, but registration is required.

Following the live event, a recording of the webinar will be available to view for one year at www.fitcheven.com.

Register for the webinar.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




Lawyer Who Founded ‘Copyright Trolling’ Prenda Law Is Disbarred

John Steele, one of the masterminds behind the Prenda Law “copyright trolling” scheme, has been disbarred, reports Ars Technica.

Steele agreed to the disbarment two months after pleading guilty to federal fraud and money laundering charges.

Reporter  writes that Steele said he and a co-defendant, Paul Hansmeier, made more than $6 million over a two-year period with “sham entities” that threatened Internet users with copyright lawsuits.

Steele “conspired to extort settlement funds from thousands of Internet users in a multi-jurisdictional copyright litigation scheme,” Illinois attorney regulators said in a statement of charges. “Specifically, they attempted to exact settlements from users who allegedly infringed on the copyrights of certain pornographic movies, including movies that Mr. Steele himself produced and distributed.”

Read the Ars Technica article.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




This Company Declared War on a Patent Troll With a $50,000 Bounty

Intellectual property IPA group of lawyers who formed a company called Blackbird to file patent lawsuits against tech and retail firms may have chosen the wrong target, writes Jeff John Roberts for Fortune.

“On Thursday, that target — the Internet security company Cloudflare — responded to Blackbird’s legal action with a scorched earth campaign to take down Blackbird and shred its patents,” according to the report.

Cloudflare took the offensive to the next level by offering a $50,000 bounty to anyone who could provide “prior art” that could invalidate Blackbird’s claim — including Blackbird’s other patents. Cloudflare provided a list on those patents on a separate website.

Read the Fortune article.

 

 




5th Circuit: Unpatented Products Can Be Given Patent-Like Protections by Contract

Intellectual property IPA post by Liskow & Lewis on the website of JD Supra discusses a breach of contract case involving the overlay of intellectual property and contract law.

In the case, Luv n’ care, Ltd, a global leader in the design and sale of baby products, filed suit against its former distributor, Groupo Rimar, a.k.a. Suavinex, S.A., for breach of Suavinex’s contractual obligation not to copy any of Luv n’ care’s product designs.

“In defense, Suavinex asserted that the pertinent contract provisions were unenforceable illegal restraints of trade, that patent law precluded Luv n’ care from obtaining patent-like protections over unpatented products offered for public sale, and that the parties’ contract protected only confidential, proprietary designs in which Luv n’ care had a ‘protectable interest,'” according to the post.

The Fifth Circuit rejected Suavinex’s argument that patent law precluded Luv n’ care from protecting unpatented designs available in the public domain.

Read the article.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group

 




BSA Software Audit Updates: Membership Changes and Impact on Audits

By 
Scott & Scott LLP

Software - DVDBSA| The Software Alliance (the “BSA”) is an organization that acts on behalf of software publishers to enforce copyrights. The membership of the organization may undergo changes, which can impact an existing software audit if a member leaves during the course of the audit and the BSA no longer has power of attorney to enforce the copyrights.

The BSA has lost of a few members recently, including Parametric Technology Corporation (“PTC”), Minitab, and TechSmith Corporation. Some publishers choose to enforce their own copyrights, while others elect to engage competing organizations such as the Software & Information Industry Association (“SIIA”) or Software Compliance Group. Recently, the BSA also gained new members, including DataStax, Salesforce, Splunk, and Workday.

The changes to the BSA’s membership may affect the scope of the audit, and a company targeted by the BSA should take the following steps to mitigate its exposure.

1. Review the publishers identified in the initial audit letter

The BSA’s initial audit letter will identify the specific BSA members participating in that particular audit. Although subsequent correspondence will often request the audit include all BSA members listed on its web site, the scope of the audit is limited to the members identified. This is particularly important because the BSA members must choose to participate in each audit. Otherwise an audit target may not be able to obtain a release of liability for potentially infringing software published by the non-participating BSA member.

2. Check Existing License Agreements for Audit Provisions

Once a company receives an audit request from the BSA and confirms the BSA members identified in the initial letter are active members of the BSA listed on its web site, it is important to check existing license agreements for audit rights. Some Microsoft license agreements contain specific audit provisions specifying notice requirements, a third-party auditor, and frequency of any software audits. Often these provisions can supersede the BSA’s requests for those particular products. Many companies request the BSA exclude any software that is bound by a specific audit rights provision in an existing license agreement from the scope of the BSA audit. This tactic often saves significant time and expense. However, Microsoft may opt to engage in an audit directly at a later date.

3. Obtain a release of liability for any non-compliant software

Some publishers are members of more than one third-party agency, and often a company receives more than one audit request governing the same time periods. In any event, if a company is paying to resolve a software audit, that company should get a release for the products in the scope of the audit.

The release of liability may be contingent on remediating any non-compliant software within a specific timeframe outlined in the settlement agreement. Software audits are complex, time-consuming, and burdensome. It is helpful to seek advice from an expert to navigate scoping and other legal issues.

 

Join Our LinkedIn Group