• Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • Disclaimer

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

~ Trademark and Copyright Law Updates in Indiana

Indiana Intellectual Property Blog

Author Archives: Kenan Farrell

Indiana Manufacturers send Patent Reform letter to President Obama

11 Wednesday Feb 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Federal Initiatives, Patent

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Initiatives, Legislation

Yesterday, over 130 US manufacturing companies sent a letter to President Obama detailing their serious concerns about the economic impact that enactment of patent reform legislation would have on the US economy.  Recognizing that the 111th Congress may be poised to revisit the patent law reforms that the 110th Congress previously abandoned in 2008, the manufacturers took this opportunity to tell the President their side of the patent reform story.  Among the manufacturers were the following four (4) Indiana companies:

Cummins Inc., Columbus, Indiana
DePuy Orthopedics, Warsaw, Indiana
Hill-Rom, Inc., Batesville, Indiana
Zimmer Inc., Warsaw, Indiana

Cummins Logo

DePuy logoZimmer Logo

The letter is a quick and interesting read (click image below for full text). The manufacturing companies emphasize that patent damages should not be reduced.  Rather, they stress that any legislation should be aimed at improving USPTO operations (currently, the patent application backlog is more than 700,000 and the average pendency is more than 32 months).  Taking a pretty obvious jab at the high-tech and financial services industries who aim to benefit from heavy patent reform, the manufacturers argue that “the prosperity of a few companies within two industries should not come at the expense of a larger group of stakeholders.”

I’ve listed below some of the main points that the manufacturing companies include to support their argument that drastic patent reform is unnecessary and perhaps dangerous to our economy:

  • “A recent study focusing on the impact of apportionment legislation estimates that this change alone would put at risk up to 298,000 manufacturing jobs and reduce R&D investment by up to $66 billion.  This would be a negative outcome even when our economy is strong; at a time of economic crisis, it would be tragic.” (Source: The Likely Adverse Effects of An Apportionment-Centric System of Patent Damages, Case Western Study)
  • “The legislation introduced in the 110th Congress dealt with patent issues on the back end rather than the front end, i.e., it attempted to deal with the symptoms of poor patent quality and growing pendency rather than addressing these issues directly. Many of the problems identified by legislative reform proponents as reasons for such reforms are best addressed instead by reforms of USPTO operations.”
  • “[T]here is no explosion in patent litigation.  In 1993, lawsuits were 1.45% of patents granted.  In 2007, lawsuits were 1.48% of patents granted.  The number fluctuates from year to year, but it has never indicated a system out of control.” (Source:  USPTO Annual Reports, Federal Judicial Statistics)
  • “Moreover, there is no explosion in patent damage awards.  Adjusting for inflation, the median annual patent damages award has actually dropped slightly over the last 13 years. In constant dollars, the median was $3.9 million from 1995 through 2000, and $3.8 million from 2001 through 2007.”  (Source: 2008 Patent Litigation Study, PriceWaterhouseCoopers)
Obama Manufacturer Letter

Click for full text

What I'm Reading

11 Wednesday Feb 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Intellectual Property, What I'm Reading

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Intellectual Property

On top of all the blogs, law journals, and case updates that I read each day, I also make sure to set aside time to read one Intellectual Property or Tech law book each month.  When I find a book that might be useful for clients, I’ll post a quick review:

Intellectual Property: The Tough New Realities That Could Make or Break Your Business by Paul Goldstein, Stanford Law School.

GoldsteinThe Amazon description:

“The definitive guide to intellectual property for business managers.

How can a product of the mind—an innovation, a song, a logo, a business secret—become the subject of precise property rights? No idea is entirely original; every innovative business borrows, sometimes extensively, from its competitors and others. So how do we draw the line between fair and unfair use?

Billions of dollars ride on that question, as do the fates of publishers, software producers, drug companies, advertising firms, and many others. It’s also a key question for individuals—for instance, if you quit your job after mastering the company’s secrets, what can you do with that information?

With the growth of the internet and global markets, having a smart IP strategy is more essential than ever. Intellectual Property is the ideal book for non-lawyers who deal with patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and copyrights—all essential business issues that have changed rapidly in the last few years.

Every business decision that involves IP is also a legal decision, and every legal decision is also a business decision. Lawyers and managers need to work together to navigate these murky waters, and this book shows how.”

My take:

Paul Goldstein is a frequent author on intellectual property topics.  In fact, he’s written all types of books…fiction novels, treatises, textbooks and “General Interest” works like the book above.  I recall using one of his IP textbooks back in law school.

Intellectual Property: The Tough New Realities That Could Make or Break Your Business provides a nice ground-level view of intellectual property.  Each area of IP law (patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret) is placed into historical context, helping the reader understand the current state of the law and to identify trends for the future.   Goldstein provides the principles and rationales behind our laws, to help the reader understand the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of IP protection.  The book also details the influence of heavyweight industries (biotech, software/electronics, movie studios and music labels) in expanding and contracting IP law via lobbying and strategic litigation.  Besides being useful to anyone with an interest in basic intellectual property law, this book can also be helpful to experienced IP attorneys in that it can suggest new ways to express complicated IP concepts in layman terms.

“The central lesson of this book is that every decision involving intellectual assets is ultimately a legal decision, and that every legal decision is at bottom a business decision. If intellectual property is economically too important to be left to lawyers, it is also too legally charged to be left to managers.”

Indiana medical device maker uses patent portfolio to secure $1.73 million in funding

10 Tuesday Feb 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Patent, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Indiana, Patent

NicoIndianapolis-based start-up medical device maker NICO Corporation announced yesterday that despite declining economic conditions and a sluggish stock market, the company raised $1.73 million in its Series B round of funding.  NICO is a privately-held medical device company holding exclusive worldwide patent rights to the newest minimally invasive neuro and spinal tumor removal tool, the Myriad.  Click here for full story.

It’s just a press release, but at least it’s some positive news in this rough economy.  It’s also a good reminder of the importance of patent acquisition and management for small businesses.  Investors often perceive patent portfolios as a demonstration of the high level of expertise, specialization and technological capacity within a business.

Dear KLF Legal,

10 Tuesday Feb 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Copyright, Dear KLF Legal, Patent

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

DMCA, Patent

From time to time, people write in with short questions about intellectual property law. We’re always happy to help educate the public about their IP rights, so KLF Legal tries to respond to each inquiry as best we can. The answers tend to be brief since the questions don’t typically include alot of information. However, I thought it might be helpful to share these questions from time to time in a new post category entitled “Dear KLF Legal”…enjoy!

Dear KLF Legal

Q: Recently, while visiting family in Hawaii, I was watching TV and stumbled upon an On Demand station entitled PhotoShow TV. Being a photographer, I was intrigued thinking perhaps it was a show covering the latest in photography products and trends. I quickly discovered this was not the case, instead it was a listing of user created photo slideshows that were set to music. These slideshows can be created on the web then published so that anyone can watch them through their Time Warner Oceanic Cable service.

So, my question is two fold, if someone uploads photos and music that they do not have the rights to then who assumes the responsibility for the infringement, Time Warner Oceanic (TWO) or the individual who uploaded the media? I don’t know much about the service but I do know that TWO must approve the content to make sure it is not graphic or offensive. Since they have reviewed and approved all materials, does the infringement responsibility then become theirs?

Here is a link to a bit more information.

A: Thanks for your question.  This is very much an issue du jour in copyright/internet law.  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Section 512, is the applicable law, but it’s appropriate application is not particularly clear right now.

Some info about the DMCA:

In the online world, the potentially infringing activities of individuals are stored and transmitted through the networks of third parties. Web site hosting services, Internet service providers, and search engines that link to materials on the Web are just some of the service providers that transmit materials created by others. Section 512 of the DMCA protects online service providers (OSPs) from liability for information posted or transmitted by subscribers if they quickly remove or disable access to material identified in a copyright holder’s complaint (generally referred to as a DMCA takedown notice).

In order to qualify for safe harbor protection, a service provider who hosts content must:

* have no knowledge of, or financial benefit from, infringing activity on its network
* have a copyright policy and provide proper notification of that policy to its subscribers
* list an agent to deal with copyright complaints

Of course, copyright owners want to hold the service providers liable, while the service providers want to claim immunity.

So, to answer your question, arguably TWO has knowledge of the infringing activity if they review each submission as you suggest.  This would put them outside the safe harbor and expose them to liability.  BUT, I suspect that they’re careful (or should be) about the manner in which they review submissions so that they can still claim the safe harbor protection.  The bottom line is it’s a gray area in the law that will probably be sorted out soon at the higher levels by the big players in the industry, Warner Music, YouTube, etc.

Hope this helps.

KLF Legal

Dear KLF Legal,

Q:  I want to produce a game and get a patent to protect it, but it is based off of another license. Do I have to get permission to use the license before I try to get the patent or should I get the patent first?

A:  Obtaining a patent can be expensive (think $5,000-$20,000) and the procedure is lengthy (2+ years) so you almost certainly will not want to get a patent first before you are sure that you are cleared to do so.  Go back to the license…does it speak to this issue? If you have trouble understanding the language of the license, you may need to have an attorney help you review it.  Also, keep in mind that to receive a patent your game must be new, non-obvious and useful. In other words, don’t dump a lot of time and expense into getting a patent before you’ve checked to make sure that a patent could even be received. You can do so by having an patentability search performed on your behalf.

Here’s a helpful article that discusses the benefit of patents in the game industry.

Good luck with your game.

KLF Legal

Indiana Patent Litigation Update

09 Monday Feb 2009

Posted by Kenan Farrell in Litigation, Patent

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Alcon Research, Infringement of U.S. Patent

Alcon Research, Ltd. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al.
1:09-cv-00102; filed February 2, 2009 in the Southern District of Indiana

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,641,805 (“Topical Ophthalmic Formulations for Treating Allergic Eye Diseases,” issued June 24, 1997), 6,995,186 (“Olopatadine Formulations for Topical Administration,” issued on February 7, 2006), and 7,402,609 (same title, issued July 22, 2008 ) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Apotex’s filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Alcon’s Pataday® (olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, used to treat ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis).  View the complaint here.

Alcon Research, Ltd. et al. v. Sandoz Inc.
1:09-cv-00103; filed February 2, 2009 in the Southern District of Indiana

Infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,641,805 (“Topical Ophthalmic Formulations for Treating Allergic Eye Diseases,” issued June 24, 1997) following a Paragraph IV certification as part of Sandoz’s filing of an ANDA to manufacture a generic version of Alcon’s Patanol® (olopatadine hydrochloride ophthalmic solution, used to treat ocular itching associated with allergic conjunctivitis).  View the complaint here.

Courtesy of Patent Docs.

← Older posts
Newer posts →

Categories

  • Advertising Law (1)
  • Artists (23)
  • Authors (20)
  • Bloggers (37)
  • Branding (29)
  • Business Law (9)
  • Copyright (327)
  • Dear KLF Legal (4)
  • Defamation (5)
  • Entertainment Law (14)
  • Estate Law (2)
  • Family Law (2)
  • Fashion (5)
  • Federal Initiatives (33)
  • Indiana (603)
  • Indianapolis (51)
  • Intellectual Property (662)
  • Just for Fun (25)
  • KLF Legal (19)
  • Legislation (34)
  • Litigation (595)
  • Musicians (13)
  • Nonprofit (6)
  • Northern District of Indiana (215)
  • Patent (44)
  • Privacy (15)
  • Right of Publicity (8)
  • Social Media (56)
  • Southern District of Indiana (369)
  • Stories from the Week that Was (42)
  • Supreme Court (13)
  • Tech Developments (119)
  • Trade Dress (26)
  • Trade Secret (15)
  • Trademark (363)
  • What I'm Reading (8)

Bloggers Copyright Federal Initiatives Indiana Indianapolis Intellectual Property Legislation Litigation Northern District of Indiana Patent Social Media Southern District of Indiana Stories from the Week that Was Tech Developments Trademark

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Join 81 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Indiana Intellectual Property Blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...