Blog

Bumble Stings Back at Tinder

In the most recent development in the battle between Tinder and Bumble, Bumble has filed a lawsuit against Tinder’s parent Company, Match Group, alleging trade secret misappropriation. The lawsuit alleges Match and Bumble were in acquisition talks when Match Group requested “confidential and trade secret information” as a part of these discussions and subsequently used this information for its own business gains. Trade secrets constitute information which derives independent economic value from not being generally known. The suit further goes on to claim that once Match discovered other companies were also interested in investing in or acquiring Bumble, Match filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Bumble in an effort to make Bumble less attractive to those other companies. That prior lawsuit involves two of Match Group’s patents for “Matching Process System and Method” covering a computer-implemented method of profile matching involving swiping gestures and graphical representations of user online-dating profiles, and the swiping graphical user interface design used by Tinder. Bumble claims Match’s lawsuit has potentially negatively affected its other investment and acquisition opportunities. As such, the dating app is requesting $400 million in damages as well as an injunction preventing Match and its affiliates from utilizing the confidential information obtained from Bumble. #omnilegalgroup #tradesecrets #Tinder #Bumble

James Cole’s Screenwriting Debut at the 16th Annual Indian Film Festival

Omni Legal Group superstar James Cole’s screenwriting debut will screen at the 16^th annual Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles. The short film titled “Fifteen Years Later” is set 15 years post-911 and the story depicts two once-promising young men who have been experiencing psychological and professional deterioration since this tragedy. This acclaimed festival is widely recognized as the premiere showcase of groundbreaking Indian cinema internationally and features a distinguished panel of jurors that will preside over the festival’s features and shorts competitions.  While the festival lasts from April 11^th-15^th, the premier of “Fifteen Years Later” will take place on April 15^th.

To catch the showing, find more information and order tickets here:

FIFTEEN YEARS LATER

Did you know?

Abraham Lincoln is the only U.S. president to hold a patent. Indeed, in 1849, Honest Abe received U.S. Patent No. 6,469 for a “Manner of Buoying Vessels.” This patent envisioned a device for lifting boats over shoals. Lincoln was inspired during a trip traveling across the Great Lakes during which the steamboat ran aground on a sandbar. The captain of this boat improvised by emptying barrels and boxes and forcing them under the sides of the boat, thereby buoying it up. Prior to this, steamboats would discharge cargo and people when they got stuck in shallow water. This invention, however, was never put into practice.

10 Million Patents

This summer, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) anticipates the 10 millionth patent will issue. Over the span of these last 9 million-some-odd patents, the patent system has experienced significant changes and developments.

This first Patent Act was put into place in 1790, merely one year after ratification of the Constitution and formation of the new government. Based on Congress’ power to grant writers and inventors exclusive rights to their works in order “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,” this Act provided a 14-year expiration for patents and vested the power to grant patents in a three-person commission. The first such commission comprised Thomas Jefferson, General Edmund Randolph, and the Secretary of War Henry Knox.

A few years later, in 1793, this three-member board was eliminated and instead the Secretary of State was given the authority to issue a patent to any applicant who complied with the prescribed formalities, swore as to their invention’s originality, and paid a fee. Moreover, this simple but less protective system broadened the language to include any “new and useful improvement” to an existing product. This wording remains to this day.

Dr. William Thornton was appointed the first Commissioner of Patents in 1802. Thornton served in this position for 26 years. In 1814, during the burning of Washington, he persuaded the British to spare the Patent Office, claiming the knowledge contained within was useful to all mankind.

The Patent Act of 1836 established the procedure for patent application examination prior to issuance. Previously, all patent applicants issued. As a result, professional patent examiners were hired and a library of prior art was established. Additionally, the patent numbering system was reset and U.S. Patent No. 1 was issued to Senator John Ruggles, who authored the Patent Act of 1836. Later that year, the Patent Office caught fire, destroying many patent documents and models.

In the 20^th century, the Patent Act saw another revision that clarified and reorganized patent law while incorporating several substantive additions, including the requirement of invention as stated in 35 U.S.C. §103.  Then, in 1975, the Patent Office was renamed the United States Patent Office. The USPTO relocated to its current headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia nearly three decades later. Most recently, in 2011, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act was signed into law, constituting a transition from a “first-to-invent” to a “first-to-file” system in addition to other modifications.

Wal-Mart Patents Automated Shopping Carts

Earlier this month, U.S. Patent No. 9,908,760 was granted to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. for “Shopping facility assistance systems, devices and methods to drive movable item containers,” which in essence, covers a robot shopping cart. The shopping cart is depicted as a typical cart with a motor attached to the bottom and includes sensors and cameras. The sensing device thereon allows the shopping cart to communicate with a mobile device and help shoppers navigate through the store. Consumers using a “user interface device,” such as a smart phone, can request a cart, which is then fetched via a roaming motor and brought to the customer. Another portion of the patent describes the system’s ability to receive an item request, search the inventory database, and send the motorized unit to the proper shelf to ensure the item’s availability. Additionally, this invention provides a tagalong feature allowing the cart to follow or lead the shopper around the store. Wal-Mart recently received patents for a wearable device that tracks customers and in-store drone assistants to assist with in-store shopping. Overall, these patents suggest Wal-Mart could be making a play toward cashier-less shopping or these could join the many other patents that are issued to large companies but never realized. #omnilegalgroup #patents #WalMart

Make IP Great Again

In an initiative to punish China for persistent intellectual property theft and bolster the American economy through job creation, President Donald Trump is prepared to impose $60 billion per year in tariffs against over 100 Chinese products. Last August, President Trump ordered an investigation by the United States Trade Office into China’s improper transfer of American technologies to Chinese companies. It has been estimated that intellectual property theft costs America upwards of $600 billion a year and China accounts for most of this loss. This theft not only harms economic growth but also costs Americans jobs, weakens our military capability, and undercuts innovation. Chinese IP theft has affected virtually every sector of the American economy including automobiles, chemicals, consumer electronics, pharmaceuticals. and biotechnology. This covers a wide array of activities including counterfeiting of American fashion designs, pirating movies and games, and stealing proprietary software. Of particular concern is China’s targeting of America’s defense system in which Chinese spies have gone after the United States’ most powerful weapons. Those in opposition to the President’s Section 301 tariffs cite the fact that, in 2017, China was the U.S.’s largest trading partner in goods with exportation to China equating to roughly $130 billion and importation from China representing nearly four times this amount. If implemented, this tariff package would constitute the broadest set of punitive economic actions imposed by a modern U.S. President against China. Consistent with his “America First” campaign, President Trump’s plan will likely either lead to an all-out trade war or finally even the trade playing field for the U.S. #omnilegalgroup #intellectualproperty #POTUS #China

Saint Patrick’s Day Intellectual Property

Saint Patrick’s Day started as a religious holiday for honoring the patron saint but is now a more general celebration of Irish culture. Certain items commonly associated with the holiday are subject to intellectual property protection. Indeed, in 1993, shamrock shaped sunglasses, worn by many celebrators, were patented. Additionally, “Green Coloured Beer and Method for Production Thereof” is also the subject of a patent using blue food coloring to transform the golden color of beer to green. Guinness has also taken steps to protect its iconic Irish product by trademarking their signature Irish harp logo. The company was also the first to patent the “beer widget” as “Improved Method of and Means for Dispensing Carbonated Liquids from Containers.” The widget is a small sphere, similar to a ping pong ball, aimed at achieving the perfect carbonation and consistency of beer. Lastly, every child’s favorite leprechaun, “Lucky” of Lucky Charms cereal has been registered as a trademark in addition to the cereal’s slogan “they’re magically delicious.” Moreover, the “Multi-Colored Aerated Confectionary Products,” or marshmallow candy, have been patented. #omnilegalgroup #patents #trademarks #StPatricksDay

Omni Legal Group Would Like to Congratulate Lara Petersen on Passing the Patent Bar!

Omni Legal Group would like to congratulate Lara Petersen, its newest attorney to pass the Patent Bar examination. The United States Patent and Trademark Office Registration Examination, or Patent Bar, tests the applicant’s knowledge of applicable patent laws, rules, and procedures, and ability to analyze factual situations and properly apply these principles. Passage of this exam allows individuals to practice before the USPTO in the presentation and prosecution of patent applications. To sit for the test, each applicant must possess the legal, scientific, and technical qualifications necessary for him or her to render valuable service to clients seeking to obtain patent protection. With an average pass rate of about 50%, the Patent Bar ranks among standardized tests with one of the highest failure rates. As such, it is worth noting that Ms. Petersen passed the exam on her first attempt. She now joins the three other experienced patent attorneys at Omni Legal Group.

Did you know?

Not only is California an ideal place for filmmakers due to the temperate weather conditions and beautiful scenery, in the early 20^th century it also provided a safe haven from patent owners like Thomas Edison. In 1908, Edison helped form the Motion Picture Patents Company (MPPC) which held 16 major film patents. Representing a virtual monopoly on the movie industry, these patents covered nearly everything including projectors, cameras, and film stock. Further, the MPPC vigorously protected its patents by suing any pirates who screened or produced films without its permission and without paying for a license to use the patented equipment. In response to this negative environment, independent filmmakers including Carl Laemmle of Universal Pictures and Adolph Zukor of Paramount Pictures migrated to Hollywood, California ushering in a new era of American film. Judges in California were known for being unfriendly to patent owners and enforcement across the country otherwise proved burdensome. By 1915, Laemmle completed construction of his movie metropolis, Universal City, which is now home to the largest film production facility in the world and a theme park.

Just Sue It: Nike Faces Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

In 2015, photographer Jacobus Rentmeester sued Nike, Inc. alleging copyright infringement for the company’s use of its iconic “Jumpman” logo. Last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of the action.

The photograph of Michael Jordan was first captured by Rentmeester in 1984 and appeared in Life Magazine as part of a photo essay. Inspired by ballet’s grant jete pose, Jordan’s unusual stance is similar to a dancer’s leap with legs extended, one foot forward and the other back. The photographer entered into a limited license agreement with Nike whereby Nike was provided with color transparencies of the photograph for “slide presentation only.” Nike went on to reproduce its own version of the photographer, this time with Michael Jordan donning Nike shoes and the Chicago skyline in the background as a nod to his team, the Chicago Bulls. Later, the signature “Jumpman” logo emerged featuring a solid black silhouette that outlines Jordan’s figure as it appears in the Nike photograph.

To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff needs to prove (1) that he owns a valid copyright in the work and (2) that the accused copied protected aspects of that work’s expression. While the Ninth Circuit agreed Rentmeester owns a valid copyright in the photograph, the court found he cannot copyright the pose itself, thereby preventing others from photographing a person in the same pose. Instead, Rentmeester is entitled to protection only for the way in which the pose is expressed in the photograph. Otherwise unprotectable elements such as camera angle, timing, and shutter speed, are protectable only to the extent of the photographer’s selection and arrangement thereof. Thus, while both photos embody a similar idea or concept, they express it in different ways so Nike cannot be liable for copyright infringement.