Blogs on Patent & Trademark cases

COPYRIGHTING A DREAM

Selma and the Intellectual Property involving Dr. King’s famed speeches.

Best Picture Oscar Nominee, Selma is a a cinematic portrayal of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s legendary march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama in support of the Voter Right’s Act of 1965. Despite the film’s many accolades, history buffs have been quick to raise criticism for its technically inaccurate portrayals of King’s famous speeches. In an effort to avoid violating the copyrights held by King’s estate – which have been reportedly licensed to DreamWorks and Warner Bros. for use in an upcoming film – director Ava DuVernay chose instead to paraphrase Dr. King’s works. The commentary surrounding this decision has run the gamut from enthusiastically supporting the King estate’s exercise of its rights, to decrying the copyright system for failing to make such socially important content available for free dissemination. It is easy to be swept up by the emotion displayed on both sides of the spectrum, especially when King’s work has had such a profound effect in shaping the social and political climate we face today. Still, it is important to put the copyrights at issue into perspective.

Frustrating though it may be to lack unfettered access to King’s speeches, the court of public opinion is not be the body that determines which art and which technology should be protected by the law. Indeed, the copyright and patent laws that govern such things have been put in place precisely in order to ensure that the often artful and intangible objects of our creation are indiscriminately provided with some manner of protection in the same way that our personal property is.

The issue here is not resolved by arguing that King’s speeches are so important that performing them verbatim should fall within the realm of allowable, license-free “fair use.” Indeed, had DuVernay proposed using King’s speeches for the purpose of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research, using the his words without a license would arguably be allowable. Instead, DuVernay would have used the work to draw a profit for herself and her associates through a wildly successful feature film. And it is precisely this unlicensed commercialization of his copyrighted works that King’s estate has consistently fought against with support from the courts.

‘I CANNOT LIVE WITHOUT BRAIN- WORK. WHAT ELSE IS THERE TO LIVE FOR? – SHERLOCK HOLMES

The famous literary detective Sherlock Holmes experienced a renaissance when new breath was given to him by Robert Downey, Dr. in the Guy Richie films and, more recently, in the television shows Sherlock and Elementary. Since then, the copyright status of Detective Holmes has become a subject of much debate and, inearly 2013, scholar Leslie Klinger brought suit a to determine who indeed owned
these rights.

In a suit brought against the estate of the detectives creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Klinger asked the courts to rule that the characters and other elements featured in 46 short stories and 4 novels (published from 1887 through 1922) are now in the public domain. A ruling in his favor would leave him, and others, free to sell their own adaptations of the Sherlock universe without any need to seek licenses from the Doyle estate.

The Supreme Court laid the issue to rest once and for all and Klinger got just what he wanted. On November 3, 2014, the Supreme Court did so by refusing to

because their features had been changed in later stories. Accordingly, any copyrights covering the elements of the Sherlock Holmes stories written prior to 1923 are now expired.

grant an appeal by the Doyle estate and by upholding a decision by the 7th Circuit. This decision held copyright protection in Conan Doyle’s characters, many of which are now more than 125 years old, could not be extended simply.

We’re curious to know which Sherlock stories would you like to reimagine?

Copyright Law: FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT…

The Beastie Boys are threatening to take legal action over a video set to their 1986 song “Girls.” This video depicts children building a Rube Goldberg-type machine and replaces lyrics such as “Girls — to do the dishes/ Girls — to clean up my room/” with the less offensive “Girls – to build the spaceship/ Girls — to code the new app.”

The video’s creator is claiming protection under the copyright doctrine of parody which is a form of fair use while attorney’s for the Beastie Boys assert the video is a “big problem” that has a “very significant impact.”

Share your views on this David and Goliath type copyright battle below.

Are the Days of Patent Trolling Numbered?

Patent trolling has long been on the minds of law makers seeking to put an end to this practice. Reform seems closer today than ever before as the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte released a discussion draft aimed at preventing abusive patent troll litigation.The Chair has indicated he will hold a hearing and committee vote on this new piece of legislation very soon. The new law sets its sites on adding more hurdles before patent trolls to shield inventors from unscrupulous tactics that may stifle innovation.

Google Expands Searchable Patents beyond the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Google has made it even easier for pro se inventors to conduct their own patent searches. The search giant has released information about their expanded database of patents beyond the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Now users can research patents in agencies including China, Germany, Canada, and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This resource can be accessed at patents.google.com. This a good place for inventors to start learning about what patent applications look like before seeking the advice of a patent professional.

Biotech Patent Law

The Supreme Court upheld Monsanto Co.’s patent infringement claim against an Indiana farmer who violated the company’s patents on weed killer resistant soybean seeds (Bowman v. Monsanto Co.). The decision came down as a unanimous vote Monday (5.13.2013). In their defense, the farmer’s argued cheap soybeans bought from a grain elevator were not covered by the Monsanto patents. Today, more than 90 percent of American soybean farms use Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” seeds.

Yet another chapter in the ongoing discussion involving gene patents, the Monsanto case was been closely watched by researchers and businesses holding patents on DNA molecules, nanotechnologies and other self-replicating technologies. Ever since the landmark holding in Diamond v. Chakrabarty, which held anything under the son made by man was patentable, the High Court has set a precedent of siding with the patent holder. Voice your opinion on this patent law issue below. And, as always, if you have any patent, trademark, copyright, or other intellectual property related questions, don’t hesitate to contact us at our Los Angeles or Beverly Hills Office by calling (310) 276-6664.

Software & Technology Patent Law

In an ongoing patent lawsuit between technology giants Microsoft and Google, Microsoft gains ground. A federal judge has ruled Microsoft owes less than half of the royalty payments for sales of Windows and the Xbox sought by Google. The amount totaling $4 billion a year in payments has been reduced to $1.8 billion. “This decision is good for consumers because it ensures patented technology committed to standards remains affordable for everyone,” David Howard, Microsoft’s corporate vice president and deputy general counsel, said in a statement.Voice your opinion on this patent law issue below. And, as always, if you have any patent, trademark, copyright, or other intellectual property related questions, don’t hesitate to contact us at our Los Angeles or Beverly Hills Office Office by calling (310) 276-6664.

Patent Law and Gene Patents

The gene patent dispute continues on both at home and abroad. Patents on genetic sequences have been a hotly contested part of United States patent law but we are not the only nation battling it out over isolated and purified sequences. Myriad Genetics recently came out victorious in an Australian court decision that recognized their ownership rights of gene linked to cancer. The victory was over Cancer Voices Australia and Yvonne D’Arcy, a Brisbane resident diagnosed with Breast cancer. “We intend to continue the challenge to the monopoly created by the patent held by Myriad,” Rebecca Gilsenan, a lawyer at Melbourne-based Maurice Blackburn, said in an e-mailed statement. Voice your opinion on this patent law issue below. And, as always, if you have any patent, trademark, copyright, or other intellectual property related questions, don’t hesitate to contact us at our Los Angeles or Beverly Hills Office by calling (310) 276-6664.

PATENT LAW: THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT – WHAT YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF.

March 16 marked the day a series of new Patent Laws went into effect. Below is an explanation of some important changes that could potentially impact your business.

The United States used to be one of the only countries where the first person to invent was awarded the patent for that invention regardless of when they filed their application. That is no longer the case. Desiring to get the U.S. in line with the rest of the world and increase the efficiency of the patent process, the AIA made the U.S. a “first to file system.” The first person to file their patent application, regardless of when the idea was conceived is now entitled to 20 years of patent protection calculated from the filing date regardless of whether or not they thought up the invention first.

Furthermore, selling or offering to sell an invention in the U.S. starts a one year clock ticking within which you have to file a patent application or forfeit your patent rights. Under the AIA such an offer or sale outside the U.S. also begins the count down to when you must file. This further increases the importance of filing for your ideas prior to taking them to market.

With regard to Design Patents, the term has been extended an additional year to 15 years from the date of filing. There are many more and these are just a few of the ways the AIA has impacted the patent system. For specific questions regarding how your business could be affected, don’t hesitate to contact us directly.

TRADEMARKING THE OLYMPICS – WHAT YOU CAN LEARN FROM THE I.O.C.

As athletes from all around the planet strive for gold in London, there are a few lessons we can all learn about what it means to be an “Olympian.”All across the United Sates and the world, the term “Olympics” is one of the most aggressively protected trademarks. There is a lot to learn from the way the Olympic Committee protects their mark from dilution and infringement.

Recently, the Committee was criticized for demanding a British butcher to take down his sign depicting the Olympic Rings shaped from sausages. Also, the domain owner of Ravelympics.com was made to change it to Ravelry.com. And though such zealous tactics may seem extreme to some, this type of vigilance may be necessary to ensure a mark remains in force for millennia to come. Examples of marks losing their exclusive protection and becoming generic include Thermos, Xerox, and Kleenex. These all began as exclusive trademarks which can now be used by the general public do to a lack of proper TM enforcement.

Trademarks are an investment and you should treat them as such. Although your mark may not be steeped in as much tradition and history as the time honored games, there is only one way to ensure they one day will. Protect your marks from infringers and start by registering them in the countries where you do business. This will ensure that your brand remains yours alone. You are the gold standard for what you do, so make sure other’s don’t get a free ride with the good will and reputation your efforts built.

For more questions on how we can protect your mark or on other intellectual property related matters, please contact our ofﬁce or friend us on Facebook.