Blog

Is Austin better than Waco?—Judge Albright Orders Intra-district Transfer but Keeps Case on His Docket

By Vincent  Allen* As discussed in my prior post, the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas has seen a dramatic uptick in the number of patent infringement suits since Judge Albright took the bench.  And like other venues where plaintiffs have flocked, it is only natural that defendants attempt to transfer cases out of Waco where venue is either improper or clearly more convenient in another forum. In a suit filed against Dell Computers by Datascape in the Waco Division on February 13, 2019, Dell did just that.  Dell has its headquarters in Round Rock, a suburb of Austin located in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas.  However, the same rules for transfer for convenience under section 1404(a) apply to intra-division transfer requests as for transfer between districts. Dell asked Judge Albright for an intra-district to transfer of the case from the Waco Division to…

Continue Reading →

Waco, Texas—Will Judge Alan Albright Create a New Hotbed of Patent Litigation Deep in the Heart of Texas?

By Vincent Allen* The Waco Division of the Western District of Texas has seen a dramatic up-tick in the number of patent infringement suits filed there since Judge Alan Albright was sworn into office in September 2018.  The judge’s implementation of standing orders for patent cases and his promise of running an efficient docket by issuing timely rulings and offering prompt access to jury trials makes the venue an attractive choice.  While not any case can be filed in Waco due to the restrictions placed on venue in patent cases by the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision, the Western District of Texas is home to places of business for many companies.  In addition to Waco, the district includes Austin,  San Antonio, Midland-Odessa, and El Paso.  So venue would be proper in Judge Albright’s court against any company that has a regular and established place of business in these other cities.  However, a plaintiff may face a motion to transfer venue for convenience to another…

Continue Reading →

Trademark Abandonment

If you are a trademark owner who has several registered trademarks that correlate to various products in your portfolio, then you may have periods of time in which certain trademarks are not currently being used. While periods of non-use are often unavoidable, there are a few things to keep in mind during these times so as not to inadvertently abandon your trademark or cancel your registration. To abandon a mark means to cease use of the mark. Abandonment of an application is a formal term which means that the unregistered application is no longer pending and, thus, cannot mature into registration.  The term cancellation is used to describe what occurs when the owner of a trademark registration no longer has rights to a mark, and the registration ceases to be enforceable. Occasionally abandonment or cancellation may be intentional, but, most of the time, it is inadvertent. One way a federally…

Continue Reading →

Protecting your Business: Copyright vs. Trademark

Have you ever wondered about the difference between copyrights and trademarks?  Do you have a great product and wonder if you can do more to protect it from competitors?  If so, this short and sweet article is for you. First, let’s look at copyrights.  The basic rule is fairly simple: to be copyrightable, a work must be fixed in a tangible form and have a modicum of originality.[1]  Of course, as with most legal issues, there are nuances that can complicate matters.  For example, you cannot copyright a fact or abstract idea, but you can copyright an original expression of the fact or idea.[2]  Similarly, you cannot copyright functional aspects of a work, although you can copyright features that are separable from the functional aspects.[3] There are several advantages associated with copyrights. First, they can literally last a lifetime. . . or even longer.[4]  Also, infringement of a registered copyright…

Continue Reading →

Colin On The Mark Davis Show!

On February 19th, Colin Cahoon returned to the Mark Davis Show to discuss intellectual property.  The focus of the discussion was on entertainment and highlighted related considerations under copyright, patent, and trademark law. Colin discussed the recent lawsuits against the famous game Fortnite that have been brought under copyright as well as California privacy laws.  In particular, players of the game are able to purchase characters along with dance moves for their characters.  The dances typically emulate famous dances or people including the “Milly Rock” by Terrence Ferguson (aka 2 Milly), the “floss dance” by Russell Horning (aka backpack kid), and the Carlton performed by Alfonso Ribeiro in Fresh Prince of Bel-Air. Colin commented that dance moves that have been successfully protected under patent law in the past.  For example, Michael Jackson was issued a patent for his “method and means for creating antigravity illusion.”  The idea was conceived by…

Continue Reading →

Women Inventors—Does this group comprise you?

Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Samuel Morse, Henry Ford, Bill Gates—the list of famous male inventors that many Americans can recite from memory are endless.  Mary Kies, Hedy Lamarr, Bette Graham, Josephine Cochrane—do any of these names sound familiar?  These are just a few among many women who hold U.S. patents and have contributed significantly to science, engineering and technology.  In observance of Women’s History Month, we recognize these trail blazers and their contribution to the U.S. and to the world. Nineteen years after the passage of the Patent Act of 1790, Mary Dixon Kies was the first woman inventor to receive a U.S. patent for her method of weaving straw with silk or thread.  Her patent, describing a new technique for making hats, was signed by President James Madison and was recognized by the First Lady as a source of aid to the American economy. Hedy Lamarr was a famous…

Continue Reading →

SEPs, FRAND and Antitrust

Courts, patent owners, attorneys and policy makers are currently working through challenges associated with the large numbers of patents, especially in the cellular phone space and other related wireless communication, that read on portions of the industry standards necessary to implement the technology to function with products from multiple competing vendors.   Such patents are termed “standard essential” and patent owners that are members of  industry standards setting organizations are often under an obligation to license such “standard essential patents” or “SEPs” to the industry on terms that are “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” (“FRAND”).   Numerous issues have developed as to when a patent is properly considered an SEP, when a FRAND obligation arise, what is the appropriate FRAND royalty, and whether pooling SEPs among a group to wall off others from implementing the standard raises antitrust issues. Judge Gilstrap in the Eastern District of Texas recently considered several SEP issues in…

Continue Reading →

Mayo v. Prometheus: 7 Years Later – Re-Establishing a Workable Solution for Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

The year was 2013.  You may remember it for the roll-out of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obama-Care) or perhaps the Boston Marathon Bombings.  For me, the latter event hit especially close to home.  I was attending law school in Boston, and earlier in the day I rode my bike to watch the Boston Marathon.  Little did I know that home-made bombs would soon shatter the lives of runners and spectators alike.  Later, I remember sitting on the couch in my apartment and hearing the omnipresent whine of sirens – the sound seemed to be coming from everywhere at once, and for good reason.  One of the perpetrators lived a few blocks from my apartment in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Being a patent attorney, I also remember 2013 for other events, although most people probably didn’t notice.  In particular, I remember 2013 for the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in…

Continue Reading →

Recapping 2018—The year of Data Privacy

Last year, General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) went into effect in the European Union (EU) regulating and protecting data from individuals within the EU.  Large US companies operating abroad were forced to update their privacy policies and procedures and have opted to broaden the changes to individuals even outside the EU.  Although GDPR has already affected companies operating in the US, there is no equivalent US federal law in place to regulate individual data. Instead, the privacy laws are enforced on a state level. California recently announced its own new privacy law, the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), that will go into effect in 2020.  Because many large companies operate in California as well as the EU, many of the practices in these regions will also extend to the remaining states.  However, the concern over data misuse on a national level continues to heighten as CEOs like Mark…

Continue Reading →

Principal vs Supplemental Register

If you are researching potential trademarks for your business or your products, you may have come across terms such as principal register and supplemental register. To the uninitiated, these terms can be a little confusing and opaque. So, what is the difference between the two and do you have a choice when you request registration of your trademark? To begin, yes, you do have a choice; Ideally, however, you want your mark on the principal register. Generally, when discussing trademark protection, one is referring to the principal register. Marks that distinctly identify the source that the goods or services come from are placed on the principal register. Once there, these marks are given the full range of protection afforded by federal registration. The supplemental register, in contrast, is for marks that are determined to be merely descriptive and not unique. A mark that is placed on the supplemental register does…

Continue Reading →

How Much Do You Care About Your Right-to-Repair?

The two decade old Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) was intended to prevent circumvention of protective measures placed on copyrighted material such as movies and music.  In the absence, or perhaps scant presence, of legislative updates, the same laws used to govern movies and music have been extended to new technologies brought by the internet age.  To keep pace with emerging technology, section 1201 of the DMCA calls for triennial proceedings to determine the types of activity that are temporarily exempt from anti-circumvention laws. The proceedings are meant, in part, to prevent overreach of the DMCA into activities that should remain fair use. At the same time, software is quickly becoming ubiquitous and more vulnerable to reverse engineering, necessitating intellectual property protection outside of trade secrecy.  The issues of increasing importance is determining what types of protection will continue to be available to copyrighted software and how “impermissible circumvention” could…

Continue Reading →

Everyone Copied My Code!!!

Over 75% of Americans use a smartphone today according to the Pew Research Center.[1] As a result of the large number of people utilizing smartphones, smartphone operating systems and applications are being developed at an ever-increasing pace.[2] For software developers, one question that is not often considered until it is too late, is what can I do to protect my developments? One way software can be protected is through copyright. Even the largest of companies, Google Inc., could not avoid a copyright infringement suit by Oracle. While the case is ongoing, it has the potential to change the direction of copyright caselaw for software related cases. Oracle America, Inc. (“Oracle”) is the copyright owner of the JAVA operating system and development platform. Oracle sued Google, LLC, after Google copied portions of the JAVA application programming interface (“JAVA API”). More specifically, the lawsuit has resulted in a long and drawn out…

Continue Reading →

Monkey Can Selfie But Can He Copyright?

What do whales, dolphins and porpoises have in common with a monkey of the Celebes crested macaques-type from Northern Sulawesi (Indonesia)? And how does that in turn connect with the concept of “next friend” in the context of “standing”? In fact, what is “standing”? All of these are brought together in a tale that starts in Sulawesi with a monkey named Naruto and a photographer named David John Slater, who contrived to leave his photographic equipment unattended in the hope monkeys would activate it. Seeing his opportunity, Naruto approached and took several selfies. Slater and Wildlife Personalities Ltd. (Wildlife”) published the selfies, and the rest is, as they say, history. The selfies went viral on the Internet. Slater and Wildlife claimed ownership of copyrights in the selfies. Naruto brought suit claiming copyrights as the author of the selfies. After all, it was undeniable, and Slater admitted, that Naruto pushed the…

Continue Reading →

Disgorgement of Defendant’s Profits as Damages for Trade Secret Misappropriation, and Reduction of Damages for Accessibility by Proper Means

Analyzing the monetary harm to a business through misappropriation of one or more trade secrets is fraught with difficulty.   How much does each specific trade secret contribute to the trade secret owner’s profit on each product? How important was each trade secret to the defendant’s accused product? What was the development timeline and did the trade secret provide an “early mover” development head-start. What are the relevant market shares?   Are there commercial substitutes? Do consumers have a preference?   Is that preference a basis of demand for the product? Did the defendant sell at a higher margin than the trade secret owner and make more profit per sale that the owner of the trade secret makes?   A relatively rare remedy that addresses some of these concerns is known as “disgorgement” where a judge (not a jury) may award the trade secret owner up to the total profit earned on sales of…

Continue Reading →

Pre-Litigation Patent Correction Procedures

So, to give your business an “edge,” you invested in a team of innovative professional engineers and scientists.  It paid off: you developed and perfected advanced technologies, as compared to your competitors. But, now they seem to have adopted your technologies to compete with you.  However, you took the precaution to obtain patent rights.  Now might be the time to exercise those rights and protect the return on your R&D investments. Before proceeding, there are a host of factors to consider, including broader business and market strategies, in addition to the “purely legal issues” posed by filing a patent lawsuit.  As to the legal issues, at the outset one is plainly “due diligence.”  This includes simply taking those steps that a reasonable, prudent businessman would take.  One of these steps is to have a person skilled at reading patent claims, a patent lawyer, take a look at the issued patents,…

Continue Reading →

C&C Diversity News

Carstens & Cahoon continues to lead the Texas IP pack in the promotion of diversity and diversity initiatives.  Earlier this year, Carstens & Cahoon was recognized by PepsiCo Inc. as a part of PepsiCo’s outside counsel diversity initiatives for the firm’s demonstrated commitment to increasing diversity and inclusion in the legal profession at PepsiCo’s annual diversity recognition day. Law firms recognized on this day participated in PepsiCo’s diversity survey adapted from the ABA Model Diversity Survey. The survey collects diversity metrics from U.S. law firms that billed PepsiCo in the prior calendar year. PepsiCo used a weighted formula to generate a diversity index score and examined the firms’ initiatives related to diversifying the legal profession. PepsiCo recognized law firms that earned diversity index scores above the median in comparison to their peers and demonstrated an exceptional commitment to diversity and inclusion through qualitative efforts. The firm’s PepsiCo Relationship Partner, Colin…

Continue Reading →

WHERE DID WE GO WRONG? THE IMPORTANCE OF CONDUCTING PRIOR ART SEARCHES ON A REGULAR BASIS.

Imagine your company has developed a great new product, and you have gone through the steps to protect your intellectual property in the product.  Now, a year down the road you are facing an accusation of infringement of a patent that you were not made aware of during the development of your product, but you would have found through even a short and straightforward prior art search performed by your patent attorney.                   In the fast-paced development found in industry today, it is not uncommon for products to move from development to production in a matter of days or weeks, and not the months or years of previous generations.  However, this does create some issues in the realm of intellectual property, as many of these products never have even a short and straightforward prior art search conducted to find if there are any…

Continue Reading →

Cease and Desist Letters After TC Heartland—Best Practices

The Supreme Court recently reversed over 20 years of Federal Circuit precedent that allowed patent infringement suits to be filed anywhere that the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant.  So long as, for example, the infringing product was sold in the district, venue was proper there.  As a result of the liberal interpretation of the venue rules, the Eastern District of Texas became a popular forum for patent infringement cases, with more cases being filed there than any other district in the country. Subsequently, new decisions regarding the inconvenience of a forum required the trial court to transfer the case if it was found to be clearly more convenient for the parties for the case to be heard elsewhere.  But now, after the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision, a patent infringement suit can only be filed against a corporate defendant either 1) where the defendant is incorporated or…

Continue Reading →

Clarifying the Distinction Between the “Inventive Concept” and “Patentability” Requirements When Determining Patent-Eligible Subject Matter

In the continuing wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s attempt in Alice v. CLS Bank to define what is eligible to be the subject matter of a patent, two recent decisions have been issued by the Federal Circuit that provide an important piece of the puzzle the Supreme Court left us with more than two years ago. In the Alice decision, which held that abstract ideas merely implemented using a computer are not eligible for patent protection, the Supreme Court created an “inventive concept” requirement in its two-part test, which requires the finding that a claim either is not directed to an abstract idea, or that if it is so directed, the claims recite “something more” than what has been done conventionally. Although Congress had seemingly removed any “inventiveness” requirement from patent law decades ago, its resurrection in Alice has caused confusion as to what exactly is needed to meet…

Continue Reading →

Who Carries the Burden in IPR—And, Does it Matter?

The Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceeding, part of the America Invents Act, sets up a streamlined procedure for any party (“petitioner”) to challenge the validity of the claims of an issued patent, not in a court, but in the US Patent Office, generally at a much lower cost when compared to federal court. An IPR is based on prior art patents and publications that the petitioner argues show that the claimed invention is not novel or is obvious. At the outset, in order for an IPR to be instituted, the petitioner must show a “reasonable likelihood” that it would prevail on a challenge to the validity of at least one claim of the patent. Once the petitioner meets this initial burden of proof, the inter partes “trial” of the patent claims can proceed before the Board. During the trial phase, both petitioner and patent owner can take limited depositions and…

Continue Reading →