IP News
September 29, 2006
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Multiple Joint Infringers of Process Claims: How Close Is Close Enough?
September 29, 2006
Typically, in an action concerning infringement of a process patent, the activities of an individual party are alleged to infringe one or more of the process patent claims. Under certain circumstances, however, the combined activities of two or more parties may constitute infringement of a process patent claim. Often, courts analyze these situations by determining if 'some connection' exists between the parties whose activities are being combined. This standard, in our view, ultimately defines more activities as infringing than is warranted. A more appropriate standard would be a 'working in concert' standard.
Lawsuit Could Clarify What Is Original in the Art World
September 29, 2006
It is a well-settled copyright axiom that only an original expression of an idea is protectable. In the world of fine art, however, the concept of 'original expression' is often too vague to be defined. Dale Chihuly, a world famous glass artist known for designs inspired by sea life, filed a lawsuit in October 2005 that may clarify the concept. He is fighting to protect his distinctive style of glass art in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Chihuly has accused former employee Brian Rubino of producing glass sculptures that infringe Chihuly's copyright-protected glass works. The suit also asserts that another individual, Robert Kaindl, is selling Rubino's copycat sculptures at prices below market value, thus injuring the market value of true Chihuly sculptures.
Everybody Wants to Direct: The Editing of Motion Pictures in Clean Flicks v. Soderbergh
September 29, 2006
On July 6, 2006, in <i>Clean Flicks of Colo., LLC v. Soderbergh</i>, 433 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Colo. 2006), the court granted summary judgment to several film studios, holding that the practice of making and distributing edited versions of the studios' motion pictures by the defendants, collectively known as the 'Clean Flicks defendants,' amounted to copyright infringement.
IP News
September 01, 2006
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news from around the country.
Can a Workforce IP Training Program Limit Liability Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act?
September 01, 2006
When a lower-level employee uses a former employer's trade secrets after taking a new job, the plaintiff often sues the new employer itself and demands exemplary damages under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act ('UTSA') — even if the new employer was unaware of, and disapproves of, the employee's conduct. Taking a page from the law of employment discrimination, we believe that companies that provide intellectual property training for their workforce can use the fact of such training during litigation to avoid exemplary damages for the solitary wrongdoing of non-executive-level employees and perhaps avoid vicarious liability altogether. Companies, especially technology startups, can reduce trade secret litigation and liability risks by implementing such programs — programs which today are very rare, even in Silicon Valley.
Copyright Grantees Served Sour Grapes in Steinbeck Dispute
August 31, 2006
In 1976 and again in 1998, Congress extended subsisting copyrights, by 19 and 20 years respectively. <i>See</i> Pub. L. 94-553, 90 Stat. 2541 (1976) (extending renewal term for pre-1978 works to 47 years, for 75 years total protection); Pub. L. 105-298, 112 Stat. 2827 (1998) (extending renewal term for pre-1978 works an additional 20 years, for 95 years total protection). Seeking to allow authors and their kin to share in the benefits of the newly extended terms, Congress afforded them a mechanism known as statutory termination. <i>See</i> 17 U.S.C. '304(c) and (d). The mechanism allows abrogation of contracts executed prior to Jan. 1, 1978, otherwise valid under state law, by which an author (or certain other specified persons) had transferred away copyright interests. To bolster and protect this termination right, Congress mandated that it may be effected 'notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary.' 17 U.S.C. '304(c)(5); <i>see also</i> 17 U.S.C. '304(d)(1).
