Patent, Trademark & Copyright : Law Office of Kloss, Stenger & LoTempio

What Inventors Need to Know...

Tom Demitry is an entrepreneur, an inventor, a salesman, a marketer, a man of ideas and as he will tell you first and foremost a father and a man of God. He is constantly coming up with new ideas and new ways to reinvent himself. His passion and enthusiasm are endless.

I met Tom about 10 years ago when I first became a patent attorney and he was looking for someone to help him file a patent application and get a patent for his invention, the PaintMat (PDF). Little did he know that he was my first client! It was the beginning of a long term working relationship and friendship.

Although that product never really became a financial success, Tom took the PaintMat idea across the country selling the product he had patented, manufactured and marketed and learned a lot of lessons in the process.

Since then he started a new endeavor selling baseball caps and various styles of hats with a Christian theme and marketing the hats under the registered trademark (.PDF) SpiritDomes®. This time it seems that Tom is on his way.

I thought a blog post about him might give inspiration and guidance to other inventors and entrepreneurs who are starting out. Here are a couple questions and answers from our interview:

How did you establish a national brand and hat line in this difficult economic climate?

I have 30 years experience in the head-wear business and I received my vision in church on one fateful Sunday. I was thinking of ways I could spread the word of God and had an awesome idea that was very unique in the industry. 

The idea is to imprint a quote from scripture on the under-visor of my product and design the artwork for a hat around the particular quote from the bible; a "SpiritDome".

No one in the world was doing this so I wanted to establish my own unique niche. Being different than everyone else is what helped the brand really take off. The key is to be different and it is what our target consumer, the youth of today want to be- unique and different!

What have you done to protect your idea?

I thought the best way to protect my brand was by filing for a registered trademark. I filed a trademark application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) through KlossLaw and SpiritDomes was a registered trademark within one year of filing. I believe a registered trademark is the best protection available because no one can ever use it in business. It's also versatile in that I can create product line extensions with the brand and the new products would carry the same protection.

What else do you do to build brand recognition?

I've always felt that if a brand was started at the grassroots level and done consistently over a long period of time, that would be the greatest protection of all. Next, all consistent marketing done to promote building the brand such as signage, promo cards, websites, Twitter, facebook, Linkedin, labels, etc. helps to shape the brand properly as well. What's great about the times we live in is that network marketing to get the word out is affordable and effective. The internet is amazing!

Another thing we're doing is partnering with producers, directors, musicians, speakers, etc. to spread the word about our brand.  The value of word of mouth really adds up. We also label our products with SpiritDomes.com to promote our website so that the public knows of and has a direct link to us. The web page is the easiest way to learn more about what we do.

What is the value of Trademark and brand recognition?

Building a profitable company is what we all try to do. The company builds equity in assets like inventory, real property and cash which have a value or net worth. The beautiful thing about brand building is that the brand name itself has what you call Brand Equity. The brand and goodwill in the company itself has value that can be sold for profit depending how famous it becomes.  Just like real-estate appreciates in value when people recognize the great location, the brand gains in value as more people know and recognize the name and associate it with a company that provides a quality product.

"A patent is limited by time but a trademark can last forever if the brand is built consistently and properly over time."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

How do you protect your intellectual property? What is intellectual property? Is a special sandwich that you make better than anybody else intellectual property? Imagine you are the owner of a new restaurant who has created a new edible masterpiece. And subsequently, to your surprise, you discover that a copycat sandwich is being made across the street, without your permission.What do you do? What are your remedies?

In a new television commercial, Burger King's mascot breaks into the headquarters of McDonald's and steals the recipe to the Egg McMuffin.

I don't think they can register the work with the U.S. Copyright Office and obtain a certificate of copyright. Can they file an application for patent registration of the sandwich structure?

Remember for something to be patentable subject matter it must be a new, useful and a non-obvious improvement over something that's already out there. You don't see too many patents on food recipes and sandwiches. Maybe a design patent (.PDF), but I doubt that will give them much protection.

It may be argued that the business conduct of Burger King in this instance is actionable under federal unfair competition provision of the Lanham Act. While the Lanham Act, in general, focuses primarily on obtaining, maintaining, and enforcing trademark and service mark rights, Section 43(a), allows for suits for false designation of origin. But I don't think there is a false designation, Burger King comes right out and says we're making our own version of this old sandwich.

And it's not a copy of a trade secret (like the McDonald's special sauce) so I don't think there's any grounds for McDonald's to bring a suit. There is probably not much McDonald's can do to stop Burger King from making their version of the egg McMuffin.

What is protectable is the brand name or the trademark. What Burger King is tacitly saying in this clever breakfast commercial is that, McDonald's doesn't own the rights to eggs, sausage, cheese or English muffins. McDonald's owns the trademark "Egg McMuffin(.PDF)."

John DeVore, recently wrote a Special article to CNN entitled "Big burger boys burgle breakfast." about the commercial showing how Burger King's new BK Breakfast Muffin Sandwich's is just a copy of the classic Sausage McMuffin.

But are McDonald's executives upset with this campaign? Have lawyers been rallied and accusatory calls been made?"We haven't received any direct feedback from competitors," said Brian Gries, Burger King's vice president of marketing impact. Gries further defends his company's choice to be up-front about the similarities between the BK Breakfast Muffin and the McMuffin, saying, "We are not above taking a product that we know customers like and delivering it to our guests at a great price."

I love the guile of Burger King making a full admission in the commercial that they are copying this sandwich. I would love to see the internal memos from the lawyers arguing about whether or not they should allow this commercial to air. It is not like McDonald's has not been involved in a number of lawsuits involving trademark issues in the course of its history. But I think if McDonald's brings a lawsuit in this instance it would fuel of a lot of bad press and they would have little chance of success.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tweet of the week

Thanks to @StrongerAmerica for tweeting this week about the importance of making innovation a top priority in corporate America.

James Andrew, senior partner and head of the global innovation practice at Boston Consulting Group, authors this article for Business Week.

The difference between a company whose CEO and leadership team have an "all-in" mentality regarding innovation, and one whose leadership supports innovation merely at an abstract level, is unmistakable—and so is the impact on the company's culture and results.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The latest edition of the proposed patent reform legislation was announced by the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee on legislation for patent reform. The act is now called the "Patent Reform Act of 2010" and is memorialized in the form of the Manager's Amendment (“Amendment to S. 515”).

When will this bill become law? This is a good question because it is a follow-up to the Patent Reform Act of 2009, the Patent Reform Act of 2008, the Patent Reform Act of 2007, the Patent Reform Act of 2006 etc. etc. etc.

Among the provisions of this proposed legislation is a modification of the false marking statute. Presently, 35 U.S.C. 292(b) provides that any private citizen can bring a qui tam action on the government’s behalf against an entity that falsely marks unpatented products. However the proposed legislation amends 292(b) to read as follows:

"A person who has suffered a competitive injury as a result of a violation of this section may file a civil action in a district court of the United States for recovery of damages adequate to compensate for the injury."

The Senate bill, if enacted, would have retroactive effect even for still-pending but earlier-filed actions as it states the amendment would "apply to all cases, without exception, pending on or after the date of the enactment of this Act."

Is this another way to protect big business at the cost of the little guy? Or is it just a way stop the onslaught of potential litigation? A list of 75 false marking lawsuits filed in the last two months against over 100 companies can be found on the Gray on Claims law blog. Many of these lawsuits have been filed by qui tam plaintiffs who are individuals or entities specifically formed to litigate such false marking suits and presumably have no claim of "competitive injury." Will they have to find an injured party?

If the patent reform amendment becomes law, qui tam plaintiffs who have filed or intend to file false marking suits for expired patent numbers will have another element to prove to win the case. How will the court define a "person who has suffered a competitive injury?"

Will something that a person would have done if not for the false marking be admissible?

1. Can a plaintiff claim it is a potential competitor and was dissuaded from entering the same market because of the false marking?
2. Can a plaintiff claim it suffered injury because it was deterred from continued scientific research to avoid possible infringement?
3. Can a plaintiff  argue that it suffered a competitive injury because it invested money to analyze patent validity or enforceability?
   

Related posts:

Patent Marking Police" Looking for the Big Jackpot

"Patent Trolls" Search for Falsely Marked Products

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Since my recent blog post entitled "Patent Trolls" Search for Falsely Marked Products the ad hoc “patent marking police” have filed at least 17 lawsuits alleging false marking against 33 different companies. This number is an approximation because False Marking suits are not consistently categorized within the federal court system. To see a list of False Marking suits filed in the last 2 months, go to Justin Gray’s blog, Gray on Claims.

The law allows any private citizen to bring a qui tam action on the government’s behalf against an entity that falsely marks unpatented products. A court can levy a fine for up to $500 for every product that is falsely marked. The final award is split evenly between the government and the person that brought suit.

What will happen if one person wins a huge damages award in one of these cases? How many more would be “Patent Police” will come out of the woodwork? In a blog post on IPWATCHDOG.com you can read A Fanciful False Marking Fiction By a Cottage Industrialist where the author daydreams about how “I just made 42 bajillion dollars today. And it’s not even 9 am.”

How easy is it to file a Patent False Marking complaint? Take a look at this complaint (PDF). Maybe you can be the next bajillionaire.

The two elements of a 35 U.S.C. § 292 false marking claim are:

1. marking an unpatented article; and
2. intent to deceive the public.

It will be interesting to see if the courts will find the necessary intent or mens rea to find false marking and what the courts will do in the “exercise of their discretion” as to the size of damage awards. Some argue that if you are marking a product with a patent number you should know when it expires and what it covers. Intent to deceive should be easy to prove. (See comment #7 by "Noise above Law"on IPWATCHDOG's post)

Now what about the damages award? The Federal Circuit held in the case of Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., No. 2009-1044, that the plain language of the false patent marking statute, requires courts to impose penalties for false patent marking on a “per article” basis.

The §292 statute provides a fine of “not more than $500 for every such offense. This does not mean that a court must fine those guilty of false marking $500 per article marked, even though it can. The statute provides district courts the discretion to strike a balance between encouraging enforcement of an important public policy and imposing disproportionately large penalties for small, inexpensive items produced in large quantities.

This means a court has the discretion to determine that a fraction of a penny per article is a proper penalty. The court's exercise of discretion is a balance between the chilling effect of false marking and imposing a mind boggling 42 bajillion dollars to be shared between the government and a brilliant member of the “patent marking police."

What is the chilling effect of a patent whose number has been falsely marked upon a product?

• Potential competitors may be dissuaded from entering the same market
• It may deter scientific research when an inventor decides to forego continued research to avoid possible infringement
• Can be the reason for unnecessary investment to design around
• Increases cost incurred to analyze patent validity or enforceability

I think the chilling effect of False Marking may be a serious consideration but I don’t think courts are going to start printing money. I have learned that what seems too good to be true, usually is. So don’t buy an armored truck to carry away your billions of dollars just yet.

Before taking my first law school exam Joe Walsh, a fellow law student, said to me that his attorney father gave him this advice: "If you don’t know what the answer to a question is, make pretend you are the judge and come up with a fair resolution."

Okay, you are the judge, what do you think is fair?

Related posts:

"Patent Trolls" Search for Falsely Marked Products

"Patent Reform Act of 2010" and False Marking Rule Change

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Tweet of the week

Thanks to @ipgossip for tweeting this week about Apple being the number one target for NPEs in the US. Joff Wild of IAM Magazine commented that,

"Apple must have spent well over $200 million on dealing with NPEs over the last few years and I imagine a few others can match that as well. No wonder so many companies hate NPEs and call them trolls."

According to a statement(.PDF) given by Teresa Stanek Rea,  then President of the American Intellectual Property Law Association, to The Subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy Committee on the Judiciary for the United States House Of Representatives

AIPLA conducts a nationwide survey of our members every two years on the cost of patent litigation. In 2007, we reported that the median cost of a patent infringement suit was $1,600,000, if $1 million to $25 million was at risk. The cost rises significantly as the stakes increase. The median average cost of a patent infringement case involving more than $25 million dollars was about $5,500,000.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

What a corporation needs to know about patent law...

I'm sorry if I insult anybody by using the derogatory term "Patent Troll"  for a non-practicing entity (NPE) or patent dealer that claims patent rights to technology and demands a licensing payment for the use of the technology. But if the name fits...

I'm not saying that simply suing to protect your patent rights makes you a Patent Troll. But it's clear that there is an industry where patents are obtained, bought and sold for the sole purpose of initiating lawsuits.

"As of January 1, 2010, PatentFreedom has identified and profiled over 315 distinct NPEs (a number which continues to increase). Since 1985, these NPEs have been involved in litigation with nearly 4,500 different operating companies in over 3,100 distinct actions. And the pace of activity is clearly increasing. Nearly 75% of the suits between these NPEs and operating companies were filed since 2003."

What is a patent troll?  When you hear the word troll you visualize the image of a troll underneath the bridge unjustly charging an unwary passerby a duty to cross the bridge. Or maybe you visualize a fisherman trolling for fish. Let's throw a hook out there (a lawsuit) and see what we can get.

After reading through various articles on the internet on this subject we find both sides of the argument. One side of the argument is that non- practicing entities are Patent Trolls that are eroding the economy, see article by Science Progress:

The patent system was created by the nation’s founding fathers not so much to protect individual ownership rights but to foster investment and technological advancement. Some individuals and companies, however, have opted to use the system for a different purpose: They acquire the rights to certain inventions that are crucial for the proper operation of other, larger inventions, and then essentially hold that intellectual property for ransom to be paid by those who need it. These so-called trolls typically do not make any product and, rather than inspiring innovation, tend to have a chilling effect. For a full discussion of the troll issue ...see Daniel P. McCurdy’s article, “Patent Trolls Erode the Foundation of the U.S. Patent System.”

The other side of the argument is that "patent holders" are just enforcing their constitutional rights. (see "Patent Troll:" A Self-Serving Label that Should be Abandoned)

 "A 'patent troll' is usually defined as someone who enforces a patent yet does not practice the invention protected by that patent. ...Enablers of innovation have consistently been demonized throughout recent literature and characterized as “trolls,” who systematically extort payment from unknowing victims.  Indeed, the cause of many of the lawsuits that 'patent troll' critics abhor is not caused by trolls at all.  To the contrary, the cause of patent infringement lawsuits and other enforcement activity is that others are using patented technology without authorization.  This fact can be and has consistently been addressed in the system as it exists today.  Whether coined “patent trolls” or not, intellectual property companies, small companies, non-manufacturing companies, and other “enforcers” ensure that the system operates as the Constitution directed."

There is public outcry in the patent community that there's a need for patent reform. And there's many suggestions on how to reform the patent system. Some people think that the examiners are are inefficient and allow patent claims that are drawn too broadly. With regard to the"'patent troll" issue it is argued that broad patent claims should be eliminated at the examination stage, and examiners should be better trained at stopping these types of patents from being issued.

Robert C. Pozen of the NY Times, says patent cases end up in court because " The quality of American patents has been deteriorating for years; they are increasingly issued for products and processes that are not truly innovative"  and that patent rules should "...[allow] experts in the field to submit explanatory or critical comments on patent applications." This will help inexperienced examiners make better decisions and improve the quality of allowed patents.

Patent experts argue better patents will stop patent trolls. But others such as Timo Fisher and Joachim Henkel's aren't convinced. See paper, titled "Patent Trolls on Markets for Technology - An Empirical Analysis of Trolls' Patent Acquisition":One Reason Why Improving Patent Quality Won't Solve the "Troll Problem"

"Surprisingly, and contrary to common belief, we find that troll patents are of significantly higher quality than those in the control group. This result implies that elevating minimum patent quality will not put an end to the patent troll business"

I'm not sure if patent quality is the problem. I think lawsuits are started by non-practicing entities regardless whether or not there is a strong case that a product or process infringes on the subject patent. Suits are brought knowing that the party being sued would rather settle even if they know it can be proved at trial that there is no infringement. So there's money to be made in these lawsuits.

In addition, non- practicing entities form corporations around individual patents or groups of patents to limit their liability and farm these cases out to attorneys who specialize in patent infringement cases on a contingency fee basis. The attorneys know that they will be supplied with an endless steam of infringement cases based on multiple patents, so it's worth their while to take a case and put it into suit regardless of the strength of the case. It is not uncommon that these cases are put into suit based on patents that arguably do not cover the product or process that is alleged to be the basis of infringement.

To say that the patent doesn't apply at all may be a stretch, however if it's in the ballpark and there can be an argument made that there is infringement and there is a deep pocket, then a lawsuit is filed. The pressure is on corporate America to either pay up or fight it out in the courts. And everybody knows how expensive a patent litigation is. As a result non-practicing entities get the unwanted moniker "patent troll."

There is Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that is supposed to stop frivolous lawsuits. However it appears that once a lawsuit is filed it is very difficult to prove that the lawyer or the entity filed it knowing there was no meritorious case. You don't often see Rule 11 enforced in these cases.

Often the patent troll files a lawsuit based on a patent where there a modicum of an argument that there is an infringement. In these case the biggest concern of the party being sued is not whether they are going to lose the lawsuit, but whether or not it will cost them a fortune to prove they're not infringing. Patent trolls, and particularly those who regularly make infringement allegations know that the enormous cost of patent litigation is a major deterrent against fighting the case through trail and that they will likely receive settlement offers.

So it's not a bad financial strategy for a Patent Troll to sue a patent infringement case whether or not there is a strong likelihood that the product actually infringes. In fact, patent trolls have been known to structure settlement offers around anticipated litigation costs, rather than around the alleged infringer’s sales figures. 

I wouldn't want to defame any non-practicing entities or their attorney's by saying that they know when they initiate a lawsuit that the patent which is the basis of the lawsuit really doesn't cover the product or process of the defendant corporation. Call me "an attorney trying to circle the defense wagons, using the common rallying cry of “patent trolls,” but does anyone really believe that out of thousands of cases filed by Patent Trolls that Rule 11 doesn't apply to any of them?

I guess each law suit has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and we shouldn't stereotype any group or demonize their chosen path to make a living. My experience in life is that the truth often lies someplace in the middle. But I also believe that where there is smoke there is fire.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

What a corporation should know about intellectual property law...

It is now in vogue for the new breed of "patent troll" to sue corporations in the US Federal Courts on behalf of the government for falsely marking unpatented products with patent registration numbers.

Corporations need to be able to identify and protect their intellectual property. However, corporate "Intellectual Property Management" and exploitation isn't always that simple. A corporate "IP Committee" should have a good understanding of the law concerning patent marking. Falsely marking a product can expose a corporation to substantial damage claims under 35 U.S.C. § 292 and not marking a patented product at all, may limit the ability of a patent holder to recover damages for infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a).

Section 292 of the Patent Act prohibits:

• Counterfeit marking: marking a product with a patent number without the patent owner’s permission

• False patent marking: marking a product with a patent number on an unpatented article, or the use of “patent applied for” or “patent pending” when no patent application is actually pending for the product

The statute allows any private citizen to bring a qui tam action on the government’s behalf against an entity that falsely marks unpatented products. A court can levy a fine for up to $500 for every product that is falsely marked. The final award is split evenly between the government and the plaintiff that brought suit.

The Court of Appeals Two-step Test (Clontech Laboratories, Inc. v. Invitrogen Corp.)

To determine whether the false patent marking statute has been violated evidence must show:

1. That patent’s claims do not cover the falsely marked product; and
2. The mismarking was done with intent to deceive the public.

Over the last few years, the false marking statute has gained popularity as private patent lawyers have brought false marking claims against corporations who have marked products with expired patent numbers. Patent counsel should advise their clients to examine their patent marking practices because the new patent marking trolls are searching for falsely marked products as a basis to file a lawsuit.

Plaintiffs are seeking literally billions of dollars in penalties. How many cups does the Solo Cup Company manufacture and sell? What about the Crayola Crayon Company? How much would the fine be, if a $500 fine was levied for every cup or box of crayons sold by these companies?

In 2007 a Washington patent attorney brought suit against Solo Cup Co. In Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., 540 F. Supp. 2d 649 (E.D. Va. 2008) Pequignot alleged that Solo Cup was manufacturing and selling millions of cups, lids, plates, bowls, and utensils with expired patent numbers.

Recently HEATHCOTE HOLDINGS CORP, INC filed a complaint (.PDF) claiming false patent marking against CRAYOLA LLC in the United States District Court in the Northern District of Illinois. Amount Demanded:$9,999,000.00

On December 28, 2009, the Federal Circuit held in the case of Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co., No. 2009-1044, that the plain language of the false patent marking statute, requires courts to impose penalties for false patent marking on a “per article” basis.

Prior to this Federal Circuit decision, many district courts had interpreted the false marking statute to impose a single fine or penalty for each “decision” to falsely mark products, irrespective of the number of articles manufactured. As a result, now each falsely marked item may represent a $500 fine.

The court did rule however that "in the case of inexpensive mass-produced articles, a court has the discretion to determine that a fraction of a penny per article is a proper penalty" and that district courts have the discretion to strike a balance between encouraging enforcement of an important public policy and imposing disproportionately large penalties for products produced in large quantities.

Bottom Line: Properly Mark Patented Products

1. Mark patented products with the proper patent registration number so as to give notice and preserve infringement damages.
2. Be aware of when the patent registration expires and stop marking products at the end of the patent term.
3. Don't mark products with patent numbers unless the patent claims cover the product.

Related posts:

"Patent Marking Police" Looking for the Big Jackpot

"Patent Reform Act of 2010" and False Marking Rule Change

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link