By Julie A. Laemmle
In 2015, BladeRoom Group, Ltd. (“BRG”) and Bripco (UK) Limited (“Bripco”) filed suit in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, alleging that Facebook as well as Emerson Electric Co., Emerson Network Power Solutions, and Liebert (collectively “Emerson”), stole its designs for pre-fabricated modular facilities to build the Facebook data center in Lulea, Sweden. The lawsuit also contended that Facebook published the data center ideas on an Open Compute Project blog in violation of the Open Compute rules, which stipulate that members can only share intellectual property with the owner’s consent. BRG ultimately sought $365 million in damages from its claims for trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.
BRG claims it met with the Facebook and Emerson executives in the summer of 2011 and discussed BRG’s technology shortly thereafter. Subsequent to this meeting, Facebook asked BRG for Continue reading
Steve Hall and Matt Williams, members of Wyatt’s Intellectual Property Protection & Litigation Service Team, were quoted in Louisville Business First. The article, “Intellectual Property Law Has a Real-World Impact on Businesses,” describes changes in Intellectual Property Law and their effect on companies and individuals alike.
Please click here to read the full article.
Steve Hall, an experienced patent lawyer and litigator, and member of Wyatt’s Intellectual Property Protection & Litigation Service Team, was recently quoted in the February 2016 issue of The Lane Report. The article, “Many Options to Protect Intellectual Property,” draws upon the knowledge of local experts in the field and describes various ways to ensure a company’s intellectual property is protected.
Please click here to read the full article.
Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP is pleased to announce that Stephen C. Hall has been appointed as Vice Chair of the Patent Litigation Subcommittee of the Defense Research Institute’s Intellectual Property Litigation Section. The Intellectual Property Litigation Section is dedicated to meeting member needs relating to substantive law issues in patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret litigation as well as professional and business development. The Section particularly focuses on issues related to IP litigation and provides the defense practitioner with the skills and tools needed to thrive in this competitive market. The Defense Research Institute (DRI) is the leading organization of defense attorneys and in-house counsel in the nation and has served the defense bar for more than 50 years.
Mr. Hall concentrates his practice in the areas of patents and litigation involving medical technology, life sciences, and chemical products and inventions. He is a registered patent attorney who practices before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and in federal and state courts. He is a former President of Kentucky Defense Counsel and former Vice Chair of the Biotechnology Law Committee of the American Bar Association. Mr. Hall is AV rated in Martindale-Hubbell and has been recognized in Woodward/White’s The Best Lawyers in America for Biotechnology, and Kentucky Super Lawyers and Chambers and Partners USA in the area of Intellectual Property. He has also been recognized as one of the top lawyers in the area of Patent Law by Louisville Magazine. Mr. Hall earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Louisville, magna cum laude, and his law degree from the University of Cincinnati College of Law.
Glen Reid, member of the Firm’s Intellectual Property Protection & Litigation Service Team, was recently named a legal Power Player by Inside Memphis Business. The Power Players list is an annual feature that highlights the city’s top movers and shakers. The editorial board consists of Inside Memphis Business staff, along with informed business and community leaders.
Click here to view the list of legal Power Players.
By Carl Eppler
It may not seem intuitive to connect intellectual property rights with a human tragedy, but indeed, the two intersect more often than we realize. This is likely not the proper forum to opine on the propriety of such an intersection, or the motives of those who mine its connections, but it is a topic ripe for discussion because it is so common in today’s world.
In the wake of the Paris Charlie Hebdo massacre on January 7, 2015, people from around the world began showing their solidarity with the victims under the hashtag “#jesuischarlie.” “Je Suis Charlie!” also became a rallying cry for the multiple demonstrations that followed the attack. Forty-eight hours later, someone in the U.S. filed a trademark application for “Je Suis Charlie.” You can check out the filing for yourself.
On its face, the filing appears legitimate — the applicant, the Je Suis Charlie Trust, is seeking to trademark the phrase for “[p]romoting charitable giving that reflects the core values of the donor by providing a method to identify the donor’s core values and to select charities that foster those values.” The application claims the first use of the mark in commerce was “at least as early” as the day of the attacks, though it is unclear how Continue reading
By Stephen C. Hall
This is the third and final post of a three-part series on written description requirements and the developing case law under the America Invents Act (AIA).
“Genus”: a class, kind, or group marked by a common characteristic(s)
“Species”: a logical subdivision of a genus marked by a specific attribute
Taxonomy (classifying things according to genus and species) also has a parallel in patent law. A patentee may use narrow species claims to distinguish against prior art, while at the same time seeking the broadest possible “right to exclude” with a genus claim(s). But there are trade-offs. First, the Patent Office can reject a broad genus claim if only one member of the genus was known in the art. Second, the patentee must provide a level of description proportional to the scope of the claim. In litigation, defendants accused of Continue reading
By Stephen C. Hall
This is part two of a three-part series on written description requirements and the developing case law under the America Invents Act (AIA).
The previous post in this series introduced the potential litigation hurdle – or, opportunity, depending on one’s perspective – involving the requirement that a “parent” patent application must satisfy the written description requirement with respect to claims of a later-filed “child” application. While this requirement is well established under U.S. patent law, the interaction between the written description requirement and the AIA is a new wrinkle.
An AIA “transitional application” is one filed after March 16, 2013, which claims the effective filing date of an application filed on or before March 16, 2013. If such a priority claim is justifiable, then Continue reading
By Stephen C. Hall
This is part one of a three-part series on written description requirements and the developing case law under the America Invents Act (AIA).
It happens regularly in patent litigation: a patentee asserts a patent that arose from a child application, the child application claims priority to an application filed years before, and the development of prior art in the intervening years affects the outcome of the litigation. In various cases, the outcomes (along with millions of dollars in damages) have hinged on the teachings of a parent application.
One such case involved the alleged infringement of Continue reading
By Will Gibbons
Recently, I wrote a column titled “Legislation could hurt songwriters, listeners” for The Commercial Appeal. In this piece, a Special to the news publication, I discuss the possible implications of the Songwriter Equity Act, a bill under consideration in Congress.
Read the article in its entirety here.