Welcome News

This is welcome news in my opinion regarding the enforcement of copyrights. The Associated Press is reporting a change in tactics by the music industry. I think this is a great idea because it gets more the root of the matter for the music industry, still protects the subject copyrights, but does not alienate consumers.

Important Trademarks

Trademark disputes have always interested me. This dispute between a Czech brewery and Budweiser is very interesting (HT: Wall Street Journal). It is also another demonstration of how important and valuable trademark rights can be, especially foreign trademark rights. A product may become incredibly popular in the U.S. and then be ready to get into foreign markets, but it may already be too late. Success is copied. That certainly includes foreign companies copying a product and/or trademark the see become popular in the U.S. It is important to secure those foreign trademark rights early.

The National Jury Instruction Project has developed a set of Model Patent Jury Instructions (HT: PatentlyO). First of all, I think it is a great idea to standardize jury instructions for patent cases. Having standard jury instructions may help eliminate confusion for possible jurors. Also, having standard jury instructions that will be applied in the case agreed upon at the beginning of the lawsuit helps keep everyone on the same page right from the start. I also like the way the jury instructions try to use terms that will be a little more understandable for the potential jurors. The only problem I see with that is that litigators may use the terms generally accepted by patent professionals, and this could cause some confusion with jurors who will be using the terms in the jury instructions.

This is a great post about the problems in the US Patent and Trademark Office, and the idea of changing the rules of patent procedure (HT: IP Watchdog). It really does sum up the frustration patent applicants and patent attorneys have with the PTO. Changing the rules in the middle of the process is unlikely to help the situation. Patent protection is still the best protection available for those inventors trying to protect their intellectual property rights, but it would be nice if that protection could be obtained, or denied, in a timely, effective manner.

Coldplay Sued for Copyright Infringement

Coldplay is being sued for copyright infringement. This will be an interesting case to follow. My prediction would be a settlement of some sort because of the amount of money involved and because a jury's reaction is basically impossible to predict. I would also add that in my opinion, copyright law is relatively difficult to define, adding one more layer of uncertainty.

New Rules

The news rules for patent prosecution proposed by the Patent Office have been causing quite a stir for a long time, as illustrated by these articles here and here. The news rules would provide serious restrictions on how patent applications are filed and how patentable material is protected. The rules would certainly favor the Patent Office over the inventor and that is not a good thing. It seems that in the past, the Patent Office has been a bit more liberal about granting patents and then letting the market sort things out later. I am not opposed to this idea because the result is that only those patents truly worth something end up in the court system and it allows any inventor to at least have their chance at coming up with "the next big thing."

Employment Contract Is Key

The Chicago Tribune reports that MGA Entertainment, the maker of Bratz dolls, will not be allowed to continue to sell the dolls. MGA Entertainment and Mattel have been in a legal battle and now Mattel has basically won the war. The article says the damages are based on claims of breach of contract and copyright, but the most important point is that the individual from MGA Entertainment claiming to have developed the Bratz dolls came up with the idea for the dolls while working at Mattel. This case is a huge victory for employment contracts that protect intellectual property.

Simplified Version

This article by Brian Bethel does help clear up one common misunderstanding. Having a trademark does not allow the trademark holder to monopolize use of that particular word or phrase. The down side of the article is that it makes the test for determining likelihood of confusion sound easy. There are cases almost too numerous to mention about when a comparison of two marks actually results in a likelihood of confusion, and the inconsistency about results is well-known. As is often the case, what can appear to be relatively straight forward turns out to be anything but in a courtroom.

Patent Ambush

Zusha Elinson provides a great article about the idea, and consequences, or a "patent ambush." I have some experience with patent holders asserting rights in a matter where there is an applicable regulatory standard. It does seem that there is something unfair about a patent holder being in the position of an indispensable licensor. At least this shows that such a patent holder should only be able to achieve that status after full disclosure.