By Dale Campbell

          There always has been a few simple things to do when a named partner leaves a law firm: change the name of the firm, stationery and business cards, and send a notice to clients. Today, additional tasks include changing web page domain names, email addresses, and websites. Is that enough? One intellectual property attorney in Pennsylvania thought not and filed suit against his former firm alleging violation of federal and state unfair competition and trademark law and the federal Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, among other causes of action.

Continue Reading DEPARTING PARTNERS: IS THEIR NAME A PROTECTED TRADEMARK

By Scott Hervey

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York rules that the downloading of a digital music file embodying a particular song does not constitute a "public performance" of that song within the meaning of the Copyright Act.  Thus, on-line music retailers need not negotiate a license with performance rights organizations like ASCAP and BMI in order to offer downloadable music files to consumers.

The opinion is available here

By Audrey Millemann

            The number of patent infringement cases filed in the United States has increased dramatically over the last ten years or so, and we can expect to see that trend continue. One reason is that the number of patents issued is increasing, and many of those patents, particularly business methods patents, are viewed with suspicion by the high-tech industry. Another reason is that businesses are investing more time and money into intellectual property assets and the loss of those assets could cost the business greatly. 

What is patent infringement? Anyone who makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells in the United States, or imports into the United States, a patented invention, without authority from the patent owner, infringes a utility patent. The prerequisite is an issued (not pending or expired) U. S. patent. No intent is required. The patent is infringed if any of the above acts are committed in the United States. An infringer cannot, for example, avoid liability by moving a manufacturing operation outside the United States where the product is sold within the United States. Likewise, a manufacturer of a product made in the United States infringes the patent even if the product is only sold outside the United States. 

Continue Reading Patent Infringement 101

By James Kachmar

On March 29, 2007, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in the case Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, et al. in which it attempted to clarify when immunity is available to internet service providers for copyright infringement under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“the DMCA”), 17 U.S.C §512. Perfect 10, the publisher of an adult magazine and a related subscription website, brought a lawsuit claiming that CCBill and CWIE violated copyright laws by providing services to other websites that posted images stolen from Perfect 10’s magazine and website. CWIE provides web hosting and related internet connectivity services to the owners of various websites. CCBill allows customers to use credit cards or checks to pay for subscriptions or memberships to various websites. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment in favor of CCBill and CWIE as to the copyright claims finding that they qualified for the “safe harbor” provisions from copyright infringement liability under the DMCA. 

Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Clarifies the “Safe Harbor” Provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act

By Andrea Anapolsky

The state of California is considered an at-will employment state, where both the employee and the employer may freely walk away from the employment contract at any time with little to no consequences.   This freedom, while intended to benefit both the employer and the employee, has enabled several employers to hire away their competitor’s employees. Last month the Ninth Circuit identified significant nuances concerning the issue of whether, under California law, a corporation’s allegations that its competitor lured away employees who signed term-based employment contracts, sufficiently plead intentional interference with contract, interference with prospective economic advantage and violation of the California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq., also known as the Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). 

Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Expands Employer’s Right to Sue Competitors Who Hire Away Their Employees