In the U.S., each side usually pays their own attorney’s fees. This is called the American Rule. Until about six years ago, that rule applied to appeals from USPTO decisions. So, if an applicant appealed the USPTO’s decision not to issue a patent or register a trademark, the applicant paid the applicant’s attorney’s fees and the USPTO paid its staff attorneys their salaries. Then about 6 years ago, the USPTO decided anyone who appealed an adverse ruling should have to pay the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees as well as their own.
It all started when the USPTO filed a request for an award of more than $36,000 in attorney's fees in a little-known trademark appeal filed by a man named Milo Shammas. The USPTO justified this request by pointing to language in the statute that applicants who file an appeal to the district court have to pay the USPTO “expenses”. The USPTO argued that “expenses” includes attorneys’ fees. To the horror of the Intellectual Property bar, the request was granted. Then the sluices opened and the USPTO started demanding attorney’s fees left and right.
This state of affairs lasted just this last December 2019 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the USPTO. In Peter v. Nanktwest, Inc., the applicant appealed the USPTO’s rejection of a patent application for a method of treading cancer. The district court denied the USPTO’s motion to recover its legal fees as expenses but granted the request for recovery of expert fees. The Deputy Director of the USPTO appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Federal Circuit affirmed. So the Deputy Director appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Justice Sotomayor, writing of the Court, didn’t pull any punches. Justice Sotomayor called the “American Rule” the bedrock principal that each party pays its own attorney’s fees, win or lose. The only exceptions are when a contract or statute provides otherwise. Statutes that provide for an award of attorney’s fees say so explicitly. Nothing in the Patent Act suggests that the USPTO can send an attorney’s fee bill to an opposing appellant. As a factual matter, history was on the appellant’s side as well. Up until 2013, the USPTO never paid its personnel from sums collected from adverse parties. So the USPTO has to pay its own attorney’s fees.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Certainly, this is a victory for patent and trademark applicants. The process of protecting these types of Intellectual Property can be quite costly. The added burden of the USPTO’s attorney’s fees would have changed the value proposition for rejected applications and damaged the rights of the applicant/appellants. But there’s something else to note here. Often, when parties are gearing up for a dispute, the client asks the attorney, “Can I make the other guy pay your fees”. The answer is spelled out in Justice Sotomayor’s opinion. The answer is “yes” if a statute or contract has a fee shifting clause. But, even then, how the clause is phrased can taketh away from anything that had been giveth. For instance, in a statute, the attorney’s fees recovery may only be available only in “exceptional cases”. In a contract, attorney’s fees recovery may only be available to the “prevailing party”. So devil is in the attorney’s fees clause details.
We’ve covered denial of insurance coverage for trade secret misappropriation and affirming insurance coverage for copyright infringement. Now we turn our attention to the newer kid on the insurance block, cyber insurance.
AIG Commercial Insurance Co. offered a “Specialty Risk Protector” insurance policy. Larger companies could bundle a number of coverages in one policy such as coverage for specialty errors and omissions, network security and privacy, event management, crisis fund, network interruption, cyber extortion, media for publishers and broadcasters, media content, and employed lawyers’ professional liability.
SS&C Technologies Holdings, provides business process services fund administration to the financial industry all over the world. SS&C had a Specialty Risk Protector insurance policy from AIG. While providing fund managing services to one its clients, Tillage Commodities Fund LP, SS&C received six instructions to transfer Tillage’s funds totaling $5.9 million to bank accounts in Hong Kong. The problem? SS&C was the victim of spoofing. That’s where nefarious persons or entities mimic an email address and even the look of an email to fool someone into transferring money or property that evaporates into the pocket of the nefarious.
A few days after the transfers, SS&C discovered that it had been the victim of a spoofing. It immediately notified Hong Kong’s police and its insurer, AIG, of a potential lawsuit.
Sure, enough, Tillage filed suit against SS&C. AIG agreed to defend the suit but reserved the right to deny coverage and the cost of defense if the loss resulted from one of the insurance policy’s exclusions, including a “fraud” exclusion. The “fraud” exclusion flag had been raised because Tillage alleged in its complaint that an employee of SS&C had participated in the spoofing scheme. After the case was settled without an admissions, AIG denied coverage.
SS&C sued AIG for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith hand fair dealing (a/k/a “bad faith”). The court denied AIG’s motion to dismiss. AIG’s chief argument was that it could deny coverage when fraud is involved, whether or not the insured committed the fraud. The court rejected that argument. Moving on the lack of good faith count, the court used the policy’s language and AIG’s reservation of rights letter against it. It was clear that AIG could only deny coverage if there was an adjudication that an employee had been involved in the fraud. Since the case was settled without admissions, AIG could tie a SS&C employee to the Tillage loss. So denying coverage could be considered bad faith.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The court was able to interpret the policy exclusions in favor of the policy holder. That makes sense. SS&C had a reasonable expectation of coverage a fraud was committed by a third party. The bottom line is that an insurance policy is a contract. It should be interpreted like any other contract. Insurance companies who contort policy language to deny coverage can find themselves defending a bad faith claim.
Last week’s blog covered a situation where an insurance company wasn’t required to cover the costs of defending a misappropriation of trade secrets case. This week’s blog covers a situation where the insurance company was required to cover the cost of defense of an Intellectual Property dispute.
Photographers and stock photo owners filed 35 separate copyright suits against McGraw-Hill Education Inc. McGraw-Hill had paid for the right to use the images in textbooks and other publications. But the plaintiffs alleged that the images were used “in ways not completed by the parties”. McGraw-Hill settled 27 suits and 8 are still pending. McGraw-Hill’s attorney’s fees up to this point are estimated to be over $45 million.
McGraw-Hill tendered the defense of these claims to its insurer, Illinois National Insurance, an AIG subsidiary. AIG covered claims for about 3 years and then denied coverage on a going forward basis. McGraw-Hill brought a declaratory judgment action asking the court to affirm that AIG had to defend the cases.
The trial court denied both McGraw-Hill and AIG’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the denial of McGraw-Hill’s motion for summary was overturned. The Appellate Court looked at the relevant policy provision regarding copyright infringement. The policy barred coverage only where it is “judicially determined” that copyright infringement was intentional and was carried out by a senior vice president, or someone more senior. AIG hadn’t sought or obtained the required judicial determination. AIG tried to use the “fortuity doctrine” to deny coverage. According to AIG, the “fortuity doctrine” allows an insurance company to deny coverage for “losses that the policyholder knows of, planned, intended, or is aware are substantially certain to occur”. The Appellate Court rejected AIG’s defense holding that it would render the insurance policy illusory.
So, for now, AIG must cover McGraw-Hill’s hefty copyright infringement defense bills.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. An illusory contract is one where the promise of performance by one party is so insubstantial that it really isn’t a promise of performance at all. Exclusions in insurance policies are common. But exclusions that basically deny coverage for everything, don’t give the insured anything and so are illusory. Most courts will strictly interpret exclusions. And, usually, this ends up in the insurance company’s favor. However, in this case, AIG went a little too far in trying to exclude coverage.
This is all well and good. But what happens when you have cyber-insurance and there’s a multi-million loss? We’ll see in my next blog post.
If you like Sour Jacks and/or Welch’s Fruit Snacks, a lot goes on behind the scenes for your sugar pleasure. Promotion In Motion, Inc. or PIM holds the formulas and manufacturing process for the sugary snacks as trade secrets. PIM also owns the design of the packaging. Ferrara Pan Candy Co. manufactured and sold the sugar bombs for PIM from 1990 to 2014 pursuant to a confidentiality agreement and license.
In 2014, Ferrara merged with another company and formed the current iteration of Ferrara. The new Ferrara signed a new confidentiality agreement with PIM for the formulas and manufacturing process of the sugar delivery systems.
In connection with the merger, Ferrara cancelled its primary insurance policy with Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and its umbrella general liability insurance with Liberty Insurance Corp.
In 2015, PIM sued Ferrara alleging that Ferrara had stolen trade secrets to produce and market competing sugar fix enablers named Market Pantry, Black Forest and Sour Buddies. PIM also alleged that Ferrara’s packaging infringed on PIM’s trade dress. Ferrara tendered its defense to Liberty. Liberty agreed to take on the defense with a reservation of rights. Liberty brought a declaratory judgment action to determine if Liberty was obligated to cover the defense.
Then Ferrara came down from its insurance coverage sugar high. First, after discovery closed, Liberty withdrew from the defense of all but the trade dress infringement count. Liberty argued that trade secret misappropriation and breach of a confidentiality agreement weren’t covered by insurance. Then, Liberty obtained a judgment that it wasn’t obligated to cover the trade dress infringement count. The judgment was affirmed on appeal. The appellate court held that the alleged infringing acts took place post-merger. And there was no coverage post-merger because Ferrara had cancelled the policies. Ferrara now has to pay back all of the fees Liberty paid in defense of the PIM litigation.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Most business insurance policies will cover claims for advertising injury. Advertising injury is very limited. Trade secret misappropriation is not an advertising injury. Breach of a confidentiality agreement is not advertising injury either. So Liberty didn’t have to cover the defense of those claims. Trade dress infringement can fall into the category of advertising injury. But Ferrara cancelled the policies. Was this an oversight during the merger process? Could be. But, the bottom line is that by cancelling the policies after the merger and not obtaining new insurance, Ferrara lost the ability to reach into the insurance sugar bowl for the defense of PIM’s claims.
Back in November 2016, this blog covered the case of the trademark, ADD A ZERO, for wearing apparel. The trademark is owned by Christian Faith Fellowship Church (“CFFC”). Adidas, the international sportswear powerhouse, sought to cancel CFFC’s trademark for various reasons. Adidas took on the cause because the USPTO refused registration of Adidas’s trademark, ADIZERO, due to a likelihood of confusion. Adidas argued that CFFC wasn’t using the trademark in commerce because CFFC only sold two items. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals held that there is no ‘de minimis’ sale rule and so two sales were enough.
Not one to give up, Adidas continued to challenge CFFC’s trademark. Adidas complained that since the Federal Circuit ruling, CFFC is still only selling one or two items a year which isn’t enough for use in commerce. This argument was rejected, again.
Then Adidas asserted that the CFFC trademark didn’t function as a source or product identifier. Now before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”), Adidas argued that “Add A Zero” had been used by CFFC solely to inform its members of fundraising efforts. To support this argument, Adidas submitted numerous news articles, webpages and blog posts showing that many third parties used “add a zero” to denote their own fundraising efforts. The Board agreed that “the slogan ‘add a zero’ is informational and would be understood as such by the relevant public.” However, the Board did not cancel CFFC’s mark. The Board held that the design of the trademark was enough to transform the words from a slogan into a trademark. The Board reasoned, “[n]otwithstanding the informational nature of the wording, the specific combination, placement and shading of the wording and design elements of this special form mark create an integrated whole with a single and distinct three-dimensional commercial impression; that is, the mark is unitary.”
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The “unitary mark” is a unique creature in the world of trademarks. The USPTO’s Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure says that a mark is “unitary” when “it creates a commercial impression separate and apart from any unregistrable component.” The test for unitariness asks whether the elements of a mark are so integrated or merged together that they cannot be regarded as separable. The inseparable nature of the elements of the mark create an independent commercial impression. Creating a unitary mark may not be so easy. For example, just applying a different color or font to a phrase will not be enough. There has to be something else that creates a commercial impression. What’s the line between enough and not enough? An experienced trademark attorney can help with that analysis.
Apparently, some companies have an “ignorance is bliss” policy when it comes to reading patents. The belief is that if you don’t read it, you can’t be accused of knowing about it. And if you don’t know about it, you can’t be accused of willfully infringing on the patent. Willful patent infringement can increase or enhance the damages recoverable by a plaintiff. So a lack of willfulness can change the value proposition of prosecuting or defending an infringement suit. But is an ignorance policy a good idea?
By way of background, researching existing patents and patent applications is part of due diligence to make sure that: (1) what you have is really new enough to be patented; and (2) you aren’t infringing on an existing patent. A recent survey by Stanford Law School professor Lisa Larrimore Ouellette reported that 37% of researchers in the electronics and software space were instructed not to research other patents. Considering that there are hundreds of thousands of patents in this space, this might be a way of dealing with limited time and resources. It’s just not feasible to look through all of them while developing new inventions. So weighing the risks, companies make a strategic and business decision not to do any due diligence at all.
One company just learned the hard way that ignorance may not be so blissful.
Motiva Patents LLC brought an infringement action against HTC Corp. Motiva alleged that HTC was willfully blind to Motiva’s patents by having a policy of not reviewing patents belonging to others. Motiva also alleged that HTC went one step further, claiming that HTC allegedly performed specific acts to implement and enforce the policy. HTC filed a motion to dismiss arguing that Motiva failed to sufficiently allege HTC’s knowledge of Motiva’s patents. The court denied the motion to dismiss. The court held that a policy of not reviewing other patents is a deliberate action to avoid learning of potential infringement and could be construed as willful infringement.
The complaint stands and the case will now proceed to see if Motiva can prove its allegations.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. If HTC acted as alleged in Motiva’s complaint, HTC may have implemented the policy as a matter of self-preservation. It would have decided to take the risk of being accused of infringement for short-term cost and time-savings. Unfortunately, the Motiva v. HTC decision says “you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t”. So implementing an “ignorance is bliss” policy should be done after evaluating the pros and cons.
Bet you thought influencers are something new? Influencers are individuals who have authority, knowledge, a position or a relationship that gives them the power to affect purchase decisions of others. Using social media like YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok and others, influencers will post pictures or videos using a product or service. The goal is to encourage the influencer’s followers to use the same product or service. And if they do, the manufacturer, seller or service provider sees a boost in sales. So those companies compensate the influencer. Despite what you may think, various members of the Kardashian and Jenner families weren’t the first influencers. Actually, one of the first modern influencers was Irene Castle. She and her husband, Vernon, were popular dancers in the early Twentieth Century. They were so popular that Irene became a fashion trendsetter. She was responsible for shorter, fuller skirts and loose, elasticized corsets (goodbye whalebone stays!). She is also credited with introducing American women in 1913 or 1914 to the bob – the short, boyish hairstyle favored by flappers in the 1920s.
Given the relationship between the number of an influencer’s followers and the influencer’s value, it’s no surprise that an enterprising entrepreneur could help influencers increase the number of their followers. Enter Devumi, LLC (“Devumi”) and its owner and CEO, German Calas, Jr. Devumi and Calas used their websites Devumi.com, TwitterBoost.com, Buyview.com, and Buyplans.com to sell fake indicators of social media influence, including fake followers, subscribers, views, and likes to users of social media platforms, including LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, Pinterest, Vine, and SoundCloud. Devumi and Calas allegedly sold more than 58,000 Twitter followers, 4,000 YouTube subscribers, 32,000 YouTube views, and 800 LinkedIn followers. The problem, of course, is if the followers are fake, then the influencer’s value proposition is also fake. This ultimately harms the companies that pay influencers as well as consumers.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) sued Devumi and Calas. The FTC obtained a $2.5 million judgment. Devumi is now out of businesses. The FTC settled with Calas and agreed not to pursue the judgment against him as long as he pays $250,000.00 and never does this again.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The Devumi and Calas FTC judgment is a cautionary tale for both influencers and the companies that use them. Influencers should carefully vet anyone who promises to increase the number of their followers. Companies using influencers should carefully vet the influencers and insure that they came by their followers in an appropriate way.
As the holiday season ramps up, a question arises. Can someone own a holiday trademark? Many have tried with various levels of success. The successful registrations don’t try to corner the market on holiday greetings. Here are some examples.
Trademarks Using a Foreign Language: (As far as the USPTO is concerned, the foreign language version is treated the same as the English Translation).
FELIZ NAVIDAD: Registered in 1997 for coffee beans and coffee drinks.
JOYEUX NOEL: Registered in 2010 for candles and wicks for lighting scented candles.
Connected to the Holiday:
MERRY CHRISTMAS FROM HEAVEN: Registered in 2009 for jewelry and Christmas tree ornaments and decorations.
MERRY CHRISTMAS - - IF APPLICABLE: Registered in 2010 for a website featuring personal greetings about Christmas.
MERRY CHRISTMAS YA FILTHY ANIMAL: Registered in 2016 for Christmas tree ornaments and Christmas decorations.
MERRY X(CROSS) MASS (See Logo): Registered in 2014 for beer mugs, coffee cups and coffee mugs.
HAPPY HANUKAH SHALOM (See Logo): Registered in 2012 for chocolate candy bars.
Completely Unrelated Goods and Services:
KWANZAA: Registered in 1994 for coffee.
MEOWY CHRISTMAS: Registered in 2016 for t-shirts, sweaters, baby bodysuits and tank tops.
MERRY CHRISTMAS YA LITTLE JERK: Registered in 2016 for shirts and sweaters.
MERRY CHRISTMAS BITCHES: Registered in 2017 for clothing.
KWANZAA KLAUS: Registered in 2018 for children’s toys.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The registration of these trademarks does not impede your ability to use holiday greetings as intended. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy Kwanzaa and a Joyous New Year to all.
Qualcomm is a leader in the market of wireless chip connectivity that every cell phone needs. Qualcomm holds patents related to 3G, 4G and 5G networking technology as well as other software. Qualcomm demanded a license fee for every device that connects to a cellular network. In other words, all cell phones. It forced its customers, like Apple, to enter into patent license agreements for Qualcomm’s technology; even if the customer was using a chip manufactured by someone else, like Intel.
Enter the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC investigated Qualcomm and concluded that it was violating antitrust law. Antitrust law prohibits anticompetitive trade practices, i.e. monopolies. The FTC asserted that Qualcomm violated antitrust laws by forcing its customers to enter into patent license agreements for Qualcomm’s technology in order to purchase its chips. After a bench trial, the court entered judgment in the FTC’s favor. The court held that Qualcomm had a “no license, no chip” policy. Because of this policy, Qualcomm charged excessively high royalties. Not to get too complicated, but when a software company owns and licenses a standard essential patent (SEP), there are reasonable terms for licensing the software or Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Qualcomm’s excessive license fees violated FRAND. This resulted in injury to the consumer by increasing the cost of cell phones. The court came down hard on Qualcomm. Among other things, it required Qualcomm to end the “no license, no chip” policy. Qualcomm has to renegotiate its licenses in accordance with FRAND terms. Qualcomm is going to have to submit to compliance and monitoring procedures for seven years.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. What Qualcomm did is often described as “tying”. Qualcomm tied the licensing of the software to purchase the hardware. And it looks like Qualcomm also tied its software to the hardware of its competitors. This is called “horizontal” tying. Most businesses are rarely going to be in Qualcomm’s position. But if a business has a “golden ticket” type of technology, it can’t lock customers in and cut out competitors by tying its technology. Most businesses are more likely to find themselves in the position of Qualcomm’s customers. When presented with a “tied” product and licensing situation, it’s best to seek advice of counsel.
Luxottica Group S.A. owns the trademark, Ray-Ban, and its subsidiary owns the trademark, Oakley, for sunglasses. The sunglasses are typically sold in malls, either in standalone stores or at kiosks. Yes Assets, LLC owns a mall in Georgia. It leases the mall to Airport Mini Mall LLC, which operates under the name “International Discount Mall”. The mall is an indoor space made up of about 130 booths for individual subtenants. A mall like this can be a good source of bargains for shoppers.
According to Luxottica, International Malls’ subtenants were selling counterfeit Ray-Bans and Oakleys. International Mall was subject to three raids by law enforcement to execute search warrants. Subtenants were arrested and counterfeit goods were seized. Luxottica sent two letters to Yes Assets and Airport Mini Mall notifying them that their subtenants were not authorized to sell Luxottica’s eyewear and “that any mark resembling Ray-Ban or Oakley marks would indicate that the glasses were counterfeit.” Despite the raids, letters, and meetings with law enforcement, the landlords took no steps to evict the infringing subtenants.
So, Luxottica sued the landlords for trademark infringement. The landlords defended the action asserting that they aren’t the infringers; their subtenants are. Luxottica won at the district court on the theory of contributory infringement. Luxottica made the case that the defendant-landlords had constructive knowledge of their subtenants’ infringing activities but willfully turned a blind eye to it. The subtenants relied on the services given to them by the defendant-landlords to continue their infringing activities. And the landlords could have exercised control over the subtenants’ infringing activities by evicting them. The jury verdict in the amount of $1.9 million dollars against the defendant-landlords was upheld on appeal.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Mere ownership of a property where an infringing act takes place normally isn’t a basis for a contributory infringement action. There has to be something more. Knowledge of the infringing activities and turning a blind eye to let it go on is “something more”. What’s a retail landlord to do? Make sure that the leases contain some essential terms. First, the tenant must make a representation and warranty that it will not engage in any type of intellectual property infringement or sell counterfeit goods. Second, the lease should provide for termination and eviction if the tenant violates the representation and warranty. Third, the landlord should move swiftly once it has notice of a breach of the representation and warranty. There’s no way that a landlord can always know if violations have happened. But, certainly receiving written notice from the owner of a trademark, raids, arrests and seizures are good signs that something untoward has occurred.
The New Republic magazine published 44 film reviews written by famed film and theater critic, Stanley Kauffmann. The magazine didn’t hire Kauffmann to write the reviews. He wrote them, submitted them and the magazine printed them. The parties never really talked about who owned the articles. They never entered into a “work for hire” agreement. Over the course of the years after the reviews were published, the magazine and Kauffmann were pretty vague about copyright ownership. Kauffmann granted many licenses to a third party to publish the reviews. At one point, the magazine ‘transferred’ the copyright in some of the articles to Kauffmann. In 2004, long after the reviews were written, the magazine sent Kauffmann a letter agreement stating that both parties always knew the reviews were supposed to be “work for hire”.
After Kauffmann passed away, the Rochester Institute of Technology published an anthology of Kauffmann’s reviews edited by Robert J. “Bert” Cardullo. Kauffmann’s estate sued the Institute for copyright infringement. The Institute argued that Kauffmann’s estate didn’t own the copyrights. The district court entered summary judgment for the Institute. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for further hearing. The Court held that the 2004 letter agreement was not an enforceable “work for hire” agreement. A valid “work for hire” agreement has to be executed before the work is created. The 2004 letter was signed long after the works were created. And there were no other facts that showed the parties’ intent at the time that the magazine published the works.
In an interesting side note, it turns out that Cardullo had misrepresented to the Institute that Kauffmann’s estate granted him permission to publish the anthology. The court described Cardullo as “a serial plagiarist of writings by Kauffmann and others” who “went so far as to forge a letter purporting to be from counsel for the Estate”. Cardullo admitted everything to the attorneys in the case. He was named and remains a third-party defendant in the case.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. In the law (as in grammar), there are always exceptions to the rule. Ownership of the copyright in a work belongs to the author. The exceptions are when the creator of the work is an employee or the creator signs a “work for hire” agreement before the work is created. Sometimes a tardy “work for hire” agreement can be enforceable. Here’s an example. The widow of a deceased artist was sued by Playboy Enterprises over ownership of her late husband’s artwork. Playboy alleged that it owned the paintings as “work for hire”. The widow argued that she owned the works because there was no written agreement. Playboy won. Playboy proved that it ordered the paintings for the magazine and that all of the checks cashed by the artist had a legend above the endorsement stating that the artist “assigned all right, title and interest” in the works. But, don’t rely on a Playboy type of scenario. When hiring someone to create a copyrightable work, always sign a “work for hire” agreement at the beginning.
USA-Halal Chamber of Commerce certifies meat and poultry products that have been slaughtered and prepared in accordance with Islamic law—a process known as “halal”. USA-Halal holds an incontestable certification trademark which is a crescent moon and the letter H. For those who adhere to halal dietary laws, the certification mark is critical to their food purchasing choices. As a certifying body, USA-Halal enters into license agreements with food manufacturers. In exchange for adhering to USA-Halal’s food guidelines, the licensee can display the certification mark on its products.
USA-Halal entered into a certification license agreement with Best Choice Meats, Inc. As part of the license to use the certification on meats and poultry, Best Choice had to submit monthly production reports to USA-Halal. Three years into the license, Best Choice stopped submitting the reports. USA-Halal terminated the license. Best Choice told USA-Halal that it stopped using the certification mark. Technically, that may have been true. However, Best Choice started using a trademark that looked a lot like the USA-Halal trademark.
USA-Halal brought suit against Best Choice, alleging that Best Choice’s mark would create a likelihood of confusion with USA-Halal’s certification mark. The court granted USA-Halal’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court rejected Best Choice’s arguments that the two marks were not similar and USA-Halal would not suffer irreparable harm if Best Choice kept using its trademark. The court held that the two marks were nearly indistinguishable. An average consumer wouldn’t notice the differences between the two trademarks. So, allowing Best Choice to use the similar trademark would put USA-Halal’s reputation at risk of continuing harm. The court also found that there was a risk of public harm in letting consumers be confused about whether or not Best Choice was certified by USA-Halal. The court then balanced the equities. The court didn’t order a recall of the uncertified meat because that would cause undue hardship to Best Choice. And the court allowed Best Choice to sell off any meat that had already been packaged with the trademark prior to the entry of the order.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. A certification mark is a great way to protect a system. It can be used for anything from food preparation to education methods to veterinary services to theatrical trade specialties and so on. Famous certification marks like the Woolmark logo and the Underwriter’s Lab logo, bolster the products they certify for the benefit of their licensees. But as Best Choice learned, the benefits of the certification mark do not continue after the certification license ends. On another note, if an organization is thinking about developing a certification mark, qualifying for a certification mark takes some preparation. There are also ongoing obligations to make sure that certification mark licensees comply with the terms of being certified.
TiVo is a television digital recording device (“DVR”). TiVo has search functions that allow the user to search broadcast and streaming television programs and schedule recordings for later viewing. TiVo acquired another company that it spun off as a subsidiary named Veveo. Through the acquisition, Veveo picked up a series of patents, one of which was a digital search system. The patent described the invention as a system for associating characters entered into a search bar with numerical identifiers and linking search targets, such as digital files, with digital combinations. You don’t have to know what that means. Just know that robust search capabilities would allow TiVo to surpass competitors like Comcast.
The problem arose when Veveo sued Comcast for infringing on the search system. The proceeding took place in an inter partes proceeding before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Comcast argued that the Veveo invention was obvious and so the patent should be invalidated. PTAB found in Comcast’s favor. PTAB held that Veveo’s invention was really a combination of prior art (already known inventions). The combination would be obvious to anyone practicing in the field. Veveo appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Before the Federal Circuit, Veveo argued that the prior art didn’t have the same mapping capabilities so it wouldn’t have been obvious. The Federal Circuit was not convinced and affirmed the PTAB.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Patents have to be new, useful and non-obvious. This case focused on the “obviousness” prong. Obviousness doesn’t mean obvious to everyone. It means obvious to anyone who has ordinary skills in the area. On another note, the patent in question was based on a combination of already known inventions. You can get a patent for combining prior art in a way to create something no one ever thought of before. A famous example of this is the Crocs shoe. There were other clog like shoes with heel straps before Crocs. But Crocs was the first to add foam to the shoe’s heel straps. By adding the foam, Crocs solved a problem of uncomfortable heel straps. No comment on the cultural divide between those who like Crocs and those who hate them.
Tis the season for banana costumes. In 2017, Rasta Imposta sued Kmart for copyright infringement because Kmart was selling a virtually identical banana costume (See Blawg Post dated 10/31/2017). The parties settled. Then Rasta Imposta’s competitor, Kangaroo Manufacturing Inc. started selling a substantially similar banana costume. The founder of Kangaroo had once worked for Rasta Imposta and knew that Rasta Imposta had registered the copyright in the banana costume. But Kangaroo manufactured and sold the banana costume anyway.
Rasta Imposta sued Kangaroo for trade dress infringement and unfair competition. Rasta Imposta obtained a preliminary injunction. Kangaroo filed an interlocutory appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
Kangaroo argued that Rasta Imposta’s copyright was invalid because the costume was a useful article and not eligible for copyright protection. But a useful article can have design features that are eligible for copyright. The design element has to be identified and imagined apart from the useful article so it would qualify as a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or when fixed in some other tangible medium. This is called the separatability analysis. So the court asked two questions: (1) Can the artistic feature of the useful article’s design be perceived as a two- or three-dimensional work of art separate from the useful article? and (2) Would the feature qualify as a protectable pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work either on its own or in some other medium if imagined separately from the useful article? For the first question, the court rejected Kangaroo’s argument that the banana costume is just a depiction of a banana and there’s nothing creative about a banana. The court held that a depiction of fruit can be creative. And there are elements of the costume that can be separated from a banana. So the answer to the first question was “yes”. For the second question, the court rejected Kangaroo’s argument that everyone would need to use those non-utilitarian elements of a banana in a banana costume or as copyright lawyers call it, scenes a faire. In other words, there’s only one way to create a banana costume that looks like a banana. The court held there are different ways to fashion a banana costume and elements stand on their own and apart from the banana itself. In conclusion, the court held: “Because Rasta established a reasonable likelihood that it could prove entitlement to protection for the veritable fruits of its intellectual labor, we will affirm.”
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The Rasta Imposta decision gives us an in depth analysis of what it takes to create protectable elements in a Halloween costume; or any useful article for that matter. If you decide to dress up as a banana this Halloween, Rasta Imposta is ready to fulfill your desire. But, without disparaging the creative efforts of Rasta Imposta, the most popular adult costume this Halloween is Hot Mr. Rogers.
Bradley Summers was a technical service representative for Bemis Company, Inc., a packaging manufacturer. Bradley’s job was to perform customer audits and film trials. Bradley had signed a non-disclosure agreement with Bemis.
According to Bemis, the following happened when Bradley decided to leave:
Bradley planned his departure long before he gave notice. During the planning stage, Bradley uploaded confidential information from Bemis’ system to a non-Bemis cloud-based storage provider. Bradley also began removing materials from his work computer and uploading them onto a personal external storage drive. When Bradley resigned, he told Bemis that he and his wife planned to go into real estate. Then Bradley removed even more confidential and proprietary documents that contained trade secrets. Unbeknownst to Bemis, Bradley wasn’t going into real estate. He had accepted a position with Bemis’ competitor, Winpak. Once Bemis figured out that Bradley was working for a competitor, Bemis did a forensic analysis of Bradley’s computers and found out about Bradley’s pre-resignation activities.
Bemis filed suit against Bradley alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract. Trade secrets have 3 major elements. First, they have to be not generally known or readily ascertainable. Second, the owner of the trade secrets gets economic value from them because they’re not generally known. Third, they have to be the subject of reasonable measures of protection from disclosure. Bemis successfully alleged these elements. Bemis obtained an ex parte temporary restraining order and rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction shouldn’t be entered barring Bradley from using Bemis’ trade secrets until a final trial. The parties then entered into a stipulation requiring Bradley to return any trade secrets in his possession, an inspection of all of Bradley’s personal devices and an inspection of any devices he’s using in his employment with Winpak.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Bemis obtained an ex parte order without notice to Bradley. Ex parte orders are especially important when trade secrets are being misappropriated. The longer the misappropriation goes on, the less likely it is that a plaintiff is going to be able to support allegations that it took reasonable measures to protect the trade secrets from disclosure.
On another note, the scenario of a departing employee methodically copying and removing trade secrets is not unusual. In this case, according to Bemis’ complaint, there are a few strikes against Bradley going into this litigation. First, he signed a non-disclosure agreement. Second, he told Bemis that he was going into real estate when actually he had accepted a position with a competitor. No matter what, the wrong thing to do is to methodically copy and store an employer’s confidential information and trade secrets to use in a new job.
[Caution: This blog may contain bad puns; But it’s how Eye Roll.]
In two recent cases, trademark holders learned that it was a huge Missed-Steak to sue when puns were involved.
In the first case, Beyoncé Knowles-Carter and BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC sued Feyonce LLC’s. Beyoncé alleged that Feyonce’s branded merchandise for people who are engaged to be married caused a likelihood of confusion with her trademarked merchandise. Beyoncé’s motion for partial summary judgment got a Chile reception from the court. In denying the motion, the court identified the critical question was whether a rational consumer would believe that Feyonce’s products were sponsored by Beyoncé or affiliated with her company. The court held that the pun on Beyoncé’s name was sufficient to dispel a likelihood of confusion among the consuming public. The court acknowledged that the two trademarks had similar text, font and pronunciation. However, the Feyonce mark has the additional connotation of sounding like the word “fiancé” which is directly related to Feyonce’s merchandise. Since the suit didn’t go how Beyoncé Oregano-ly planned, she dismissed the case.
The second case, involved another Farce to be reckoned with. LTTB LLC is an online apparel company. LTTB credits a large part of its success to public fascination with products featuring the phrase “Lettuce Turnip the Beet”. Redbubble, Inc. is an online marketplace that sells merchandise created by independent artists. When Redbubble artists started using the turnip pun on merchandise, LTTB sued Redbubble for trademark infringement. Redbubble Romained calm and brought a motion for summary judgment. In granting the motion, the court felt that LTTB didn’t have a case against Redbubble. The court granted summary judgment for Redbubble on the basis of the “aesthetic functionality doctrine”. This means that if goods are bought for their aesthetic value, their features are purely functional and not trademark use. The court held that no trier of fact would conclude that consumers bought the merchandise because of LTTB’s reputation.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. These two cases show some of the limits of trademark protection. In the Beyoncé case, the pun had enough to do with the type of merchandise being sold to avoid a likelihood of confusion. In the LTTB case, the pun, and not the brand, was why people bought the merchandise. Note that the “aesthetic functionality doctrine” is the subject of some controversy. It is not evenly applied by the courts. So it may not always Turnip in a victory for the punster.
Premier Comp Solutions LLC develops customized panel listings of healthcare providers for workers’ compensation claims. The technology allows employers to contain workers’ compensation costs by ensuring that a chosen healthcare provider complies with local workers’ compensation laws with respect to qualifications, licensing and quality of care. The beauty of the system is that it can be localized by the state where the employee is located. The system was protected as a trade secret.
Sounds great for an employer with lots of employees in different states who have lots of workers’ compensation claims, right?
Premier Comp alleged that its competitors, UPMC Benefit Management Services, Inc. and MCMC, LLC, thought it was great too. So, Premier Comp says, they conspired to misappropriate Premier Comp’s trade secrets. Premier Comp sued UPMC and MCMC for trade secret misappropriation and for antitrust violations. Antitrust laws protect trade and consumers from companies who work together on anti-competitive practices such as price-fixing, restraints on trade, price discrimination and monopolies. A plaintiff must prove: (1) concerted action by the defendants in furtherance of restraint of trade; (2) that concerted action produced anti-competitive effects within the relevant product and geographic markets; (3) that the concerted action was illegal; and (4) that the plaintiff was injured as a proximate result of the concerted action.
The district court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the antitrust claims. The court rejected Premier Comp’s argument that UPMC and MCMC working together created a per se antitrust violation. The misappropriation may have violated trade secrets laws. But circumstantial evidence that the defendants worked together doesn’t automatically create an antitrust violation. The court didn’t reject the idea of using antitrust in a trade secret misappropriation case; just that Premier Comp didn’t have enough facts to prove it. Premier Comp failed to demonstrate that: (1) it is a competitor of the defendants; (2) its injury stems from a competition-reducing aspect or effect of the defendants' behavior; (3) it was shut out of the relevant market; and (4) there was harm to competition in the relevant market.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Antitrust violations can result in treble damage and an award of attorneys’ fees. So Premier Comp understandably wanted to increase the potential recovery for UPMC and MCMC’s behavior. But, Premier Comp didn’t have facts to support its antitrust claims.
Happy Anniversary to IP News for Business. Today’s blog marks the 5th anniversary of this blog. Thank you to all who have read, enjoyed and maybe learned something from this blog over the years.
That’s not a typo. The subject of today’s blog is THE. THE Ohio State University filed an application to register THE for wearing apparel. According to news sources, Ohio State demands to be called “THE Ohio State University”. Ohio State argues that THE is part of its name. Sports and journalists have often commented on Ohio State’s branding insistence calling it stupid, ridiculous, pompous and arrogant. Ohio State responds to these negative comments saying that it has every right to protect its brand.
The USPTO refused registration of THE. The Office Action refusing registration had some interesting information. Ohio State wasn’t the first one to try to register THE as a trademark. The clothing and accessory designer/manufacturer, Marc Jacobs, had already filed an application to register THE for accessories and clothing. The USPTO refused Marc Jacobs’ application as well. The Marc Jacobs’ Office Action cited two primary problems. First, the mark drawing and the specimen didn’t match. The mark drawing was just the word THE. But the specimens show THE with other words like “The Backpack Marc Jacobs” and “The Velveteen Jean Jacket by Marc Jacobs.” Second, THE fails to function as a trademark. In other words, THE doesn’t act as a source of Marc Jacobs’ products.
Now back to THE Ohio State’s Office. The Office Action contained a prior advisory of the suspending of the Ohio State application pending the outcome of Marc Jacobs’ application. And then it went deeper into why THE doesn’t function as a trademark for Ohio State. The mark, as it appears on the clothing, is merely ornamental. It just appears on the clothing but does not distinguish Ohio State’s clothing from clothing of others.
Both Marc Jacobs and Ohio State have some time to respond to these Office Actions. So the THE saga may continue.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Neither Office Action touched on a point that seems obvious. If either applicant gets a registration for THE, how will that affect the ability of others to develop clothing lines that use THE? Both applicants seem to want to corner the market on a word that is one of the most common words in the English language. Aside from that, there is a difference between a slogan or words that appear on clothing versus a mark that is used to identify a product. See the comparison in the graphics. The top graphic shows the mark being used in an ornamental way. If that’s the only way the owner uses it, the USPTO would probably refuse registration. The bottom one shows the mark being used as a source and product identifier. If that’s the way the owner uses it, the USPTO will probably allow registration.
An application to register tells the Copyright Office about you, your work and why you’re entitled to register a copyright. To further this goal, the Copyright Act requires that you include only accurate information in your copyright application. Gold Value International Textile d/b/a Fiesta Fabrics learned the consequences of not following this rule the hard way.
Fiesta registered the copyright for a group of textile designs. Fiesta had distributed samples of some of the fabric designs to get production contracts. Then it sold about 190 yards of one fabric with the design. In its copyright application, Fiesta claimed the designs were unpublished.
Fiesta sued Sanctuary Clothing, Inc. and others for allegedly selling a blouse with an infringing textile design. Sanctuary counterclaimed seeking invalidation of Fiesta’s copyright. Sanctuary argued that Fiesta included previously published designs in its application to register an unpublished collection. Fiesta further argued that this inaccurate information regarding publication required invalidation of the registration. Fiesta argued that it didn’t consider the sample distribution and small sale of the design to be “publication”. But that argument was rejected. The District Court couldn’t get a clear handle on whether Fiesta’s inaccurate information was enough to invalidate the registration. Congress passed a law in 2008 that only invalidates the copyright if: (1) the applicant knew that the information was inaccurate; and (2) the inaccurate information would have caused the Register of Copyrights to refuse registration. So the District Court submitted an inquiry to the Register of Copyrights. The Register of Copyrights responded that she would have refused registration because a copyright registration cannot contain a mix of published and unpublished works. And if the Register had known that the application was trying to register a mix of published and unpublished works, she would have refused registration.
The District Court held that Fiesta knowingly included inaccurate information in its copyright application that required invalidation. Not only did the District Court invalidate the copyright, it found that Sanctuary was a prevailing party and entered a judgment for attorneys’ fees in Sanctuary’s favor.
Fiesta appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who affirmed the District Court’s judgment.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Copyright registration isn’t a perquisite to copyright ownership. But, your copyright has to be registered before you can sue for infringement. So, of course, you have to be careful when you fill out the application to register a copyright. If you discover an error, you can file an application for supplementary registration to correct the error. And this is better done sooner rather than later.
Matt Furie describes his popular Internet character “Pepe the Frog”, as a “cool, chill frog dude”. Celebrities like Katy Perry and Nicki Minaj have published Pepe the Frog memes.* Online message boards posts fan art featuring Pepe the Frog and calling them “rare Pepes”. Pepe the Frog’s Internet popularity turned into a financial windfall for Matt.
But then unsavory Internet posts started using Pepe the Frog. That’s when the cool, chill frog dude lost his chill. Pepe was co-opted by white nationalists and the alt-right movement to pursue hate filled agendas in blog posts, memes and other promotions. It got so bad that the Anti-Defamation League, an American organization opposed to antisemitism, included Pepe the Frog in its hate symbol database. Matt went after the infringers who used Pepe the Frog as a symbol of hate. Everyone caved – except InfoWars, Inc. InfoWars is the notorious website run by Alex Jones. Mr. Jones is a far-right conspiracy theorist who is currently being sued by some parents of the victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting because he claims the tragedy was a hoax to support gun control.
In the lawsuit brought by Matt, Mr. Jones took a shot gun (pun intended) approach to defending his unauthorized use of Pepe the Frog. The defenses included claiming Matt’s work was not original to Matt and claiming Matt lied to the Copyright Office in his application to register Pepe’s copyright. But one of the defenses was unique. Mr. Jones argued Pepe’s ubiquitous appearance in Internet memes nullifies Matt’s copyright in the character. In denying Mr. Jones’ motion for summary judgment, the District Court for the Central District of California noted that "Defendants have not pointed to any authority for the proposition that 'meme-ification' of an image or character destroys or diminishes the original author's copyright interest." The parties ended up settling for $15,000 and a permanent injunction.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. As the Court pointed out, Mr. Jones’ meme-ification argument was unsupportable. Copyright Law does not nullify a copyright because of prevalent uses of a copyrighted work, whether authorized or not. While it would have been great for Pepe the Frog to have his day in court at a trial, the District Court’s summary judgment opinion gives us cited authority that “meme-ification” is not a defense to copyright infringement.
- Memes are images, videos, pieces of text, etc., that are copied (often with slight variations) and spread rapidly by Internet users.
Acacia Communications got tired of paying a license fee to Viasat, Inc. for trade secret protected technology. So Acacia supposedly created replacement technology. The problem? Acacia used Viasat’s trade secrets.
Viasat sued Acacia for trade secret misappropriation. During the litigation, Acacia’s defenses shifted. Acacia started out denying any copying. But, through discovery, Viasat found a slew of emails between Acacia’s co-founders, Christian Rasmussen and Mehrdad Givehchi, sent via their personal email addresses. They discussed how to give a new Acacia engineer a white paper on the technology. They ultimately decided to give him a USB drive containing Viasat’s trade secrets. In one email, Rasmussen wrote, "... I don't want to mail it from the company account, just in case silly things should happen down the road." Well, $49.3 million of silly things happened. The jury found that Acacia acted willfully and maliciously and awarded the huge judgment to Viasat.
In a twist of irony, on a counterclaim by Acacia, the jury found that Viasat misappropriated Acacia's trade secrets, but that it was not done willfully. The jury awarded Acacia just $1.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Acacia’s solution to getting out of paying license fees was not ideal. In fact, it was exactly the wrong thing to do. To make matters worse, the co-founders heavily ‘papered’ their scheme. Hiding behind personal email accounts only supported the jury’s determination that Acacia’s co-founders acted willfully and maliciously. The end result was a ‘break your company’ judgment (less $1).
If you needed a crown or root canal lately, your dentist may have used a fancy wand to scan and send a picture of your mouth to the dental lab. Chances are that the scanner was the Itero Element scanner, a computer scanning system that is manufactured by Align Technologies. The Itero scanner requires a disposable sleeve for the wand. One of Align’s competitors, Strauss Diamond Technologies, began selling a competing sleeve, called “MagicSleeve”. In its advertisements, Strauss used Align’s trademarks in hashtags, product descriptions and product images.
Align brought suit against Strauss and sought a preliminary injunction to stop Strauss from using its trademarks. Strauss argued that its use of the Align trademarks was “nominative fair use”. The nominative fair use defense has 3 parts: (1) the trademark is the only word available to accurately describe the product; (2) the mark is used only as is “reasonably necessary” to identify the product; and (3) the user does nothing that would suggest endorsement by the trademark owner. Putting aside the fact that the first and second elements are contradictory, the court determined that Strauss’ defense was full of cavities. Strauss’ various uses of Align’s trademarks failed at least two out of three of the nominative fair use test. Align’s motion for preliminary injunction was granted.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Nominative fair use can be a useful tool in a competitive industry. Sometimes you have to refer to your competitor’s products in order to differentiate yourself in the market. Deciding what crosses the line can be tricky. One thing we know is that Strauss crossed that line.
In 1981 the well-known photographer, Lynn Goldsmith, took a series of photographs of the pop star, Prince. Goldsmith interpreted the photographs as describing a vulnerable and uncomfortable person. In 1987, Vanity Fair magazine commissioned Andy Warhol to create illustrations from the Goldsmith photos for their article titled “Purple Fame”. Warhol created “The Prince Series” consisting of 19 paintings of Prince, some of which used an orange wash of color.
After Prince died, Vanity Fair again published copies of the Warhol works. Goldsmith says that that’s when she learned about the "Prince Series" for the first time. Goldsmith sued the Warhol Foundation, the owner of the works, for copyright infringement. A New York District court entered summary judgment for the Foundation on the basis of fair use. The court described the Warhol paintings as having removed the protectable elements of the photographs to turn Prince into an iconic, larger than life figure.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. The court used the transformative nature of Warhol’s orange take on the Purple One to find fair use. Although, in this case it might take an art critic’s eye to see the court’s argument.
You may recall the scene in the Ghostbusters movie where, Rick Moranis’ character begs diners in a swanky Central Park restaurant to save him from a Terror Dog. That restaurant is the famous “Tavern on the Green” that has been owned by New York City since 1934. The Tavern’s trademark has a bit of a complicated history. NYC leased the restaurant to Tavern on the Green LP (TOTG). NYC decided not to renew TOTG’s lease in 2009. That’s when NYC discovered that TOTG registered the trademark in 1978. NYC sued TOTG to cancel the registration because NYC was the owner of the trademark and not TOTG. TOTG and NYC entered into a settlement agreement that allowed TOTG to use the name outside of NYC as long as TOTG didn’t use the words “Central Park”. TOTG went ahead and used the Tavern trademark along with the words “Central Park” thereby breaching the agreement. NYC sued again. And won.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. When an applicant fills out a trademark application, the applicant has to state under oath that it is the bona fide owner of the trademark. If that isn’t true, the applicant has committed a fraud in the application process. The USPTO will cancel a registration obtained by fraud. TOTG didn’t have the right to register the trademark. And even after getting the right to use the name “Tavern on the Green”, TOTG used the words “Central Park” in breach of the settlement agreement. TOTG couldn’t escape the trademark Terror Dog of its own creation.
CMI Roadbuilding, Inc. is in the business of manufacturing road construction equipment and replacement parts. Through a series of acquisitions and mergers, CMI acquired trade secrets included in engineering documents. CMI sent its engineering documents to vendors without confidentiality notices. Iowa Parts, Inc. is in the business of manufacturing the same kind of replacement parts that CMI manufactured. Over the years, Iowa Parts hired various employees who had worked for companies acquired by CMI. Iowa Parts also reached out to vendors who had CMI’s engineering drawings. In 2002, Iowa Parts began manufacturing competing replacements parts.
CMI knew (or should have known) that Iowa Parts was manufacturing competing replacement parts. Iowa Parts made no secret of it (pun intended). Then in 2016, Iowa Parts lowered its prices and cut deep into CMI’s revenues. That’s when CMI sued for misappropriation of trade secrets under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (“DTSA”). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of Iowa Parts. The DTSA has a 3 year statute of limitations. CMI waited too long to defend its trade secrets.
WHY YOU SHOULD KNOW THIS. Trade secrets have two primary attributes. They are (1) something that’s not generally known or readily ascertainable; and (2) subject to reasonable measures of secrecy. Allowing someone to use your trade secrets for over 14 years is not a reasonable measure of secrecy. If a trade secret is being misappropriated, the owner has to be aggressive and take action immediately. Otherwise, the trade secret is lost forever.