I’m Dreaming of a White ...

Sometimes the long road of Intellectual Property infringement ends up in Bankruptcy Court. Then the normal rules can change. %CUT% Tech Pharmacy Services, who owned patents for pharmaceutical dispensing machines sued Provider Meds LLC and its affiliated companies for patent infringement. The parties ended up settling. As part of the settlement, Tech Pharmacy licensed the patents to Provider Meds. The Provider Meds' companies filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization cases. The cases were later converted to Chapter 7 liquidation cases and a Chapter 7 trustee was appointed. But, Provider Meds somehow managed to not list the patent license on their bankruptcy schedules. The Chapter 7 trustee had 60 days from the date of conversion of the cases to assume the licenses. Since the trustee didn’t know about the licenses, the trustee didn’t assume them. Since they weren’t assumed, they were deemed rejected by operation of law. Rejection means that Tech Pharmacy would no longer have to honor the license agreements. The Chapter 7 trustee sold Provider Meds’ assets to RPD Holdings. Imagine RPD’s surprise when it realized the sale didn’t include assignment of the Tech Pharmacy patent licenses. RPD appealed. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings that the rejected licenses couldn’t be resurrected.

Updating a trademark can be risky if someone else gets in ahead of you. %CUT% Inn at St. Johns, LLC registered its name “5ive Restaurant” in logo form. So far so good. Eleven years later, St. Johns decided to update its trademark to 5ive Steakhouse in logo form. But St. Johns got derailed. Three years after St. Johns registered its first trademark, OTG Management Inc. registered 5Steak. (All 3 mark drawings appear to the left). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused registration of St. Johns’ 5ive Steakhouse due to a likelihood of confusion with the OTG’s 5Steak registration. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the refusal.

A trade secret isn’t really a secret without proper measures of protection. %CUT% Kevin Barker, a vice president of Yellowfin Yachts, left the company to start a competing company, Barker Boatworks. Yellowfin sued Kevin and his new company for trade dress infringement and for trade secret misappropriation. Yellowfin alleged that Kevin downloaded hundreds of files with customer specifications, and drawings. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in Kevin and Barker’s favor. First, the court disposed of Yellowfin’s trade dress claims because it couldn’t prove any customer confusion between its designs and Barker’s designs. In addressing the trade secret misappropriation claim, the court affirmed the lower court’s ruling that the customer information wasn’t a trade secret because boat owners have to register with the State of Florida. Then the court focused on Yellowfin’s measures of secrecy and found them wanting. While the information was password protected and only certain employees had access, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that “Yellowfin effectively abandoned all oversight in the security” of the information at issue because Yellowfin: (1) encouraged Kevin to store the information on his personal devices and didn’t ask him to delete the information when he left the company; (2) didn’t ask Kevin to use security measures for the information on his personal devices; (3) allowed Kevin access to the information even though he refused to sign a confidentiality agreement; and (4) none of the information was marked ‘confidential’.

When taking a case to the Property Tax Appeal Board (PTAB), it’s only natural to hope for the best. However, not everyone receives the result they desire. Fortunately, any party dissatisfied with a PTAB decision can appeal it.*

Whether you are an accountant, lawyer, banker, business consultant or investment advisor, many of your business clients will have a 401(k) or other qualified retirement plan. You may not specialize in retirement plans, but consider the following as the kinds of things you might do to assist your clients and prospects with their retirement plans:

Trade show materials may be a patent buster. %CUT% Trade shows are a way to showcase products and innovations in an industry. Materials distributed at a trade show are usually promotional and are designed to get more sales and establish a beacon in the marketplace. But, trade materials that identify inventions could bust a patent. The US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”), in an inter parties review (“IPR”) between Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc., held that certain claims in Nobel’s patent for a dental implant screw were not patentable because they were anticipated. “Anticipated” is similar to “prior art” which means that the claimed invention isn’t new. Instradent, the IPR petitioner, argued that Nobel’s invention for a dental implant screw had already been disclosed in a product catalogue from Alpha-Bio Tech Ltd. (“ABT”). Instradent proved that ABT disclosed the product in a catalogue it distributed at a 2003 dental trade show in Cologne, Germany. ABT had a rather small booth at the show and not much of a presence. But people at the trade show had seen the catalogue. So it was considered publication of the prior art. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Board’s determination that the ABT catalogue was prior art and so some of Nobel’s claims in the patent were not patentable.

Captain America, Thor and Iron Man can’t save your party guests without a license. %CUT% Characters for Hire, LLC (“CFH”) advertises premium entertainment for parties and private events by booking actors dressed like popular characters. CFH offers hero characters and famous characters from popular scifi/fantasy movies. Understanding that Disney, Marvel and LucasFilm own the rights to characters that fall into those categories, CFH used generic names like "Big Green Guy" (Hulk) and “The Dark Lord” (Darth Vader). Similarly, CFH advertised themed parties that referenced Plaintiffs’ movies, such as “Frozen Themed” (Frozen), “Avenging Team” (The Avengers), and “Star Battles” (Star Wars). But CFH used the original images of the characters in its ads (see picture). After CFH ignored several cease and desist letters, Disney, Marvel and LucasFilm sued. The court entered summary judgment against the plaintiffs on trademark infringement. The court appeared to put a lot of weight on the fact that the plaintiffs couldn’t show actual confusion and there was enough notice that CFH was not affiliated with the plaintiffs. But the court will proceed on the other counts of unfair competition, dilution and copyright infringement. So CFH can’t breathe a sigh of relief yet.

Even Halloween can’t escape copyright. %CUT%

Illinois law requires a general assessment of all property in the state to be made every four years, except in Cook County.*

No fee mutual funds are here!

A weak trademark is hard to enforce.  %CUT% IAC Search U Media Inc. owns the “Ask” trademark for a search engine. IAC brought a petition to cancel the trademark “ASKBOT” for question and answer software. IAC argued that it had priority of the use of the word “ask” with respect to search engines and that ASKBOT is likely to cause confusion with its “Ask” trademark. In the proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, ASKBOT produced ninety-seven news articles from the Lexis/Nexis database for the term “askcom”, third-party registrations of marks using the word “ask”, and excerpts from an unrelated opposition in which IAC opposed registration of the mark ASKVILLE. The Board held that, yes, the two marks were similar, involved the same or similar services and they each were reaching for a similar customer base. But here’s where it went sideways for IAC. The Board held that one must 'ask' a question in order to get an answer. So, the Ask mark is merely suggestive of the services provided and is a weak mark entitled to the barest minimum of protection. Since customers have to pay for IAC’s service and ASKBOT is free, customers will be able to tell the difference between the two and there is little likelihood of confusion. The Board denied the petition to cancel.

Those pesky on-line terms and conditions strike again. %CUT% James May listed his vacation rental property on HomeAway, an online marketplace for vacation rentals. Originally HomeAway only charged the owner and not the traveler. In 2016, HomeAway, which was acquired by Expedia, changed its policy to charge both the owner and the traveler. In 2016, James renewed the HomeAway subscription. Actually he renewed it in his wife’s name and not his own name. Then James brought a class action suit against HomeAway/Expedia for breach of contract, fraud, fraudulent concealment, and Oregon and Texas state law claims based on HomeAway’s imposition of a “traveler fee” and its negative effect on owners who used HomeAway to rent properties. The terms and conditions of the on-line agreement required arbitration for all disputes. So HomeAway/Expedia brought a motion to compel arbitration. James opposed the motion arguing that because he renewed in his wife’s name, he wasn’t bound by the arbitration clause in the terms and conditions. The magistrate judge hearing the case quickly disposed of this argument. First, the terms and conditions didn’t allow assignment of the agreement without HomeAway/Expedia’s permission. Second, the magistrate held that James had notice of the terms and conditions and so he was bound by them. The magistrate judge made a recommendation to the district court judge to enter an order granting the motion to compel arbitration.

Inventor identification gets lost in the haze of a patent application for a cannabis delivery system. %CUT% Michael Pappalardo met Samantha Stevins at a pharmaceutical products trade show. Michael told Samantha about his concept for a new product related to liquid and solid cannabis delivery systems. They agreed to work on it together. Samantha, who is an attorney, suggested that they apply for a patent. When Michael found out that Samantha had named herself as the sole inventor on the patent, he brought suit to add his name as an inventor. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Michael’s case. The court held that there is no cause of action to challenge inventorship until a patent issues. So Michael will have to wait until then to file suit.

Before Illinois’ personal property tax was abolished, both real and personal property were assessed and taxed the same. Nobody cared if property was called “real” or “personal.” But when the tax on individuals was eliminated in 1970 and its corporate counterpart was phased out nine years later through a constitutional amendment, classifying property as real or personal suddenly became a big deal. Since then, only real property has been taxed.

We’ve all read about the lawsuits questioning an employer’s 401(k) investment fund selections and related claims of excessive fund costs. And typically a plan’s professional investment advisor (yes – you should have one unless you have an investment professional on staff) meets with company representatives periodically to discuss a detailed report on fund investment performance and any recommended changes in the plan’s investment fund selections. So, your 401(k) plan files bulge with investment-related materials (and they should!). But what about the rest of an employer’s 401(k) responsibilities?

A corporation is considered a person under the law, albeit an artificial one. It sounds like an odd concept, but it’s been around for a while. Odder yet is that corporate personal rights exist and are expanding. Pro se or self-representation is a right that’s as old as our Constitution. In the property tax appeal process, an individual can always represent themselves, but does the same rule apply to a corporation? It depends.

Don’t wait too long to protect your trademark. %CUT% Since the 1990s, Cosmetic Warriors Ltd. sells “Lush” brand personal products like soap, lotions and makeup. For a brief period, Cosmetic Warriors sold a small number of t-shirts. But for the most part, Cosmetic Warriors does not sell clothing. Pinkette Clothing, Inc. started selling clothing using the brand name “Lush” in 2003. In 2009, Pinkette applied to register the trademark and it was registered in 2010. Cosmetic Warriors didn’t contest the registration. Almost 5 years after the registration of Pinkette’s trademark, Cosmetic Warriors sued Pinkette for trademark infringement. Cosmetic Warriors said that it didn’t know about the registration to explain why it waited so long to bring suit. Cosmetic Warriors won the battle but not the war. A jury sided with Cosmetic Warriors on the infringement issue. But then the jury sided with Pinkette on Pinkette’s argument that Cosmetic Warriors was barred by laches because it waited too long to bring suit. The jury’s verdict was upheld on appeal.

Each county in Illinois has a three-member panel called the board of review, which acts as an intermediary between township assessors and taxpayers. Boards hear and decide assessment complaints after giving taxpayers an opportunity to be heard. They also make rules so that the appeal process is orderly and fair.

Trade dress protects non-functional attributes of a product like color. %CUT% Moldex-Metric uses a bright green color for its foam earplugs. McKeon Products also uses bright green for foam earplugs. Moldex-Metric sued McKeon for infringement of unregistered trade dress, namely, the color of the earplugs. The trial court granted summary judgment for McKeon holding that the bright green color couldn’t be protected as trade dress because it served the function of making them easier to see during an inspection. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that the trial court failed to consider whether other colors would be just as visible. So the case is remanded back to the trial court to allow a jury to decide if the green color was not functional because of available alternatives.

Trademark fair use can win the race.  %CUT% SportFuel, Inc. sued PepsiCo, Inc. for trademark infringement. SportFuel alleged that PepsiCo’s slogan “Gatorade The Sports Fuel Company” infringed on its trademark. The attached image shows SportFuel’s use of its trademark on the left and PepsiCo’s use of its slogan on the right. The court granted summary judgment to PepsiCo on the basis of trademark fair use. The court cited factors that weighed in favor of fair use. First, the Gatorade house mark appeared more prominently than the tag line which lessens the possibility that the tag line would be seen as an indicator of source. Second, the judge found that the words “sports fuel” were merely descriptive.

Copyright infringement needs more than ‘sort of’ similarity. %CUT% Experian Information Solutions, Inc. registered the copyright for a database containing consumer names and addresses. Experian’s employees made some selections in adding data, reconciling discrepancies, and discarding useless information. Experian licenses access to its database to companies for use in marketing campaigns. Nationwide Marketing Services Incorporated is Experian’s competitor. Nationwide is relatively new to the market and much smaller than Experian. Experian got an offer to purchase a Nationwide’s database of names of addresses. Experian tested Nationwide’s database  against its own and came up with a 97% match rate.  Experian brought suit for copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation against Nationwide. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order for summary judgment in Nationwide’s favor on the copyright claim. The court held that the selection and arrangement process was sufficient to create minimal protection in Experian’s database. But, Experian did not prove infringement. Neither side could produce the databases as they appeared at the time of the alleged infringement. Experian could only show an 80% match rate between the current versions of the two databases. That wasn’t enough for copyright infringement. Experian’s trade secret misappropriation claim was remanded back to the district court.

Employers with 25 or more employees in Illinois will be subject to the Secure Choice Savings Program Act (the “Act”) if they do not already have an employer sponsored retirement arrangement like a 401(k) plan. For such employers with 500 or more Illinois employees that have been in business for at least two years, the compliance deadline is November 1, 2018. By that date, these employers must register at the Secure Choice website here and enroll their employees. Subject employers with fewer than 500 Illinois employees have compliance dates deferred until July 1, 2019 (100-499 employees) and November 1, 2019 (25-99 employees).

Investing in tech companies with issues can be hazardous to your retirement funds. %CUT% VirnetX, a publicly traded company, supposedly sells Internet connectivity and security software. By all reports, sales of its products don’t actually generate much revenue. Instead, VirnetX makes a lot of money suing other companies who allegedly infringe on its patents. Although it was successful in suits against Microsoft and Apple, VirnetX saw its heyday dwindle after the Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International that invalidated a lot of software patents. For Dr. Poppell, an eye doctor in Florida, VirnetX’s woes proved to be the downfall in Dr. Poppell’s investment strategy. Despite warnings from financial managers, Dr. Poppell, who had no financial training or background, personally administrated the 401(k) plan for his employees. Using Internet research, Dr. Poppell invested over half of his employees’ 401(k) money in VirnetX. VirnetX stock fell precipitously. As a result, the plan participants lost about 53% of their 401(k) investments. When the good doctor’s employees complained about the large losses, he terminated the 401(k) plan. When they complained about that, he fired them. The plan participants sued Dr. Poppell and he settled for less than a third of the losses. Then the Department of Labor got involved and required Dr. Poppell to make the plan participants whole.

Every photo doesn’t automatically have the veneer of copyrightability. %CUT% Dr. Mitchell A. Pohl is a cosmetic dentist who is very proud of his work. He posted before and after pictures of one of his patients on his website. The photos showed the patient’s unfortunate ‘before’ smile (teeth, lips and small area around the mouth) and her ‘after’ beautiful healthy smile. Dr. Pohl registered the photos with the US Copyright Office. Then Dr. Pohl found seven websites that used his photos. He sued the alleged infringer, MH SubI, LLC d/b/a Offcite, for copyright infringement. While Dr. Pohl obviously does fantastic work, his photos didn’t bridge the gap into copyrightable subject matter. The District Court for the Northern District of Florida performed the judicial version of a root canal and granted Offcite’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that Dr. Phol’s self-serving affidavit was as convincing as “plaque on a molar” and no reasonable jury could find that the photos were creative enough for copyright protection. The court later performed another extraction by denying Dr. Pohl’s motion to reconsider.