Docket Alarm would like to congratulate this year’s Law360 Intellectual Property MVPs. The 2014 class includes both veterans and up-and-comers, with almost all of the recipients having practices focused on patent litigation.

Daralyn Durie | Durie Tangri

Daralyn Durie is a San Francisco-based patent litigator, whose clients include some of the biggest names in tech: Google, Twitter, LinkedIn and Genentech.

Self-made mogul Michelle Phan is embroiled in a legal battle over her use of music in her popular YouTube videos.

Phan’s legal troubles began in July when music label, Ultra Records, filed a suit against her for copyright infringement. Ultra alleged Phan used songs and compilations owned by the label as background music for her YouTube videos without first obtaining a license to do so. Phan has responded to Ultra’s complaint, and has also filed a counterclaim, stating that, although she did use some of the songs and compilations in question, her use is pursuant to an agreement she had with the label.

The days of conducting legal research in a vacuum are numbered. The latest developments in search utilize sophisticated full-text search engines in conjunction with big data analytics to give attorneys insight into the relationships between the many facets of litigation. Docket Alarm is helping to pave the way by offering a proprietary analytics platform in addition to a robust legal research engine.

Proprietary PTAB Analytics

Docket Alarm’s proprietary analytics add context and perspective to legal research.

The legalization of recreational marijuana in Colorado and Washington has lead to many novel intellectual property issues.

For example, in March 2014, a new state tax was proposed that would on Washington marijuana-related businesses seeking IP protection. Specifically, a tax of $3.60 would be assessed per $1000 of value of a business’s IP assets, including trademarks, trade names, brands, patents, and copyrights related to marijuana. The intended purpose of the tax is to “capitalize on [Washington’s] unique position” and use the generated revenue for agricultural research.

Back in June, electric car manufacturer Tesla Motor’s CEO Elon Musk “opened up” Tesla’s patents to other car manufacturers. Now that the dust has settled, was this really the game-changing move that analysts and news outlets had predicted? And how will it affect Tesla’s recently unveiled Model D?

What Tesla’s Announcement Really Means

To explore the real reason behind Musk’s seemingly bold decision, we need to examine what the phrase “opened up” actually means in this context.

A major challenge facing firms and in-house legal departments is staying abreast of new lawsuits relevant to their clients and respective practice areas. Most firms employ paralegals to constantly check the court docket, while others have created their own platform by piecing together various services and tools. Not enough are taking advantage of readily available solutions.

Google Alerts: Information Overload

One such tool favored by many is Google’s “Alerts” feature, which allows an individual to enter a keyword or phrase as they would if conducting a search, and receive updates on that information.

Websites like Flickr offer a wealth of user-generated images, making it easy to create a visually compelling blog. However, using another’s work is always a tricky business, and bloggers need to be aware of the legal ramifications that may accompany use of a found photograph.

So, how can you tell if you can use someone else’s photograph?

Whether or not you can legally use another’s photo on your blog depends on the kind of license governing the particular photo you want to use.

This month, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) celebrated its second birthday.

Apple is famous, or maybe infamous, for its comprehensive approach to IP protection. One of the latest victories for the computer giant comes out of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). On July 10, 2014, the CJEU issued a preliminary ruling that a distinctive store layout may be registered as a protected trademark with the German Patent and Trademark Office (DPMA).

Procedural History

The procedural history of this ruling takes us back across the pond.

On August 27, 2014, California Federal District Court Judge Lucy Koh denied Apple’s request for a permanent injunction against Samsung, which would have prevented the telecom giant from “making, selling, developing or advertising” features in its products that infringed on three of Apple’s patents. Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al, No. 5:12-cv-00630-LHK, slip op at 1 (N.D. Cal. August 27, 2014). In her ruling,Judge Koh cited Apple’s failure to demonstrate any irreparable harm it was likely to suffer as a result of Samsung’s exploitation of Apple’s patented features as the basis for denial.

After the United States, Germany has the second most active patent docket in the world. With so much activity, Germany has a body dedicated to patent invalidity and appeal proceedings, known as the Federal Patent Court (“Bundespatentgericht”). This forum has original jurisdiction over challenges to a patent’s validity and appellate jurisdiction over decisions issued by the German Patent and Trademark Office (“DPMA”).

Similarities Between PTAB and Germany’s Federal Patent Court

Similar to America’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), the Federal Patent Court of Germany provides parties with an alternative to civil litigation for patent disputes.

With over eight USPTO regional offices across the country, there are more than 170 Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) administrative judges currently on the bench. Who are these judges? What are their backgrounds? What should attorneys know before appearing in front of a PTAB panel?

Backgrounds

While the PTAB judges come from a variety of backgrounds, they share a similar set of qualifications.

What is a Post Grant Review?

Post Grant Review (PGR), another product of the America Invents Act (AIA), is an invalidity proceeding that went into effect September 16, 2012. Along with Inter Partes Review, PGR is meant to phase out Inter Partes Reexamination. The petitioning party has up to nine months after the a patent is granted to file a PGR petition to invalidate one or more claims of the patent in question.

First PGR Petition: LaRose Industries, LLC v. Choon’s Design, Inc.

The last decision in a trio of derivation petitions filed by Catapult Innovations against adidas AG has been released by the PTAB. In derivation proceeding DER2014-00005, Catapult filed a petition for derivation against adidas AG, alleging its U.S. Pat. App. 13/543,428 was derived from Catapult’s invention disclosed in U.S. Pat. App. 14/045,954.

Again, the Catapult disclosure in question, for purposes of proving derivation in this petition, is the same disclosure referred to in Case DER2014-00002 and Case DER2014-00006— a two-day presentation and demonstration given by Catapult’s CEO to adidas AG subsidiary AWSE, during which technical information regarding the subject matter of Catapult’s application was disclosed.

On July 18, 21014, the PTABdenied Catapult’s petition for the same reasons the petitions in DER2014-00002 and DER2014-00006 were denied.

Derivation Proceedings

Along with the switch from a “first to invent” to a “first to file” patent system, the America Invents Act (AIA) created a new proceeding to deal with disputes over the true inventor of the subject matter of a patent application – Derivation Proceedings.