• Trump on Intellectual Property

    President Trump’s State of the Union speech promised protection of both “American workers and American intellectual property, through strong enforcement of our trade rules.”  Trump also noted that “I have directed my Administration to make fixing the injustice of high drug prices one of our top priorities. Prices will come down.”  Although, high drug prices are, […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • Spotify Sued by Music Publishing Company for Unauthorized Use of Thousands of Songs

    The world’s biggest music streaming service, Spotify, has recently been sued by Wixen Music Publishing for allegedly using thousands of songs without a license and compensation to the publisher. Filed in the United States Federal District Court for the Central District of California, this is a major lawsuit that is only the latest in a string of legal actions that Spotify has faced in the past year. Benjamin Semel, partner at Pryor Cashman LLP, sat down with IPWatchdog to discuss the lawsuit in…

    Continue Reading ...
  • J A Kemp Opens Office in Paris

    On 1 February 2018, J A Kemp, a leading firm of European and UK Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, will open an office in Paris. Graham Lewis and Jimmy Nicholls, French-speaking patent attorney partners who have both spent their entire careers at J A Kemp, will relocate to Paris to lead the office from day one. James Fish, the partner who heads up the firm’s Trade Marks and Designs Group, will lead the firm’s Paris-based trade marks operation.

    The post J A Kemp Opens Office in Paris appeared…

    Continue Reading ...
  • 抑える

                            目次はこちら

    抑える

    (KEEP)
    $$ Therefore, it is advantageous to keep the apparatus as simple and cheap as possible. / このため、装置をできる限り単純かつ安価に抑えることが有利となる。(USP8936113)

    $$ The expenditure involved in data evaluation can be kept small. / データ評価にかかる手間を、小さく抑えることができる。(USP8733162)

    (REDUCE)
    $$ It is furthermore an object of the present invention to provide a device for cleaning vehicle surfaces which has a reduced number of moving parts. / さらに、本発明の目的は、作動部品の点数を抑えた車両表面の洗浄装置を提供することを目的する。(USP8905327)

    $$ Such exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) is known per se for reducing oxygen content of combustion air and reducing NOx emissions. / このような排気ガス再循環(EGR)は、燃焼空気の酸素分を抑え、NOx排出量を抑制するためにそれ自体が公知である。(USP8875685)

    $$ This enables the mounting of the landing gear assembly to the wing to be reduced in strength and therefore weight. / これによって、着陸装置アセンブリの翼への装着の強度を抑え従って重量を低減することができる。(USP8844864)

    $$ Humectants serve to reduce the rate of evaporation of components and improve product feel if direct skin contact is involved. / この湿潤剤は、液成分の蒸発速度を低く抑える作用を示し、直接皮膚に触れる場合に感触を改善する。(USP8562907)

    $$ This reduces out-of-band interference presented to base stations BS121 etc. / これにより、基地局BS121などに示される帯域外の干渉が抑えられる。(USP8269668)

    $$ This reduces the possibility of analytes contained in a gas phase from becoming attached to portions of the fluid gating structure. / これによって気相に含まれた検体が流体ゲート構造体の部分に付着する可能性が抑えられる。(USP7619265)

    (MINIMIZE)
    $$ Since the area of the substrate to be processed is minimised, problems with dishing and erosion are alleviated. / 処理される基板の領域は最小限に抑えられるため、ディッシングと腐食の問題は緩和される。(USP7640647)

    $$ This can aid in minimizing the size of the or each insert so as to fit inside the housing. / これによって、インサートまたは各インサートの大きさをハウジングの内側に嵌るように最小限に抑えるのを助けることができる。(USP7213467)

    $$ An object of the invention is to minimise or to overcome this disadvantage. / 本発明の目的は、上記欠点を最小限に抑えること、又は、解決することである。(USP6222843)

    $$ Fweb is the frequency reuse factor needed to minimise interference in the present invention, / Fwebは、本発明での干渉を最小限に抑えるるために必要とされる周波数再利用係数である。(USP6553020)

    (SAVE)
    $$ This also saves on the cost of materials–all lengths of pipe attached to the mole will be left in the ground, since it is intended that no part of the apparatus be retrieved. / また、材料費も抑えられ、装置のどの部品も回収されないため、掘削機に接続されたパイプの長さはすべて地中に残される。(USP8936113)

    $$ This dramatically saves on production and design costs and enables inexpensive, disposable valves to be produced in high volumes. / このことにより、製造及びデザインに係る費用を飛躍的に抑えることができ、安価で使い捨て可能なバルブを大量に製造することができるようになる。(USP8048041)

    (OTHERS)
    $$ Shield elements 58 may be provided to resist seepage of lubricant from the bearing 42. / 遮蔽要素58を設けて、軸受42からの潤滑剤の漏出を抑えることができる。(USP8662841): resist

    $$ The vacuum pump unit 30 is provided with various filter modules 38, 40 to catch "solid" material and suppress odours, respectively. / 真空ポンプユニット30には、種々のフィルターモジュール38,40が設けられており、それぞれ、「固形」物質を捕捉すると共に匂いを抑えている。(USP8551061): suppress

    $$ Such treatment inhibits the local formation of corona and can keep the power consumption down. / そのような処理は、コロナ放電の特定の形成を抑制し、かつ電力消費量を抑えることができる。(USP8490898): inhibit

    $$ This makes the coupling tolerant to moderate misalignment of the PGA about a horizontal axis, as well as lateral misalignment. / これは、側面のミスアラインメントだけでなく、水平軸についての発電装置のミスアラインメントを抑えるのに、結合を強くする。(USP8459945): moderate

    $$ The lever 64 is held down, against the bias of the spring 22 by a single water reactive band 66, which again extends around the container 12 from top to bottom. / レバー64は、この場合も同様に上端から下端まで容器12の周りに延在する単一の水反応性バンド66によってばね22の付勢に対抗して抑えられている。(USP8430704): hold

    $$ This ensures the sliding motion along the dummy cardan pin 60 is limited to +/-0.5 mm. / この構成により、カルダンピン60に沿った摺動距離を+/-0.5mmに抑えることができる。(USP8313131): limit

    $$ The strain at the crack site in the hub 4 will therefore be controlled, and the propagation of the crack will occur slowly. / そのため、ハブ4の亀裂箇所にかかる負担が抑えられ、亀裂の拡大がゆっくり起こる。(USP8234953): control

    $$ To quench the exotherm, the computer 36 operates the pump 29 to introduce cold glycol into the curing tank 1. / 発熱を抑えるために、コンピュータ36は、ポンプ29を作動させて、低温グリコールを硬化タンク1内に導入する。(USP8211339): quench

                            目次はこちら

    Continue Reading ...
  • US Copyright Royalty Board Significantly Raises Rates on Streaming: Is it Enough?

    The Copyright Royalty Board in the United States has issued an initial determination and accompanying regulations that raise the amount of royalty available to songwriters for streaming, which will impact services such as Pandora, Spotify, Apple and YouTube.  Variety has an excellent article on the impact of the decision, which seems substantial—almost boosting royalties by 50%.  Paula Parisi of Variety explains:

    The ruling effects only the mechanical license, a term that literally references the rolls mechanically cranked through player pianos – arguably the first mass distribution media for recorded music. Albums, CDs and downloads also fall under the mechanical license (the thought being that like piano rolls, these are “physical copies,” although the idea that a digital stream is concrete by virtue of being stored at various points (on a server, in a buffer) is somewhat specious; analog broadcast signals also collect at various points, and digital radio and TV in practical terms is distributed in the manner of a stream.

    But broadcasts – digital or analog – are considered a public performance, and garner what is currently a higher  “performance license” rate. Songwriter Rodney Jerkins illustrated the discrepancy in September at the Recording Academy’s District Advocacy Day in Los Angeles by sharing an accounting statement for “As Long As You Love Me,” a top 10 hit for Justin Bieber in 2012. By 2013, Jerkins’ stake in the song generated $146,000 in performance royalties, while streaming revenue from the same period garnered $278 for 38 million Pandora plays and $218 for 34 million YouTube streams. “If I owned 100 of the song I would have made $1,100 from YouTube,” Jerkins said, proclaiming, “Those numbers are criminal.”

    The article explains how arguments for the lower rate were justified because of the need to allow the industry to grow.  Of course, once the industry grows there are public choice issues associated with an industry’s attempt to maintain benefits or lack of regulation to allow the industry to flourish.  Even at a 50% increase, the songwriter will still only receive around $560 for 38 million Pandora plays under Jerkins’ example.  It looks like we’re still trying to give the streaming business more time to mature. 

    Continue Reading ...
  • Google Suffers IPR Defeat on Patent Asserted Against YouTube by Network-1

    On Tuesday, January 23rd, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a ruling in Google LLC v. Network-1 Technologies, Inc. which affirmed a finding by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that a patent covering a method of identifying media linked over the Internet was valid. The Federal Circuit disagreed with Google that the PTAB erred in its claim construction during the validity trial, leaving in place a patent that has been asserted by Network-1 against Google’s major online…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Saying Goodbye to Chief Wahoo?

    A couple years ago, my youngest son was “drafted” onto the Indians Little League team. It was cringeworthy. The name was bad enough (and I’m thankful my alma mater had the good sense to abandon it nearly 50 years ago), but right there on the hat was Chief Wahoo. Needless to say, among the many baseball caps we have in our family, that one hasn’t seen the light of day since the season ended.

    Yesterday, the Cleveland team and Major League Baseball announced that they are retiring the logo from uniforms in a year (they had already removed it from in and around the stadium apparently). It’s unclear why it cannot be done sooner, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt that manufacturing for next season is already underway and cannot be changed. Good riddance.

    Buried in this news is an interesting IP theory and policy tidbit worth discussion. The team is not abandoning the logo altogether. To maintain trademark rights, it will continue to sell Chief Wahoo merchandise in the Cleveland area. That’s right, trademark law is forcing the team to keep selling merchandise with an offensive logo that it claims to no longer be using.

    As I discuss below, this is an area where I expect folks will be torn.

    On the one hand, you’re hardly giving up use of a repugnant mark when you keep selling it. As a colleague commented sarcastically:

    We would totally disavow this logo. We wish we could. But trademark law is making us sell this merchandise at a profit. If we don’t, then we would, you know, totally disavow the mark. What an awful predicament!

    This comment has a point. Continuing to profit on an offensive mark while explicitly bear-hugging the right hardly sends the right message. First, the team continues to make money. Second, it makes clear that it is just fine for fans to keep wearing their gear. Is the gear new? Is it old? Does it matter when the stadium is filled with Wahoo caps?

    But there is another hand, which I think makes this affair worthy of further comment. If the trademark is truly abandoned, then anyone can use it. The AP article linked above, for example, says that many fans are dedicated to maintaining the logo; they might be able do so if the trademark were abandoned. Thus, if done properly there is some merit to the notion of maintaining trademark rights (and aggressively enforcing them). What might “properly” mean? The bare minimum of sales. Maybe some youth extra small shirts and some socks, the kinds of things that a) won’t sell much, b) won’t be terribly visible when worn, but c) will be enough to keep ownership rights. The key is that that team can maintain rights, limit distribution, and lock out widespread use by others.

    This is not the only area where this sort of disagreement appears. A frequent debate is whether pornography should be copyrighted. Many argue that it should not be given protection, and that by limiting protection the incentive to create it will be reduced. Others argue that pornography will be created anyway, and that copyright law limits distribution to less than it would otherwise be without copyright law. This is an old debate; I recall having it with a colleague at my very first academic conference, and I suspect we’d still have it today if the occasion arose. The answer is partially punitively based (that is, we might want to limit protection, even if it has no effect on distribution) or it may be empirically based (that is, we might not know the answer until we can measure the effects one way or the other).

    I suspect that the same competing punitive and empirical concerns will animate the decision keep Chief Wahoo around. Time will tell whether the decision to continue selling merchandise serves to limit distribution or whether this is just a half-hearted disavowal that continues to profit the team.

    This is Written Description blog, so I would be remiss if I didn’t mention a paper on this topic. For those interested in a more complete discussion of the issues, Chris Cotropia and Jim Gibson (Richmond Law) published The Upside of Intellectual Property’s Downside back in 2010. Here is the abstract:

    Intellectual property law exists because exclusive private rights provide an incentive to innovate. This is the upside of intellectual property: the production of valuable goods that society would otherwise never see. In turn, too much intellectual property protection is typically viewed as counterproductive, as too much control in the hands of private rightsholders can create more artificial scarcity than the incentive effect warrants. Such overprotection not only denies the public access to the innovation without a corresponding gain in incentive, but it also retards future innovation by making it more difficult for follow-on innovators to make use of existing products. This is the downside of intellectual property: reduced production and impeded innovation.

    This article turns the traditional discussion on its head and shows that intellectual property’s putative costs can actually be benefits. It does so by questioning one of the discussion’s underlying assumptions: that innovation is always good. This assumption is usually valid, but not always; there are certain industries that society may prefer to suppress. If intellectual property reduces production and impedes innovation in those industries, then its protection would be a net gain for society. We examine a handful of such industries (tax planning, pornography, and others), demonstrate that keeping (or bringing) them under the intellectual property umbrella may be the best way to stifle them – an approach that runs contrary to the scholarly consensus – and thereby describe the circumstances under which intellectual property’s downside can become society’s upside.

    Continue Reading ...
  • No Opinion on De Novo Review

    In its petition for writ of certiorari, Riveer asks the following question: Whether it is a denial of due process under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution for the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, on issues requiring de novo review, to affirm summarily in a one-word per curiam judgment under […]

    Continue Reading ...
  • DMCA 2017: 9th Cir. decides safe harbor, anti-circumvention cases

    In 2017, there were several noteworthy decisions relating to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Specifically, the Ninth Circuit addressed two separate cases, one dealing with safe harbor provisions, the other on anti-circumvention. This article discusses three separate decisions including Mavrix Photographs LLC v. LiveJournal Inc., 873 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2017)(on DMCA safe harbor), and Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. VidAngel, Inc., 869 F.3d 848 (9th Cir. 2017)(anti-circumvention…

    Continue Reading ...