When an employee leaves to join a competing business, the security of trade secrets and other proprietary information is always a concern. Fears of trade secret theft recently prompted a legal dispute between two iconic breweries located on opposite sides of the country.
The Boston Beer Company (maker of Sam Adams beer) is suing Anchor Brewing (maker of Anchor Steam beer) over allegations that Anchor illegally poached one of their executives in order to steal trade secrets.
The Facts of the Case
When Judd Hausner took a position with Boston Beer in 2006, his contract contained a non-compete provision. It stipulated that Hausner could not work for another beer distributor operating in the same market as the Boston Beer Company for one year after leaving the firm.
Earlier this year, Hausner quit Boston Beer and accepted a position with Anchor managing distributors in Marin, Sonoma and Napa counties. The Boston Beer Company filed a lawsuit against Hausner and Anchor the very next day.
The Legal Arguments
Boston Beer alleges that immediately before quitting, Hausner attended high-level informational meetings where he was privy to information about Boston Beer’s internal strategies. The company claims to have “taught Hausner everything he knows about the beer business.”
As such, Boston Beer is worried that Hausner will share this information with Anchor.
“Faced with fierce competition from much larger beer companies as well as other craft brewers, Boston Beer has to be particularly vigilant about protecting itself against unfair competition from former employees who know its strategic plans and are in positions to compete unfairly with it,” said Boston Beer in its complaint.
Meanwhile, Hausner and Anchor argue that Boston Beer came to court “Armed solely with idle speculation and boilerplate allegations.” It also contends that the non-compete agreement is “a stale and unenforceable form agreement that it forced Mr. Hausner to sign while he was still in college in order to obtain an entry-level position.”
The Importance of Jurisdiction
Because the case largely centers on the non-compete agreement, the jurisdiction and governing law are likely to be significant. Although the case was filed in Massachusetts, which has a record of enforcing non-competes, Hausner and Anchor Steam may choose to file their own action in California and then to try to convince the two courts that the matter should be litigated in California. As we have mentioned on this blog, California law strongly disfavors the enforcement of non-compete provisions
All in all, it appears that an epic battle may be “brewing” here, and we will keep you updated on the status of the litigation as it unfolds.
Source: San Francisco Business Times
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Dispute “Brewing” Over Alleged Trade Secret Theft
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Patent Litigation: Google Vows to Stand Behind Android Vendors
Android vendors face a growing number of patent lawsuits from competitors, including formidable opponent Apple Inc. However, help may be on the way. Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt recently stated that his company will stand by those firms in any patent lawsuit.
“We tell our partners, including the ones here in Taiwan, we will support them. For example we have been supporting HTC in its dispute with Apple because we think that the Apple thing is not correct,” Schmidt told reporters during his first visit to Taipei.
In addition to Apple, companies using Google’s Android operating system are currently facing patent infringement lawsuits by Microsoft and Oracle. For instance:
- Apple is suing HTC Corp., Motorola Mobility, and Samsung Electronics Co. for patent infringement reacted to their mobile devices.
- Microsoft is suing Barnes & Noble, whose popular Nook e-book reader runs on Android.
- Google itself is also being sued by Oracle over claims that Android violates Java-related patents, as we mentioned in a previous blog post.
Source: Reuters
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.
Monday, November 28, 2011
U.S. Copyright Office Takes on Mass Digitization
The U.S. Copyright Office recently published a report that addresses one of the most controversial areas of copyright law right now—the mass digitization of books.According to the agency, the report is intended to facilitate further discussions among the affected parties and the public regarding possible approaches to the issue, including voluntary initiatives, legislative options, or both. The report also identifies questions to consider in determining an appropriate policy for the mass digitization of books.
The analysis was prompted by a ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in which the court rejected a proposed settlement in the copyright infringement litigation regarding Google’s mass book digitization project. The court found that the settlement would have redefined the relationship between copyright law and new technology, and it would have encroached upon Congress’s ability to set copyright policy with respect to orphan works.
Since the decision was issued in March, a group of authors has filed a lawsuit against five university libraries that participated in Google’s mass digitization project. These developments have fueled the debate regarding the risks and opportunities that mass book digitization may create for a large number of stakeholders, including authors, publishers, libraries, technology companies, and the general public.
According to the Copyright Office, its analysis will serve as a basis for further policy discussions on this issue. Among other issues, the reports addresses the following, as they relate to mass digitization:
- The objectives and public policy goals of mass digitization projects
- Liability for infringement
- Fair use
- Orphan works
- Direct licensing options
- Collective licensing options, including voluntary, extended, and statutory
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.
USPTO Partners With Chinese Counterpart to Launch New Patent Pilot Program
As we mentioned recently, a company who wants to safeguard its intellectual property rights in other countries must take additional steps to ensure international protection. To help streamline the process, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has entered into partnerships with countries across the world.
Most recently, representatives of the USPTO and China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) signed a Joint Statement of Intent last week to launch two new Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) pilot programs on December 1, 2011.
According to the USPTO, these landmark patent worksharing initiatives represent a major achievement in the growing bilateral cooperation between the two patent offices.
These pilot programs will apply to qualifying patent applications filed under both the Paris Convention (“Paris Route”) and the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT).
“This PPH agreement marks a shining success of the outstanding cooperation by both offices to build on synergies to improve the global patent system,” said Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property David Kappos. “The agreement comes at a very opportune time as China and the United States together make up a significant global market share for patent stakeholders. PPH will promote high quality patents and expedite processing of patent applications in both offices by avoiding duplicative work and will provide greater costs savings to patent applicants. It will help spur greater innovation and generate greater economic growth and job creation in both countries.”
What Are Patent Pilot Programs?
PPH programs permit each office to benefit from work previously done by the other office, which reduces the examination workload and improves patent quality. The expedited examination in each office allows applicants to obtain corresponding patents faster and more efficiently in each country.
Under the Paris Route PPH pilot program, an Office of Second Filing (OSF) may utilize the search and examination results of a national application filed in the Office of First Filing (OFF) in a corresponding application filed under the Paris Convention in the OSF. The PCT-PPH pilot program will use positive international written opinions and international preliminary examination reports developed within the framework of the Patent Cooperation Treaty.
The one-year pilot programs will end on November 30, 2012. Both offices may extend the one-year trial period upon mutual agreement. The purpose of this trial program is to gauge the interest of applicants and to evaluate the programs for patent quality, efficiency and the reduction of the workload at the USPTO as well as SIPO.
Source: USPTO
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Bipartisan Bill Looks to Crack Down on Rogue Websites
A bipartisan group in the U.S. House of Representatives recently introduced legislation intended to combat the illegal distribution of counterfeit goods via rogue websites hosted overseas.
The proposed bill greatly expands protections for intellectual property (IP) and, if passed, would bring sweeping changes to copyright law.
Among other things, the Stop Online Piracy Act (H.R. 3261) would allow the Justice Department to seek injunctions against foreign websites suspected of pirating goods or content. The bill would also allow the government and copyright holders to demand that third parties, such as payment processors and online ad networks, terminate services with rogue sites.
As stated by Judiciary House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas), “Rogue websites that steal and sell American innovations have operated with impunity. The online thieves who run these foreign websites are out of the reach of U.S. law enforcement agencies and profit from selling pirated goods without any legal consequences. According to estimates, IP theft costs the U.S. economy more than $100 billion annually and results in the loss of thousands of American jobs.”
Despite the strong words from the bill’s sponsors and support from the content industry, the Stop Online Privacy Act has many critics. Leaders from both the public and private sector argue that the bill goes too far and would create too much uncertainty for the technology industry. Industry groups representing Internet Service Providers and the large tech companies such as Google and Yahoo have all spoken out against the bill.
Most recently, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) sent a letter to their colleagues urging them not to support the bill. They stated: “H.R. 3261 unfortunately does not follow a consensus-based approach. It would give the government sweeping new powers to order Internet Service Providers to implement various filtering technologies on their networks. It would also create new forms of private legal action against websites—cutting them off from payment and advertising providers by default, without any court review, upon a complaint from any copyright owner, even one whose work is not necessarily being infringed.”
Given the controversy surrounding the bill, its future is largely uncertain. A hearing on the bill is scheduled for this week. We will post updates as they become available.
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Trademark FAQ: What Do the Different Marks and Designations Mean?
Dealing with trademark issues can be a bit intimidating if you are unfamiliar with the lingo. For instance, what’s the difference between a trademark and a certification mark? And what do all of those different designations mean?
To help businesses get a handle on the terminology used when talking about trademark issues, this post offers a short summary of several key terms.
The Different Types of Marks
Trademark: A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, or design, or a combination thereof, which identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others.
Service mark: A service mark is a word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination thereof, which identifies and distinguishes the source of a service rather than goods. However, the term “trademark” is often used to refer to both trademarks and service marks.
Certification mark: A certification mark is any word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination thereof owned by one party who certifies the goods and services of others when they meet certain standards. The owner of the mark exercises control over the use of the mark; however, because the sole purpose of a certification mark is to indicate that certain standards have been met, others actually use the mark.
Collective membership mark: A collective membership mark is any word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination thereof, which indicates that the user of the mark is a member of a particular organization. The owner of the mark exercises control over the use of the mark; however, because the sole purpose of a membership mark is to indicate membership, the members are the ones who actually use the mark.
Collective Mark: A collective mark is any word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination thereof owned by a cooperative, an association, or other collective group or organization and used by its members to indicate the source of the goods or services.
The Different Trademark Designations
You can use the symbols TM for trademark or SM for service mark to indicate that you are claiming rights to the marks without having federal registration, although state rules may apply.
The Federal Registration Symbol ® can only be used after the mark is actually registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. While an application is pending, the registration symbol ® may not be used; you must wait until the mark is actually registered.
How We Can Help
Of course, this post provides only a brief overview of trademark terminology and the requirements for using various trademark designations. Before undertaking a trademark registration or using a trademark designation, it is often advisable to consult with an experienced intellectual property attorney.
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.
Monday, November 21, 2011
California Copyright Litigation: Band Green Day Saved by Fair Use Doctrine
A California federal judge has dismissed a California copyright lawsuit by an artist who claimed that the band Green Day used an unauthorized reproduction of his art as a concert video backdrop. The judge found that the band’s use of the copyrighted work was “transformative” under the fair use doctrine.
As we have mentioned on this blog, fair use is the copying of copyrighted material for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work and can generally be done without the author’s permission.
The Facts of the Case
Artist Derek Seltzer sued Green Day and Warner Bros. Records for misappropriating his copyrighted work, Scream Icon, which the plaintiff had put on posters and stickers and displayed on public spaces around Los Angeles. Green Day challenged Seltzer’s claims in a motion for summary judgment, saying that its use of the Scream Icon was fair use.
The image at issue was created by photographer Richard Staub, who was hired by Green Day to create video backdrops for its 21st Century Breakdown concert tour. As part of the backdrops for the song East Jesus Nowhere, Staub took a photo of a graffiti-covered poster of Scream Icon, then altered the color and contrast, added a brick background, and superimposed a red spray-painted cross over the modified image. The altered image displayed during a single song in Green Day’s thirty-two-song set.
The Court’s Ruling
California Federal Judge Philip Gutierrez granted Green Day’s motion for summary judgment finding that the band’s use of the copyrighted image was “transformative” enough to qualify as fair use. The judge reasoned that the use was transformative because the new elements, including graffiti, brick backdrop, and a large red cross over the images, when considered in connection with the music and lyrics of the Green Day song they accompanied, “add[ed] something new, with a further purpose of different character” as compared to the plaintiff’s original work.
The court also noted that Seltzer had difficulty demonstrating that the band’s use of the image had an adverse impact on the potential market for his image. According to Judge Gutierrez, “Given the fundamentally different purposes of the two works, Staub’s use of a modified version of the Scream Icon image in the East Jesus Nowhere video backdrop cannot reasonably be deemed a market substitute for Plaintiff’s original Scream Icon image.”
As this case highlights, there are no bright-line rules for what constitutes fair use, particularly whether it is done for a transformative purpose. Rather, the determination is made on a case-by-case basis.
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Claims Stallone Stole Screenplay on the Sly
Sylvester Stallone is certainly a tough guy on screen, but how will he fare in the courtroom? The action movie star is facing a copyright infringement lawsuit related to the screenplay of his popular film “The Expendables.”
The lawsuit was filed last week in Manhattan federal court by writer Marcus Webb. He claims the screenplay for “The Expendables,” a movie about mercenaries hired to defeat a military dictator, is “strikingly similar and in some places identical” to his work entitled “The Cordoba Caper.”
According to the lawsuit, Webb registered “The Cordoba Caper” screenplay and a short story with the same title and plot with the U.S. Copyright Office in June 2006. Between 2006 and 2009, Webb widely circulated the screenplay for consideration in the movie industry.
“There can be no dispute that Stallone and/or [co-author David] Callaham had access to and copied protectable elements of the screenplay,” the lawsuit alleges.
The copyright infringement complaint details the apparent similarities between Webb’s screenplay and the released movie. It states that the main villain in both is a General Garza, a military dictator with a notorious human rights record. In addition, it contends both the movie and the screenplay open “with a hostage rescue at sea, off a foreign coast, which has nothing to do with the main plot.”
As a result of the alleged infringement, Webb claims he has been deprived of benefits from the screenplay such as potential earnings from the production, distribution, and performance of “The Expendables.”
He seeks unspecified damages for copyright infringement and an order from the court stopping further infringement in any sequel by Stallone, his credited co-author David Callaham, Millennium Films, its Nu Image Films unit, and Lions Gate Entertainment Corporation.
“Expendables 2″ is due for release on Aug. 17, 2012.
Source: Reuters
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.
Friday, November 18, 2011
Is Social Media Putting Your Company’s Valuable Trade Secrets at Risk?
With the explosion of social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, it is likely that many of your employees use social media for both personal and business interactions. While these tools can be a great way to spread the word about your company’s products or services, they can also compromise proprietary information, including trade secrets.
As we continually remind our clients, trade secrets are a valuable business asset, but only if they remain secret. Therefore, it is critical for companies to have policies and procedures in place to prevent employees from revealing confidential information via social media.
Below are a few tips for safeguarding your trade secrets:
- Create policies for employees that clearly detail the company’s expectations regarding the use of social media.
- Include social media provisions in employment-related contracts such as non-disclosure and non-compete agreements.
- Closely monitor the use of social networking media even for business purposes to reduce the risk of leaking confidential information, even inadvertently.
- Thoroughly investigate any social media provider before using it to market your business. For instance, it is important to understand the provider’s policies regarding the ownership of information that is posted on its site as well as what controls are in place to protect customer data from hacking and other security threats.
- Finally, stay on your toes—social media continues to evolve and will likely pose more IP challenges in the future.
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
U.S. Copyright Office Outlines Priorities—Technology High on the List
Register of Copyrights Maria A. Pallante recently published her office’s priorities and special projects through October, 2013. The paper outlines 17 priorities in the areas of copyright policy and administrative practice, as well as 10 new projects designed to improve the quality and efficiency of the U.S. Copyright Office’s services in the 21st century.
According to the U.S. Copyright Office’s press release, “Rogue websites, illegal streaming, small claims, orphan works and library preservation are among the issues the Copyright Office will focus on through research and legislative support for Congress.”
The office also indicates that the administrative practice of the Copyright Office will be particularly active during the next two years, stating: “The office has launched the fifth triennial rulemaking involving the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and will spend significant time considering and resolving regulatory issues affecting the copyrightability and registration of websites and other forms of digital authorship.”
While the future aims of the Copyright office are wide-ranging, many are designed to address advances in technology that continue to impact the area of copyright law. Below are several areas to be addressed over the next several years.
- Mass book digitization
- Rogue websites
- Illegal streaming
- Market-based licensing for cable and satellite transmissions
- Registration options for websites and other forms of digital authorship
- Electronic administration of the statutory licenses
- Technical upgrades to electronic registration
- Revision of copyright office website
- Public access to historical records
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.
Patent Pilot Program Underway in California and Around the Country
Following the dramatic increase in patent filings over the last few years, patent cases are flooding the dockets of federal courts around the country. As we have mentioned on this blog, patent cases are often lengthy and complicated as they involve complex technical, procedural, and legal issues.
To help ensure that patent litigants receive the benefit of having an experienced judge hear their cases, Congress created the “Patent Pilot Program” early this year. The 10-year pilot project is designed to enhance expertise in patent cases among U.S. district judges, and it is now underway across the country.
Under the Patent Pilot Program, patent cases filed in participating district courts are initially randomly assigned to all district judges, regardless of whether they have been designated to hear such cases. A judge who is randomly assigned a patent case and is not among the designated judges may decline to accept the case. That case is then randomly assigned to one of the district judges designated to hear patent cases.
The fourteen courts that are participating in the program are:
- Central District of California
- Northern District of California
- Southern District of California
- Eastern District of New York
- Southern District of New York
- Western District of Pennsylvania
- District of New Jersey
- District of Maryland
- Northern District of Illinois
- Southern District of Florida
- District of Nevada
- Eastern District of Texas
- Northern District of Texas
- Western District of Tennessee
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Patent FAQ: Can I Protect My Intellectual Property Overseas?
Unfortunately, the rights granted by a U.S. patent or trademark can only be enforced in the United States and generally have no effect in a foreign country. Therefore, a company who wants to safeguard its intellectual property rights in other countries must take additional steps to ensure international IP protection.
Since securing and registering patents, trademarks, and copyrights in foreign markets can be exceedingly complex, it is generally advisable to work with an experienced intellectual property attorney who can work with you to create an international IP strategy.
To give you a brief look at the process, below is a short summary of the legal issues regarding international IP protection.
Patents and Trademarks
Patents and trademarks are territorial and must be filed in each country where protection is sought. However, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) streamlines the process of filing patents in multiple countries. By filing one patent application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), U.S. applicants can concurrently seek protection in up to 143 countries.
The Madrid Protocol also makes it easier to file for trademark registration in multiple countries. By filing one trademark registration application with USPTO, U.S. applicants can concurrently seek protection in up to 84 countries.
Copyrights
Although most countries do not require copyright registration in order to enjoy copyright protection, registration can offer several benefits, such as proof of ownership. The United States has copyright relations with most countries throughout the world, and as a result of these agreements, we honor each other’s citizens’ copyrights. However, the United States does not have such copyright relationships with every country. A listing of countries and the nature of their copyright relations with the United States is available here.
Source: USPTO
At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. As a full-service intellectual property firm with more than two decades of experience, we provide local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.
Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) to find out how we can provide a powerful defense of your unique ideas.