Sheldon Mak & Anderson - USIP.com

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Another Big Win For Our Client!


We are happy to share the successful conclusion of a simmering trademark dispute for our client, a local garment manufacturer.  The matter ends in our client selling his mark for seven figures to a major European retailer interested in the relevant markets.

Our firm undertook the representation on a contingency basis, and that helped equalize the size difference of the parties.

If you have trademarks or other IP that are not generating revenues, perhaps it is time to look at disposing of them.


[+/-] read more...

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

U.S. Customs Making IP Protection at Border Even More Effective

U.S. Customs (Customs & Border Protection (CBP)) is authorized to record registered trademarks and copyrights to block unauthorized imports.  Over the years we have found this to be a very cost effective IP enforcement tool for our clients - you have a law enforcement agency of the U.S. government actively helping you monitor and enforce your IP rights at the U.S. borders.  Recordation is available for registered trademarks and copyrights only (and not available for patents).

Customs just announced a new function added to CBP's intranet.  If there are specific indicia that can help identify your goods, as distinguished from the likely infringing goods, you should definitely bring it to the attention to CBP through the submission of your PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION GUIDES.  The following email from CBP sets forth the rules, and please note some of the restrictions, such as:

  • IPR holders that address legal authorities or direct action may be barred from future port training.

You should get help as necessary in preparing the PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION GUIDES. 

We checked with CBP, and note the following additional points:

1.  CBP prefers that the PI Guides be submitted in .PDF format.  After the Guides are vetted by headquarters, that is what is going to be entered into the IPRiS intranet, and used by the various ITS (International Trade Specialists) at all of the ports of entry of the United States. 

2.  The recordation holder can amend and submit new PI Guides at any time, with the change in products and marketing materials. 

3.  However, the flip side is that the ITS is supposed to work ONLY with the PI Guides already placed in IPRiS (since this is a new system, it'd be interesting to see how Customs interprets that rule - e.g., whether that means no).

4.  I asked about the situation when the recordation holder does not file a PI Guide.  Customs will still continue to enforce the recorded IP, but the implication is that cases with PI Guides will probably be "easier" for CBP to work with.

5.  About this "port training", I am told that recordation holders could request meetings with the ITS at the port of interest (e.g., Long Beach), and go down and talk to the International Trade Specialist about how to IDENTIFY infringing products.  But care has to be taken so as NOT to argue legal authorities or push for direct action against specific infringers.

6.  CBP's  current policy is that allegations about infringement should be made with discretion.  They do not want to see "naked" allegations without proof.  They also have an electronic submission form for making allegations of IP infringement (of course for RECORDED copyrights and trademarks only), located at:


If you need help, call us.   The following is the original message from CBP.

From: BRABANT, GARY D [mailto:gary.brabant@dhs.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 10:55 AM
Subject: Product Identification Guides

This email is to thank you for recording your registered trademark(s) and/or copyright(s) with Customs & Border Protection (CBP).  Some rights owners have already taken advantage of a recently added function to CBP’s Intranet, and provided their Product Identification Guides to CBP for upload to our Intellectual Property Rights internal Search system (IPRiS).  Rights owners who have recorded their copyright(s) and/or trademark(s) with CBP but have not submitted their product identification guides should seriously consider doing so.  Submission of the product guide helps us with quicker response for authentication, and for protecting producers and consumers against the health and safety risks associated with fake commodities that work their way into supply chains.  The job of authenticating products and identifying counterfeit and pirated merchandise at US ports of entry is a difficult task, and these guides are another tool providing assistance to CBP Officers and Import Specialists in the fight against counterfeit and piratical goods.  

We would like to take this opportunity to invite you and your company to submit a Product Identification Guide so that CBP can maintain a secure central repository of information that CBP Officers and Import Specialists can use for product authentication throughout the U.S. and at ports of entry. When you create a Product Identification Guide, please see below for general guidelines and incorporation of a required disclaimer.  Once this process is completed, we will review your Guide for accuracy, and after approval, it will be posted to our secure intranet.

For any additional assistance or questions, please contact one of our International Trade Specialists, Mr. Gary Brabant, gary.d.brabant@dhs.gov , tel: 202-863-6603; or Mr. Marty Canner, martin.canner@dhs.gov , tel: 202-863-6612. 

IPR PRODUCT IDENTIFICATION GUIDES: GUIDELINES
The following guidelines are provided to clarify current CBP policy related to product identification training:

  • Product identification training materials from IPR holders should neither address CBP legal authority nor offer legal opinions concerning the course of action that CBP officers should take in any particular situation.
  • CBP need not have made an actual determination that a suspect product is “counterfeit” and “piratical” in order for IPR holders to use these terms in their training materials.  However, when developing their training materials, IPR holders are encouraged to use terms such as “suspect” or “allegedly infringing” rather than “counterfeit” or “piratical,” where possible.
  • IPR holders shall not instruct CBP officers and import specialists, either verbally or in writing, to examine, detain, or seize goods for IPR violations.
  • Field offices and/or ports may exercise discretion when considering any offer of training from IPR holders.  Impact on port operations, such as staffing issues, should always be considered.
  • Training is to be declined if an IPR holder has not recorded their rights with CBP.
  • IPR holders that address legal authorities or direct action may be barred from future port training.
  • A copy of the disclaimer statement (below) is required to be attached to each copy of the product identification training materials before the materials are disseminated to field personnel. 

DISCLAIMER

The opinions expressed herein are those of the right owner and do not necessarily reflect the position of U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP).  Decisions as to whether or not merchandise should be detained or seized for infringing protected intellectual property rights are to be made in accordance with established procedures by CBP personnel at the appropriate management level of the concerned field office.  CBP personnel who have questions arising from this product identification training material or manual should call the IPR Helpdesk at 562-980-3119, ext. 252, or the IPR and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings at (202) 325-0020.

[+/-] read more...

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

New Video Presentation -- "Protecting Ideas And Avoiding Infringement"

Sheldon  Mak & Anderson is proud to announce Jeffrey G. Sheldon's 6-Part online Video presentation titled:

"PROTECTING IDEAS AND AVOIDING INFRINGEMENT"

Mr. Sheldon offers valuable information on the following topics:

Part One:  Introduction to Protecting Ideas, Patents (I)
Part Two:  Patents (II)
Part Three:  Trade Secrets
Part Four:   Copyright Protection, Open Source Software
Part Five:  Trademarks
Part Six:  Contract Protection, Great Quotes Regarding Inventions

Now available for viewing on our website:

and YouTube

[+/-] read more...

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Try Out This Fast IP Search Tool - IP-Screen(sm)

Sheldon Mak & Anderson PC is happy to sponsor this innovative service to the business community. 

WHAT IS IP-SCREEN?

IP-Screen does one thing only, but does it fast.

If you know the name of a company, an IP-Screen search is currently the fastest method you can use to get a list of the U.S. intellectual property owned under the entity name. Just type in the name once, and in a flash you will get back results from several U.S. government public access databases on IP (Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights, and U.S. Customs). Summary results are presented all on a single screen for easy navigation.
America is a great country, and America has the strongest Intellectual Property system in the world. Simpler and faster public IP data access will be good for IP development.

WHAT IS IP-SCREEN USED FOR?
  1. IP ownership tells you a lot about a business. An IP-Screen search is the quickest way to size up any competitor.
  2. An IP-Screen search should be the first step in any M&A DD project.
  3. It would be a rare American business, especially a long established one, that does not have registered intellectual property. So next time you get any sort of business proposal, do an IP-Screen search on the company.
  4. You are at a trade show, and you come upon an unknown company. Just pull out your smart phone and IP-Screen search the company name.
  5. Your competitor's lawyer comes up to your booth at a trade show and demands that you take down your display because of some alleged infringement. Keep him honest by doing an IP-Screen search to see what rights his client may have.
  6. You are waiting for that rare conference with your department head, and need to show that you are up on the development within the company. What better way than to quickly IP-Screen search and come up with some points of interest?
  7. You are sitting outside the room for your job interview. Do an IP-Screen search on the employer and come up with intelligent talking points.
  8. Dead trademarks can tell a lot. Do an IP-Screen search to see what TM registrations and applications were dropped by the company.
  9. Showing all the IP in one place gives you a focused view of the entity (this is especially helpful to attorneys).
IP-Screen search is a quick, simple tool; by design it is neither comprehensive nor complete. But you can do the search yourself, whenever and wherever you are, and the price is right!

I am sure you will come up with new ways and reasons for using IP-Screen. Do share by sending feedback to the site. 

[+/-] read more...

Friday, February 18, 2011

PATENT OFFICE ISSUES GUIDELINES RE THE DEFINITENESS REQURIEMENT


Patent claims need to be definite.  The Patent Office recently issued guidelines to its examiners on how to apply the definiteness requirement.  (76 Fed. Reg. 7162)    (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-02-09/pdf/2011-2841.pdf)  According to these guidelines:
            A.        The claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation.  The words of the claim are given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification.
            B.        If the claim can be read with more than one reasonable interpretation, a rejection for indefiniteness is appropriate. If the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clear, the claim is indefinite.
            C.        A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter.
            D.        Functional language can be suspect.  The primary inquiry is whether the language leaves room for ambiguity. The following factors are to be considered when examining functional language for indefiniteness:
                        (i)         Is there a clear cut indication of the claim scope;
                        (ii)        Does the claim set forth well-defined boundaries of the invention or does it only state a problem solved or result obtained; and
                        (iii)       Can one skilled in the art know what structure or steps are encompassed by the claims?
            E.         When terms of degree are used, does the specification provide a standard for measuring that degree?
            F.         If a subjective term is used, does the specification provide some standard for measuring the scope of the term?
            G.        With regard to Markush claims, can one skilled in the art envision all of the members of the Markush group, and does the claim contain an improper grouping of species? 
            H.        Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. Section 112, paragraph 6 to a claim limitation that:
                        (i)         Uses the phrase “means for” or “step for” or a non-structural term that does not have a structural modifier;
                        (ii)        The phrase is modified by functional language; and
                        (iii)       The phrase is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for achieving the specified function. 
            I.          If it is unclear if the claim invokes 35 U.S.C. Section 112, paragraph 6, a rejection for indefiniteness may be appropriate.
            J.          If the claim invokes 35 U.S.C. Section 112, paragraph 6, the written description must clearly link or associate the corresponding structure, material, or acts to the claimed function.
            K.        For computer implemented means-plus-function limitations, the corresponding structure is not a general purpose computer, but rather must be a special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.

These guidelines and supplemental examination information are effective February 9, 2011 and apply to all applications filed before, on or after the effective date.

The USPTO is inviting comments on these guidelines and supplemental examination information.  To be ensured of consideration, written comments must be received on or before April 11, 2011. No public hearing will be held.  Comments concerning these guidelines and supplemental examination information may be sent by electronic mail message over the Internet addressed to SEGuidelines112@uspto.gov

[+/-] read more...

Monday, February 14, 2011

USPTO Offers Online Tools to Solicit Public Feedback on Patent and Trademark Examining Procedures

The USPTO has introduced two online discussion tools designed to solicit input from the intellectual property  community on how the USPTO can update and improve the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) and Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP).

Selected chapters from the MPEP and TMEP were selected to draw commentary from a wide spectrum of users. The USPTO plans to post additional chapters in the coming months. Feedback will be used to consider potential modifications to the tools or the conditions for their use in order to increase meaningful participation. Current chapters open for discussion include:
MPEP Chapter 500 - Receipt and Handling of Mail and Papers and Chapter 600 - Parts, Form, and Content of Application, and
TMEP Section 904.03 - Material Appropriate as Specimens for Trademarks and Chapter 1200 - Substantive Examination of Applications.

Those interested in contributing comments can access the tools on the following websites http://uspto-mpep.ideascale.com/ and http://uspto-tmep.ideascale.com/.

This project is one of several open government initiatives the USPTO is undertaking to collaborate with the public and increase agency transparency.  For more information on these initiatives, go to:
http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2010/10_22.jsp, www.uspto.gov/dashboards, www.peertopatent.org and www.uspto.gov/blog.

[+/-] read more...

Monday, February 7, 2011

Sheldon Mak & Anderson Super Lawyers

Sheldon Mak & Anderson is pleased to congratulate two of our attorneys for being named as Southern California Super Lawyers!

Robert Schroeder was honored in the Intellectual Property Litigation category.  This is his fifth consecutive year on the list.  Jeff Sheldon was named in the Intellectual Property category and this is his seventh year in a row being so recognized.

We're proud to have them!

[+/-] read more...