https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00IntellectualPropertyhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngIntellectualProperty2019-03-06 13:28:012019-03-25 16:40:58Join Us For the 2019 IP Law Section Annual Meeting and CLE
Most attorneys advising new breweries remember to ensure no other brewery exists with the same name the client has selected. The work relating to that brewery’s trademarks does not, however, end upon successful naming of the brewery itself. Unless a brewery sticks to generic names for its beers (e.g., IPA, pale ale), it may run into trouble in days or years from opening unless the same analysis is conducted for each individual beer name.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00IntellectualPropertyhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngIntellectualProperty2019-02-15 16:20:042019-02-18 09:17:42Don’t Brew Up Trouble In Beer Name Selection
Planning ahead for events can be frightful, but our section has 2019 plans that are delightful! As long as you love IP so, join us for our events that are a go!
February 7 at 11 a.m. for our Tri-City Meeting and Lunch Event in Raleigh, Winston-Salem, and Charlotte. The specific meeting and lunch locations will be announced early next year.
March 7 for an event featuring the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Commissioner of Trademarks, Ms. Mary Denison. The event will be held in the afternoon at the Bar Center and will be followed by a social event.
April 5 in Charlotte for our Annual CLE Meeting. We will be partnering with the Sports & Entertainment Law Section to provide diverse CLE program options. As always, we will have a section networking event the evening before and invite everyone to join us.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00IntellectualPropertyhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngIntellectualProperty2018-12-17 11:32:072018-12-17 11:32:07Let it Snow, Let it Snow, Let Your IP Mind Grow!
When most people think about cybersecurity, they think of breaches of consumer personal information. And who can blame anyone for that, just look at the headlines for the latest breach of a major hotel chain and FIVE HUNDRED MILLION customer accounts. But one aspect of cybersecurity that is arguably more important than breaches of consumer information is theft of trade secrets. You may have heard the statement from then FBI Director Robert Mueller that there are only two types of companies, “those that have been hacked and those that will be.” What you may not realize is that his oft-quoted statement was made in the context of imploring businesses to report security breaches that involved trade secrets. Director Mueller had to make that plea because there were no requirements for businesses to report security breaches if they did not implicate certain information, such as consumer financial information or protected health information. This kept theft of trade secrets out of the public eye and in many cases unknown to anyone but the victim.
Last month, the Music Modernization Act (MMA) was signed into law. This copyright legislation modernizes some aspects of copyright law and applies to songwriters, music publishers, digital music providers, music streaming services, and others that distribute and create music. The MMA received support from Republicans, Democrats, and music industry stakeholders alike. The MMA includes three parts, and benefits both music creators as well as digital music providers.
The ravaging of my beautiful hometown of New Bern and the decimation of so many wonderful homes and families has broken my heart and irreversibly altered my soul. The images, videos, and stories cannot do justice to the devastation experienced by those hit hardest. There are not words to express the feelings swirling deep in my heart about the wake of destruction left behind in our communities.
Yet, I am one of the lucky ones. My loved ones are safe. My home is habitable with relatively minimal damage. I am left, however, with a feeling of helplessness, of survivor’s guilt, of the desire to assist with more than care packages and donations.
While my daughter’s focus is already on the end of 2018 (Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas – oh my!), my year of serving as the Intellectual Property Law Section Chair has only just begun. I am very much looking forward to my year as chair, and I encourage all members to reach out with any ideas, suggestions, or questions.
Our CLE Committee Chairs are already in the process of planning our Annual Meeting scheduled for April 5, 2019, in Charlotte. We will be partnering with the Sports & Entertainment Law Section to provide diverse CLE program options. As always, we will have a Section networking event the evening before and invite everyone to join us.
We have also scheduled our Tri-City Lunch event for Feb. 7, 2019, in Raleigh, Winston-Salem, and Charlotte. The specific meeting and lunch locations are to be determined, but please save the date and plan to join us for either the meeting, lunch, or both.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00IntellectualPropertyhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngIntellectualProperty2018-09-10 11:32:582019-01-29 09:28:50We've Only Just Begun …
As I continue to stay abreast of the latest technical developments involving computer related technology, the IP implications are becoming less clear. Being heavily involved in cybersecurity, I have been making the case that the cybersecurity field needs IP attorneys to bridge gaps that we are used to bridging—such as being a liaison between the highly technical engineers and the rest of society. Aside from cybersecurity, the technology I hear being discussed most is blockchain. As you may know, blockchain is a fundamental aspect of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum. However, blockchain has much broader implications that will, in my opinion, pervade the practice of IP attorneys.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00NCBARBLOGhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngNCBARBLOG2018-02-21 15:03:352018-08-17 11:15:40Blockchain and Its Implications For IP
Art MacCord is a patent attorney with 38 years of experience. He keeps an eye on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the U.S. Copyright Office for new rules and practice tips of interest to intellectual property attorneys. Please see below for the most recent updates.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00NCBARBLOGhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngNCBARBLOG2018-02-21 14:18:262018-02-21 14:18:26MacCord's List: IP News & Notices From Art MacCord
On Jan. 23, 2018, the Federal Circuit in In re Janssen held that a patent issuing from a continuation-in-part (CIP) application is not eligible for 35 USC § 121 safe harbor protection, even if the patent is re-categorized as a divisional application during reexamination. Thus, the court determined that the patent at issue—US 6,284,471 (the ’471 Patent)—was invalid over reference patents US 5,656,272 (the ’272 Patent) and 5,698,195 (the ’195 Patent) under the doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting.
In re Janssen is the newest case in a line of recent decisions interpreting the scope of the safe harbor provision, which shields a patent or application from an obviousness-type double patenting rejection under certain conditions. That provision provides:
A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application.
https://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.png00NCBARBLOGhttps://ncbarblogprod.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Blog-Header-1-1030x530.pngNCBARBLOG2018-02-06 12:50:012018-07-21 17:35:23In re Janssen: Continued Evolution Of the Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Doctrine