Recent Posts in ‘Telecoms & Technology’
Hi-Tech Patent Litigation & IP Strategies
March 22nd, 2012
in Intellectual Property, Legal, Legal Conferences, Legal Conferences, Litigation, Telecoms & Technology |
With significant case law developments, numerous infringement actions and injunctive relief being sought across Europe and beyond, Hi-tech patent law continues to evolve rapidly.
Given the highly competitive and lucrative nature of the industry, coupled with an increasing need to get products to market, it is more important than ever that in-house counsel and patent attorneys stay abreast of recent court decisions and how they impact IP strategy on a global level.
In addition to current litigation tactics, hi-tech manufacturers, distributors, networks, software and hardware developers need to ensure they are implementing the most competitive licensing strategies to protect and defend their patent portfolios and maximise revenues when entering or consolidating their place in the market.
The 2012 Hi-Tech Patent Litigation and IP Strategies forum will focus on the latest case law developments on hi-tech patents across Europe and beyond and offer real-time initiatives on how to use these decisions in the licensing strategies you employ.
You will walk away with fresh insights, tactics and tools to strategise your IP licensing and keep up with the latest case-law and its implications on your patent strategy in this highly competitively market including:
- UK, Dutch, German and French Counsel on developing a cross-border enforcement strategy
- KPN, Qualcomm, RIM and Industry analysts Wiseharbor on the opportunities and pitfalls of FRAND licensing
- Ericsson on protecting your patent portfolio from the threat of NPEs
- Nokia on using litigation as a catalyst to conduct effective cross-licensing negotiations
- The inventor of the “Italian Torpedo” procedure on successfully navigating patent thickets
- The European Commission on the practical implementation of a single EU patent
- WIPO on proven ADR techniques that work
- Qualcomm on complying with competition law when drafting licensing agreements
For more information, check the link below:
http://www.c5-online.com/files/pdf/marketing/678L12-LON-E.pdf
Tags: c5, Legal, Legal conference, legal conferences, Legal Events, Litigation, patent law
No Comments »
Hi-Tech Patent Litigation & IP Strategies
February 13th, 2012
in Legal, Legal Conferences, Legal Conferences, Litigation, Telecoms & Technology |
Hi-tech patent law continues to evolve rapidly with significant case law developments arising from infringement actions and injunctive relief being sought across Europe and beyond. Given the highly competitive and lucrative nature of the industry, it is more important than ever that patent/IP departments and patent attorneys stay abreast of recent court decisions on a global level, as well as current litigation tactics, to ensure they are implementing the most competitive strategies to protect and defend their patent portfolios and maximise revenues when entering or consolidating their place in the market.
The 2012 Hi-Tech Patent Litigation and IP Strategies forum will focus on the latest case law developments on hi-tech patents across Europe and the US and how decisions in the various national courts will inevitably impact on the litigation strategies you employ. You will walk away with fresh insights, tactics and tools to strategise your litigation techniques and remain competitive in today’s constantly changing patent landscape.
C5’s Forum on Hi-tech Patent Litigation and IP Strategies brings together key regulators and judicial authorities, distinguished in-house counsel from the world’s largest hi-tech companies, and their expert legal advisors from across Europe and the US. Based on their first-hand experience in recent litigation, the expert panel will provide you with important case law updates and invaluable strategies to use in licensing negotiations and in maximising revenue from your IP portfolio.
Tags: c5, legal conferences, Legal Events, Litigation
No Comments »
ARE PATENT LITIGATION ALERT: FEDERAL CIRCUIT FINDS ANOTHER COMPUTER IMPLEMENTED METHOD TO BE PATENT-ELIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 101
December 19th, 2011
in Expert Guest Blog Entries, Expert Guest Blogs, Intellectual Property, Legal, Litigation, Telecoms & Technology |
Expert Article by Charles R. Macedo and David P. Goldberg
On September 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued another decision on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. 2010-1544, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19048 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2011). This decision, authored by Chief Judge Rader, shows the Federal Circuit’s commitment to continue to clarify that in order for claims to be patent-eligible under Section 101, they need only pass through a “coarse eligibility filter.”
The claims at issue in Ultramercial concerned a method for monetizing and distributing copyrighted material over the Internet. The district court found that the claims at issue were invalid because they did not claim patent-eligible subject matter. See Ultramercial, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, No. CV-09-06918, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93453, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2010). Despite references in the claim to the “internet,” the district court found that the claims were not tied to a “machine” and did not “transform” an article to a different state or thing. Rather, the district court found that the claims at issue were directed to the “abstract” idea “that one can use advertisement as an exchange or currency.” Id. at *17.
On appeal, applying the “coarse” filter test set forth in Research Corp. Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft, 627 F.3d 859, 869 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit reversed the district court finding, and concluded that the claims at issue were patent-eligible subject matter.
Relying upon the Supreme Court’s admonitions in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 3227-28 (2010), Ultramercial rejected efforts to limit the Section 101 analysis to the “machine-or-transformation test”:
While machine-or-transformation logic served well as a tool to evaluate the subject matter of Industrial Age processes, that test has far less application to the inventions of the Information Age. See [Bilski, 130 S. Ct.] at 3227–28 (“[I]n deciding whether previously unforeseen inventions qualify as patentable ‘processes,’ it may not make sense to require courts to confine themselves to asking the questions posed by the machine-or-transformation test. Section 101′s terms suggest that new technologies may call for new inquiries.”). Technology without anchors in physical structures and mechanical steps simply defy easy classification under the machine-or-transformation categories. As the Supreme Court suggests, mechanically applying that physical test “risk[s] obscuring the larger object of securing patents for valuable inventions without transgressing the public domain.” Id. at 3228.
Ultramercial, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19048, at *9-10.
In determining whether the claimed invention, a method for monetizing and distributing copyrighted material over the Internet, was directed to abstract ideas under Section 101, the Court reemphasized that (a) inventions with specific applications or improvements to technologies in the marketplace and (b) inventions that disclose practical applications of ideas are likely to be patentable. In so doing, Ultramercial reiterated the “manifestly abstract” test set forth inResearch Corp. Technologies:
In sum, § 101 is a “dynamic provision designed to encompass new and unforeseen inventions.” J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi–Bred Int’l, Inc., 534 U.S. 124, 135, 122 S. Ct. 593, 151 L.Ed.2d 508 (2001). With this in mind, this court does “not presume to define ‘abstract’ beyond the recognition that this disqualifying characteristic should exhibit itself so manifestly as to override the broad statutory categories of eligible subject matter and the statutory context that directs primary attention on the patentability criteria of the rest of the Patent Act.” Research Corp. [Techs. v. Microsoft Corp.], 627 F.3d [859,] 868 [(Fed. Cir. 2010)].
Ultramercial, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19048, at *10-11.
Finally, the Federal Circuit distinguished the claims of Ultramercial with its prior precedent inCybersource. Here, the Court found the claims at hand patent eligible because the claims specified a number of steps “likely to require intricate and complex computer programming” and they necessarily involved interaction with others on “the Internet and [in] a cyber-market environment.” Ultramercial, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19048, at *14. Thus, “[u]nlike the claims inCyberSource [Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., No. 2009-1358, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16871 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 16, 2011)], the claims here require, among other things, controlled interaction with a consumer via an Internet website, something far removed from purely mental steps.” Ultramercial, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19048, at *18.
We will continue to monitor and report on Section 101 cases, and encourage you to review the publications and events page of our firm website (www.arelaw.com) for more information. Also, please feel free to contact one of our firm’s attorneys to learn more.
Theodore J. Kobus
May 26th, 2011
in Expert Guest Blog Entries, Litigation, Regulatory Compliance and Trade, Telecoms & Technology |
Biography
As the Chair of the Privacy and Data Security Practice Group, Ted coordinates and oversees the handling and defense of these types of claims and lawsuits throughout the firm. He has been litigating cases in state and federal courts since 1994. Throughout his career, Ted has tried a number of bench trials, jury trials, and arbitrations.
Ted advises and speaks with clients, trade groups and organizations regarding Data Security and Privacy issues and breaches as they relate to various industries including health care companies, insurance companies, educational institutions, retail stores, restaurants, fi nancial organizations, and technology companies. Ted’s group distributes law alerts to keep his clients up-to-date regarding the constant changes we see in the area of data security/privacy, including how federal and state laws are impacting response strategies. Ted and his group have counseled clients involved in significant breaches implicating state and federal laws, international laws, and other regulations and requirements, including HITECH, the Massachusetts Data Privacy Law, California privacy laws (including the California Department of Public Health law), Connecticut Insurance Department regulations, Puerto Rico’s Citizen Information on Data Banks Security Act, Mexico’s Data Protection Law, Canada’s data privacy requirements, and PCI/CISP requirements. Ted’s group has dealt with Offi ces of Attorneys General, state insurance departments, Offi ce of Civil Rights/Health and Human Services, Secret Service, FBI, and local police and forensics professionals as part of their handling of data breaches. The group’s extensive contact with credit monitoring agencies, notifi cation vendors, and call center vendors helps to control costs. Since Marshall Dennehey has a substantial litigation practice, the group is able to utilize teams of paralegals and document management software which help clients to effi ciently respond to large document intensive breaches.
The experience of Ted’s group and of the fi rm extends to litigation of data breach, privacy, technology, media, and intellectual property matters throughout jurisdictions in the United States, including lawsuits, arbitrations, and class actions, as well as audits and actions by government regulators such as the Federal Trade Commission, Federal Communications Commission, state attorneys general, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Offi ce of Civil Rights (OCR), CMS, state Medicaid agencies, state departments of health and insurance, and state/professional licensing boards.
We work very closely with our Health Law Practice Group to address health care security and privacy issues. Those
attorneys collaborate with their clients when evaluating the HITECH risk of harm threshold and help manage their clients’ risks through privacy and security policy and procedure improvements and training. Please click here to view a YouTube video in which Ted discusses privacy and data security breaches.
You can subscribe to Theodore J. Kobus’ blog at Http://www.databreachlegalwatch.com
Representative Breaches:
● Multi-state breach resulting from a stolen laptop and involving personal identifying information.
● Multi-state breach involving fi nancial information and the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act from misdirected
facsimiles.
● Multi-state breach by a third-party contractor involving personal health information and fi nancial information.
● Multi-state breach from misuse of personal health information by an employee.
● Multi-state breach arising out of the dissemination of financial information to the wrong parties.
● Multi-state breach arising out of personal health information and fi nancial information being breached in
the mail.
● Multi-state breach involving the disposal of hard drives containing personal health information and fi nancial
information.
● Multi-state breach due to a hacker in another country which involved residents of the U.S.
● Multi-state breach involving a hacker into a computer network storing a signifi cant amount of fi nancial
information.
● Multi-state and international breaches involving the theft of laptops.
● Multi-state breaches involving lost and stolen backup tapes.
● California Department of Health breaches involving inappropriate access to patient medical records.
● Breaches involving The Massachusetts Data Privacy Laws and changes to security policies.
● Breaches involving hackers and credit card information vis-à-vis a point-of-sale system for restaurants
and retailers.
● Breaches ranging in size from one affected individual to millions of affected individuals.
Year Joined Organization: 2000
Bar Admissions:
● Pennsylvania, 1994
● New Jersey, 1995
● U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1995
● U.S. District Court District of New Jersey, 1995
● U.S. District Court Western District of Pennsylvania, 1998
● U.S. Court of Appeals 3rd Circuit, 2002
● U.S. Court of Appeals Federal Circuit, 2002
● U.S. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania, 2004
● New York, 2011
Education:
● Widener University School of Law, Wilmington, Delaware, 1994 J.D.; Honors: Cum Laude
● Purdue University, 1987; B.S.; Major: Chemical Engineering
Expert Articles
Contact Theodore Kobus
Office Location: Philadelphia, PA
Status: Shareholder; Chair, Privacy and Data Security Practice Group
Direct Dial: 215.575.2713
Fax: 215.575.0856
E-Mail: tjkobus@mdwcg.com
@TedKobus
Responding to Breach of Employee Information Can Be Challenging
May 20th, 2011
in Employment & Benefits, Expert Guest Blog Entries, Telecoms & Technology |
Expert Article by Theodore J. Kobus
Responding to breaches involving employee information can be challenging, primarily because the affected employees see other affected colleagues at the coffee station, in the lunch room, or even walking down the hallway. Unlike most breaches, the affected employees have more opportunity to talk about a breach event with others affected. Also, whether legitimate or not, employees have an unspoken expectation that their employer will protect their personal information. We see call center rates and credit monitoring uptake rates in the 30-40% range following a breach involving employees which is much higher than what we see when the affected people are not employees.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on Tuesday, May 3rd that it had reached a settlement with two companies involving the breach of information of almost 65,000 customer employees. Both settlements focused on allegations of inadequate security practices being in place. The FTC looked at network security and password management policies in place. No fine was issued, however, the companies involved will be subject to third-party security audits for 20 years.
In these cases, the employers were not the cause of the breach, but rather vendors used by the employer were involved. Still, employees expect that the companies their employer does business with will protect their information as well. There have been 34 complaints filed by the FTC since 2001 arising out of inadequate protection of personal information.
There is a gold mine of personal information in Human Resource Departments and companies need to identity their vulnerabilities as they relates to data leakage.
- Where is sensitive information being stored?
- Who has access to the information?
- Does the company have IT logs that can track that access?
- Are policies and procedures in place to safeguard information?
- Does the organization have a training program in place to protect the sensitive information it maintains?
Many of these may seem like common sense questions, but these are exactly the types of questions the regulators will ask following a breach. Additionally, companies need to review their vendor contracts and make sure that the contracts reflect the current state of privacy and data security laws. Some of you will be shocked to find out what you have agreed to in those old and dusty contracts. At the end of the day, when we are dealing with employee breaches, it does not matter who caused the breach because the employer will still feel the fallout.
Click here to read more articles from Theodore J. Kobus
