Blog

In a recent patent infringement case, Amazon.com asked to have the case transferred from the Eastern District to the Western District of Texas. That motion was denied by the Eastern District federal court judge. Amazon appealed to the Federal Circuit (because the case involved patents) effectively asking the Federal Circuit to force the district court judge to vacate the original order and transfer the case. However, the Federal Circuit denied Amazon’s request and upheld the Eastern District court’s refusal to transfer the case (In re Amazon.com., Misc. No. 115, nonprecedential).

 In denying Amazon’s motion to transfer, the Federal Circuit noted that Amazon.com was seeking “an extraordinary remedy, available to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.” In short, the Federal Circuit found neither in this case. Amazon had argued that access to sources of proof favored transferring the case. However, the Federal Circuit found no clear abuse of discretion in the District Court’s finding that the relative ease of access to evidence in the case did not favor transfer. Even though the district court had relied on the fact that some of the defendants’ likely documentary evidence was outside, but closer to, the Eastern District of Texas, the Federal Circuit relied on the fact that no defendant was headquartered in the Western District of Texas, and that “transfer here would not result in trial of the case where the alleged infringing products were developed and where a significant amount of the defendants’ sources of proof are maintained.”

 Amazon also argued in favor of moving the case based on severance and judicial economy but both of these arguments were also unpersuasive. In conclusion, the Federal Circuit stated that Amazon failed to make “a compelling showing that the Western District is a clearly more convenient venue” and therefore the court could not say that “the District Court’s decision amounted to a clear abuse of discretion.”

Woodard, Emhardt is hosting “E-Day” (Evaluation Day) for Ball State University’s Entrepreneurship Program on May 1, 2012.

Ball State’s Entrepreneurship Program has been nationally ranked in the top ten for about a decade. During “E-Day,” seniors majoring in entrepreneurship present their business plans to a panel of three judges who decide whether a student passes or fails out of the program. The pool of judges includes business people, attorneys, and members of Indiana’s venture capital and entrepreneurship communities. Woodard, Emhardt wishes good luck to all of the participating students!

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), after receiving numerous inquiries and complaints, has posted a warning directly on its Trademark homepage to highlight the problem of non-USPTO solicitations that resemble official USPTO communications.

According to the Office, private companies not associated with the USPTO will often use trademark application and registration information obtained from the USPTO’s official databases to send trademark-related solicitations by mail or e-mail.  The warning states that the solicitations often mimic official government documents and can include offers: (1) for legal services; (2) for trademark monitoring services; (3) to record trademarks with U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and (4) to “register” trademarks in the company’s own private registry.

The Office asks its customers to read trademark-related communications carefully before making a decision about whether to respond, and reminds them that “all official correspondence will be from the ‘United States Patent and Trademark Office’ in Alexandria, VA, and if by e-mail, specifically from the domain ‘@uspto.gov.’”

For more information, please visit the full version of the USPTO’s warning.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has set forth new rules regarding the ex parte appeal process before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.  The new rules took effect on January 23, 2012, with a majority of the changes being directed to the contents of Applicant’s appeal brief.  The rules are intended to reduce the burdens placed on Applicants during the appeal process and also reduce the pendency of appeals in general, in an effort to reduce the backlog of appeals at the USPTO. 

To download a copy of this presentation  discussing the new rules click here.

 Please contact us if you would like more information on the new ex parte appeal rules.

Twitter is an online social interaction platform which enables users to share their thoughts and interact with the public and other users 140 characters at a time.  Twitter has grown in popularity exponentially over the past few years, and as part of that, users are seeking to gather “followers” as quickly as possible to draw attention to their account.  Often times, in order to attract “followers” quickly, users latch on to prominent figures or celebrities by mimicking them.  This is motivated by the fact that Twitter users with a large number of followers can be paid large sums of money to “tweet” on behalf of a business, a product, or an event.  For example, Terrell Owens, a former NFL football player, has reportedly been paid up to $20,000 per tweet.  Other times, users simply create these accounts as parodies for enjoyment.

 As a consequence, fake Twitter accounts are quite common, with some causing confusion and potentially harm through impersonation.  Twitter is well aware of the abundant creation of “fake” Twitter accounts.  Initially, in order to combat this problem, Twitter established its “Verified” program which enables a well known user to establish a Twitter account and have it displayed with a “Verified Badge” in order to definitely identify a well known user’s actual account.  The Verified program is very limited in scope and is not open to the public.  Therefore, in order to participate, an individual would need to have a very high nationwide profile.

Despite this effort to promote clarity, Twitter allows “fake” Twitter accounts when used under certain circumstances.  Twitter only draws the line where a user creates an account and uses it to “impersonate” someone else.  According to Twitter’s policies, so long as the account’s profile “make[s] it clear that the creator of the account is not actually the same person or entity as the subject of the parody/commentary” then the account is an acceptable form of user expression.  Examples of how such an account is acceptably designated include: 

- using the words “not, “fake” or “fan” in the username

- using words such as “not, “fake” or “fan” in addition to the exact name of the person in the account’s name

- making the purpose of the account as a parody or fan page clear in the account’s biographical section, or

- refraining from communications which suggest that the user is in fact the real person

 In the event a user is in violation of these guidelines, an account is considered to be an impermissible “imposter”, and Twitter will require the user to revise the account information to bring it into compliance with the above guidelines or face the suspension of the account.  To initiate an investigation into a Twitter account, an authorized user may simply submit an online takedown request.  The use of these requests can be very powerful in ensuring that permissible “fake” Twitter accounts are clearly identified as such to the public to prevent any mistake or harm.

 For more information or answers to any questions you may have, please contact us at Woodard, Emhardt, Moriarty, McNett, & Henry LLP.