More and More, Faster and Faster
Technology and the internet are alive and well and provide intellectual property attorneys with an increasingly complex and uncertain work environment.
January 08, 2018 at 12:05 AM
6 minute read
Lisa: Look, there's a cybercafe opening here in Springfield. Will you take me, Dad, please? I'll show you how to order pizza over the internet.
Homer: The internet? Is that thing still around?
—The Simpsons
While Homer Simpson may not need the internet to run the Springfield nuclear power plant, technology and the internet are alive and well and provide intellectual property attorneys with an increasingly complex and uncertain work environment. In fiscal year 1997, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) received 251,856 trademark applications, renewals and maintenance affidavits. In FY 2017, the total applications, renewals and maintenance affidavits had increased to 765,802. The patent side of the USPTO experienced similar growth as the number of patent applications (utility, design, plant and reissue) expanded from 237,045 in 1997 to 647,348 in 2017. By comparison, the GDP for the US from 1997 to 2016 little more than doubled.
For in-house IP departments that have not grown at the same pace, they face an increased workload from this aspect alone. However, it is not just the volume of filings that is a challenge for today's IP attorney. The internet and related mobile technology is a key driver of a second trend in IP management and protection—increasing, driving and accelerating the already rapidly expanding area and challenges faced by counsel.
The Internet of Things
Patent challenges abound in the “internet of things,” or IoT, a global infrastructure for the information society, enabling advanced services by interconnecting (physical and virtual) things based on existing and evolving interoperable information and communication technologies. While the location of any one in the chain of the worldwide web of connected devices can be located anywhere in the world, patent protection and enforcement respects geographic borders under country/regional-specific frameworks.
Corporate legal departments already navigate thorny and often arcane patent issues (obtaining, enforcing and avoiding infringement) related to today's products and services, but this pales in comparison to what is coming with the IoT—at least three levels of patent clearance and enforcement issues that might have nothing to do with the company's products and services, and will occur in markets far and distinct from corporate locations or sourcing centers.
The chain of issues includes:
(1) the network of physical devices (from smartphones to vehicles to home appliances),
(2) the embedded electronics, software, sensors and actuators making the devices controllable over networks, and
(3) the concepts of network connectivity that enable the devices to connect and exchange data. Each interconnected step of products or services having patent related issues separate from one another.
In a Dec. 10, 2017, Forbes article, “2017 Roundup of Internet of Things Forecasts,” the global IoT market is projected to grow at a 19.92 percent compound annual growth rate reaching $8.9 trillion in 2020. Thus, demands on counsel to navigate patent issues with the IoT will only rise.
Social Medial and Internet Challenges
Just as the pace and volume of trademark and patent filings has greatly increased, the challenges posed by the internet and social media have compounded IP department challenges in other arenas. In 2016, the World Intellectual Property Organization reported over 3,000 domain name infringement cases, an increase of more than 10 percent from the previous year.
Protecting brands from false and unapproved online postings has also become a part of the IP attorney's daily regimen. Anyone can copy a trademark from the internet, making it increasingly difficult for consumers to distinguish between a genuine post from an authentic company or one that is an unapproved use of a trademark.
Social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram have allowed companies to interact easily with mass audiences at a low cost. However, this easy interaction is a double-edged sword because the public utilizes the same social media as a vehicle to criticize companies quickly and inexpensively. Viewing social media as “free” misses both the significance of the platform and the expectations of consumers in an increasingly connected world.
In addition to other areas of IP law influenced and accelerated by technology, counterfeiting, which was an issue limited to flea markets and shady discount retailers 10 years ago, is now noteworthy for all businesses and in-house legal departments. Counterfeit products can easily be found by consumers around the world with a couple of simple searches on a mobile device or computer, then vanish when legal actions are pursued.
Tips for Managing Increased Workload and Technology
With the further saturation of internet-enabled technologies, counsel increasingly will depend upon an array of patent specialists to implement new best practices for filing patents (on any one or more of the three levels of innovative technologies in the IoT) and for enforcement of IP rights and avoiding IP infringement in this similarly vast scope of technologies. This will undoubtedly include evermore complex licensing and business-partnering relationships, a need to stay abreast of worldwide patent trends like subject matter eligibility, theories of divided infringement, patent standards and the rather slow pace of the worldwide IP laws struggling to keep up with the exponential speed of technology it seeks to cover.
Also, in-house IP departments will not keep pace with the demands of clearance, prosecution and protection unless a clear and well-reasoned strategic vision and tactical decision-tree govern that analysis. What trademarks and patents need to be filed, and which have a relatively short-life span or limited importance and merely need to be cleared? Going after every social media or domain name misuse likewise will quickly overwhelm any IP department. Rather, confirming with business units what uses and registrations deserve attention and legal challenge, and which ones should continue to be monitored.
For good or bad, the internet is obviously not going away, and the IP departments that align their trademark and patent strategies in collaboration with their business units to manage the wave of increasing demands and issues will stand the best chances of success.
Ryan A. Schneider is a partner at Troutman Sanders in Atlanta, where he is the firmwide chair of the Intellectual Property practice group. An engineer and member of the patent bar, Ryan's practice centers on providing clients with strategic counseling and guidance regarding intellectual property matters.
Michael D. Hobbs Jr. is a partner at Troutman Sanders in Atlanta and a past president of the Intellectual Property Section of the State Bar of Georgia. Mike's practice focuses on intellectual property registration, licensing and litigation throughout the United States and internationally.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllGa. Appellate Judges Mull Landlord Responsibility in Premises Liability Case Involving Child Shooting
Corporate Lawyer Accused of Extortion Pushes Back Against $3.7M Judgment
6 minute readMetLife Attorney's Switch to Nelson Mullins Continues String of In-House Moves to Law Firms
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250