Types of Intellectual Property Businesses Don’t Realize They Have
Even a business’s technical “know-how” can qualify as a trade secret.Today, when most people think of intellectual property owned by…
June 15, 2017 at 07:03 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Even a business's technical “know-how” can qualify as a trade secret.
Today, when most people think of intellectual property owned by a business, they think of a name, a logo, or branding-related trademarks. Some small- to mid-sized businesses put little emphasis on IP protection, but they may have valuable IP worth protecting.
Leonard Marquez from Wendel Rosen Black & Dean, recently sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss why these types of materials qualify as trade secrets and what smaller businesses can do to ensure their IP is protected.
Most people immediately think in terms of IP and IP rights when dealing with things like trademarks, patents, and published materials. However, there are many types of IP that may not ring a bell in terms of implicating IP related rights and obligations. In fact, some things that qualify as IP include customer lists and data, business information and plans and marketing strategies.
“A business' customer list can be a trade secret when it contains information with economic value from not being generally known to the rest of a business' competitors,” he explained. “Any proprietary information that derives economic value from not being generally known can be protectable as a trade secret under California and Federal law.”
Even a business's technical “know-how” can qualify as a trade secret. The law of trade secret can protect a lot of different things, including formulas, methods, techniques, or processes. Trade secret can go as far as to protect a company's business plans and marketing strategies, plans, and techniques if those have value from not being generally known in the industry.
Unfortunately, some SMBs don't put much emphasis on IP protection because they may not realize that it has IP rights to protect. “Legal representation is expensive and SMBs quite often seek to avoid incurring legal fees if possible,” he said. “While understandable at some level, even SMBs need to give careful consideration to the costs-benefits analysis of spending the money to confer proactively with counsel about risks in the form of handling IP before a crisis happens.”
So, how can these smaller businesses know if they have valuable IP worth protecting?
According to Marquez, most IP counsel can conduct what is often referred to as an IP audit. Counsel can work with management to review the company's operations and spot issues where IP is being generated, but where the company may not have all the protocols and other measures in place that it should to protect that IP. In addition, trade secret can protect almost anything that has value to a business because of its only being known to the company. The law of trademark protects a “mark,” which may be a word, name or symbol, used by a proprietor to identify and distinguish the goods of that proprietor. A copyright is, essentially, the bundle of rights that an author has in an original creative work of expression. Those rights include the right to control the duplication of the work and to sell it for profit.
“A common type of work protected by copyright is a written work such as a novel,” explained Marquez. “However, copyright can protect a broad range of other works, including paintings, movies, music, sculpture, works of architecture and design.”
What can smaller businesses do to ensure their IP is protected?
According to Marquez, once there is a recognition of the need to protect the company's IP, management should proactively reach out to IP counsel. Each type of IP implicates its own unique set of considerations as far as protecting that IP.
He added, “Many trade secret misappropriation cases are won or lost on that issue alone. Each category of IP being generated and handled has to be considered and the appropriate measures taken to protect that IP.”
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 AllMyriad Genetics Hires NIH Scientist-Turned-Biopharma Lawyer as Legal Chief
Patent Data Unicorn Names First GC, Hiring From Another AI-Driven Unicorn
3 minute readMeta Transfers AI-Related Patents to Midjourney to Thwart Patent Trolls
Google, HP Alum Hired as GC of Startup Bringing AI to Classrooms
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
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