Maryland Intellectual Property Law Blog : Maryland Intellectual Property Lawyer & Attorney : Brian Wm. Higgins : Serving Baltimore, Columbia, Frederick

Are you an author with questions about finding a reputable literary agent?  Do you have concerns about protecting the copyrights created in conjunction with your written works?  Are you eager to get published but wary of the business decisions involved in protecting and exploiting your intellectual property?  Join the Maryland Lawyers for the Arts and CityLit Project, in partnership with Creative Alliance, for a "Legal Clinic for Writers," during which many of those and other questions may be addressed.  Speakers scheduled to attend include Cynthia Sanders, Esq. and agent Laura Strachan of the Strachan Literary Agency.

Saturday, August 21, 2010
1:30-3:30pm
Creative Alliance
3134 Eastern Avenue
Baltimore, MD 21224

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     On a per capita basis, Maryland inventors received just about as many patents in the first half of 2010 as inventors in states like Illinois and Texas, but the number of patent lawsuits filed in Maryland trailed far behind the number of lawsuits initiated in those and other jurisdictions.  The states with the highest number of patent cases filed in the first half of 2010 are shown in the table below.  In Maryland, only ten law suits were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt and Baltimore divisions combined) between January 1st and June 30, 2010.  That number is far below the number of patent-related cases brought in judicial jurisdictions like California, Texas, and Illinois, which consistently rank as some of the most prolific states for patent litigation.

Source: Justia.com and PACER; data are for Jan. 1, 2010, through Jun. 30, 2010.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) records show that for the one year period ending June 30, 2010, the PTO granted 2,136 patents on which at least one inventor was identified as a Maryland resident. That is an 8% increase in the number of patents issued to Maryland inventors for the previous one year ending June 30, 2009 (1,983), and a 9% increase over the one year ending June 30, 2008 (1,956).

      PTO records show that for the one year period ending June 30, 2010, the PTO published 3,127 patent applications on which at least one inventor was identified as a Maryland resident. That is a 1% decrease in the number of patent applications published to Maryland inventors for the previous one year ending June 30, 2009 (3,172), but a 2% increase over the year ending June 30, 2008 (3,076).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) records show that for the year ending June 30, 2008, the PTO granted 1,983 patents naming at least one Maryland resident as an inventor or joint inventor (based on residence addresses supplied by patent applicants to the PTO). That represents a 1% increase in the number of patents issued to Maryland inventors for the previous year ending June 30, 2008 (1,956), but a 4% decline over the year ending June 30, 2007 (2,071).

      The number of published patent applications naming at least one Maryland inventor during the year ending June 30, 2009, was up 3% compared to the previous two years. According to the PTO, 3,172 patent applications naming at least one Maryland inventor were published during the year ending June 30, 2009, compared to 3,076 patent applications published in the year ending June 30, 2008, and 3,066 applications published in the year ending June 30, 2007.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) records show that for 2008, the PTO granted 1,942 patents naming at least one Maryland resident as an inventor or joint inventor (based on residence addresses supplied by patent applicants to the PTO). That is a 1% decline in the number of patents issued to Maryland inventors for the same period in 2007 (1,963), and an 8% decline over 2006 numbers (2,116).

     The number of published patent applications naming at least one Maryland inventor in 2008 was up compared to last year. According to the PTO, 3,187 patent applications naming at least one Maryland inventor were published during 2008, which is a 7% increase in the number of patent applications published in 2007 (2,992 patent applications), and a 3% increase over 2006 numbers (3,082).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) records show that in 2008, the PTO received 68 trademark applications from Maryland resident or entities (based on a search of "owner address" records using Trademark Electronic Search System, TESS, database). That number is a 20% decline in the number of applications received in 2007 (85), and a 22% decline over 2006 numbers (87).

     The number of registrations to Maryland individuals or entities in 2008 was also down compared to last year. According to the PTO, 53 registrations were effective in 2008 (as of December 31, 2008), which is a 36% decline in the number of registrations in 2007 (83 registrations), but is one more than the number of registrations in 2006 (52).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     Below is a Wordle based on the last several months worth of posts on this website.  A Wordle is a “word cloud” generated from text in which greater prominence is given to words that appear more frequently in the source text.  In the Wordle below, one can see that the words "patent," "Maryland," "district," "court," and "judge" have found their way into the posts on this website more frequently than other words.

     Jonathan Feinberg of IBM Research is credited for providing the on-line Wordle tool.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) records show that for the period January through June 2008, the PTO received 28 trademark applications from Maryland resident or entities (based on a search of "owner address" records using TESS). That number is a 55% decline in the number of applications received for the same period in 2007 (62), but only a 3% decline over 2006 numbers (29).

     The number of registrations to Maryland individuals or entities in the first half of 2008 was down compared to last year. According to the PTO, 23 registrations were effective during the period January through June 2008, which is a 4% decline in the number of registrations for the same period in 2007 (24 registrations), but is the same number of registrations in 2006 (23).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) records show that for the period January through June 2008, the PTO granted 986 patents naming at least one Maryland resident as an inventor or joint inventor (based on residence addresses supplied by patent applicants to the PTO). That is a 1% decline in the number of patents issued to Maryland inventors for the same period in 2007 (993), and a 5% decline over 2006 numbers (1,038).

     The number of published patent applications naming at least one Maryland inventor in the first half of 2008 was up compared to last year. According to the PTO, 1,579 patent applications naming at least one Maryland inventor were published during the period January through June 2008, which is a 6% increase in the number of patent applications published for the same period in 2007 (1,495 patent applications), and a 5% increase over 2006 numbers (1,511).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     In Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., No. 06-2662 (D. Md. May 29, 2008), U.S. Chief Magistrate Judge Grimm describes the proper means for asserting that documents are protected or immune from discovery because of the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product doctrine. Judge Grimm's explanation comes at the end of his opinion in Victor Stanley, published two weeks ago.

The Issue

     Because a party responding to a Rule 34 request for the production of discovery is entitled to refuse to produce documents if they are privileged or work product protected, Judge Grimm pointed out that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require that when doing so, the responding party must “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed--and do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim.” The most common way to do this, he wrote, is by using a privilege log, which identifies

1. Each document withheld,
2. Information regarding the nature of the privilege/protection claimed,
3. The name of the person making/receiving the communication,
4. The date and place of the communication, and
5. The document’s general subject matter.

What Really Happens?

     In actuality, Judge Grimm, who in his position as Magistrate referees all kinds of discovery disputes, found that lawyers infrequently provide all the basic information called for in a privilege log, and if they do, it is usually so cryptic that the log falls far short of its intended goal of providing sufficient information to the reviewing court to enable a determination to be made regarding the appropriateness of the privilege/protection asserted without resorting to extrinsic evidence or in camera review of the documents themselves. Few judges, he said, find that the privilege log is ever sufficient to make the discrete fact-findings needed to determine whether a privilege/protection was properly asserted and not waived.

What Should Lawyers Be Doing? 

     According to Judge Grimm, parties should be wary of filing a response to a Rule 34 document production request that asserts privilege/protection as a basis for refusing to make requested production without having a factual basis to support each element of each privilege/protection claimed for each document withheld, because doing so is a sanctionable violation.

     Insuring that a privilege or protection claim is properly asserted in the first instance and maintained thereafter involves a several step process, Judge Grimm wrote.

(1)  First, pursuant to FRCP 26(b) (5), the party asserting privilege/protection must do so with particularity for each document, or category of documents, for which privilege/protection is claimed.

(2)  After that, if the requesting party challenges the sufficiency of the assertion of privilege/protection, the asserting party may no longer rest on the privilege log, but bears the burden of establishing an evidentiary basis–by affidavit, deposition transcript, or other evidence– for each element of each privilege/protection claimed for each document or category of document. A failure to do so warrants a ruling that the documents must be produced because of the failure of the asserting party to meet its burden.

(3)  If the asserting party makes this showing, and the requesting party still contests the assertion of privilege/protection, then the dispute is ready to submit to the court, which, after looking at the evidentiary support offered by the asserting party, can either rule on the merits of the claim or order that the disputed documents be produced for in camera inspection.

Result

     In Victor Stanley, Judge Grimm said that had he not ruled that Defendant's 165 inadvertently produced documents waived the privilege/protection status of the documents, then the effect of a failure by the Defendants to comply with the court’s order regarding the proper manner in which to assert privilege/protection would have warranted an order to produce the materials for failure to carry the burden of demonstrating the existence of the privilege/protection claimed. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

    Twenty-six plaintiffs filed 24 patent infringement lawsuits in the District Court for the District of Maryland in 2007 (see a list of the lawsuits and the parties involved after the jump). The 24 lawsuits involved 181 defendants (individuals and entities) from all over the world. If you don't count the Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG case, which involved 131 defendants, the total number of defendants sued in Maryland in 2007 was 50.

     One notable change in 2007 compared to 2006 is the apparent increase in the number of patent infringement lawsuits involving life-sciences technologies (e.g., pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices).

     In 2006, 21 plaintiffs filed 23 patent infringement lawsuits in Maryland involving 25 defendants. Thus, while the total number of patent infringement lawsuits in 2007 increased only slightly over 2006 figures, the total number of defendants sued in 2007 compared to 2006 increased significantly. Several factors could push the number of lawsuits even higher in 2008, including a rise in biotechnology litigation, which could involve the 300+ biotechnology companies that call Maryland home, and changes in laws brought about by patent reform legislation, which if enacted could close off certain jurisdictions outside Maryland to plaintiffs that might then consider Maryland as an alternative venue.

     Topping the list of companies filing the most patent infringement lawsuits in Maryland in 2007 were Nutramax Laboratories, Inc., the Edgewood, MD, company that specializes in nutritional supplements, and Israel's Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (with its Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., subsidiary), both of which filed two patent infringement lawsuits in Maryland last year.

     The 24 lawsuits filed last year were assigned fairly evenly among Maryland's District Court Judges: Bennett (2), Blake (3), Chasanow (4), Davis (1), Garbis (3), Legg (1), Motz (2), Nickerson (3), Quarles (1), Titus (1), and Williams (3). 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (2)
• Share Link

Summary: A judicial opinion involving environmental-related patents that was issued as “not available for publication” limits what could be an important decision by the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland

     I have to admit that I was eager to post a summary of Judge Catherine Blake’s memorandum opinion in the matter of Contech Stormwater Solutions, Inc. v. BaySaver Technologies, Inc. and AccuBid Excavation, Inc., No. 07 Civ. 358 (D. Md. Sep. 26, 2007). After all, the opinion is at the crossroads of patent law and environmental technologies, two of my favorite topics (check out my bio, and you’ll understand).

     After summarizing the case, however, it became apparent that the Contech opinion concerns an issue of importance beyond just the merits of the two environmental-related patents-at-suit: the opinion was issued as “not available for publication,” meaning it has limited authority in the District Court for the District of Maryland where it originated, as well as in other Fourth Circuit courts (and possibly in the Federal Circuit), despite Rule 32.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure which says:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Summary:  Maryland residents are latest targets of record industry lawsuits aimed at stopping digital music file sharing

     Last week, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) sent 403 pre-litigation settlement letters to 22 universities, including the University of Maryland - College Park, alleging illegal copying and distribution of RIAA-member copyrighted sound (music) recordings. In addition to the letters, the RIAA filed 24 copyright infringement lawsuits against previous recipients of pre-litigation letters who allegedly ignored "settlement opportunities." According to an RIAA statement, the lawsuits were filed in federal courts against students, including students reportedly attending the University of Maryland. As shown below, two of the lawsuits were filed in the District Court for the District of Maryland by Matthew J. Oppenheim, Esq., RIAA's lawyer (and a Maryland resident himself, according to public property records).

     One of Mr. Oppenheim's lawsuits, BMG Music et al v. Norwood, 07cv02480 (D. Md. 2007), was served on Sarah Norwood, a St. Leonard, MD (Calvert County), resident (according to RIAA's complaint).  The suit is predicated solely on a claim that on April 28, 2007, Ms. Norwood distributed 377 audio files over the Gnutella peer-to-peer network from a computer having the IP address 69.251.74.83 (which is a Comcast.net IP address: click here to see for yourself).

     The Record Industry vs The People blog describes what happens during RIAA-initiated litigation, which could best be described as somewhat heavy handed. Here's how the authors of the blog describe the "settlement opportunities":

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

     The table below shows how Maryland ranks among other states in terms of the number of lawsuits filed in federal district courts that raise patent, trademark, and/or copyright issues.  The table values are for the last twenty months.

Notes:

• Rankings are based on number of complaints filed between January 1, 2006, and August 31, 2007, and include cases filed in the District of Columbia.  States with multiple jurisdictions/divisions are combined.  Complete table available (please email me a request).
  
  
• Source: Justia.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland was chosen as the forum for litigating the following case(s), as published by Justia:

• Thirty Eight Street, Inc. v. State Line LC, Case Number 1:2007cv02210, filed August 20, 2007

According to court papers filed August 20, Plaintiffs Thirty Eight Street, Inc., and Vantage Hospitality Group, Inc. (formerly Best Value Inn Brand Membership, Inc.) are Florida entities that  allegedly own the marks BEST VALUE INN, BEST VALUE (right), and AMERICAS BEST VALUE INN BY VANTAGE.  Defendant State Line, LC, is reportedly a Hagerstown, Maryland-based entity.  Defendant Bharat Patel is allegedly a Maryland resident and owns State Line LC.  The filed Complaint alleges that Defendants infringed the asserted marks under 15 U.S.C. § 1114; violated the false advertising provisions of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); contributorily and/or vicariously infringed the marks; and violated several Maryland state statutes and common laws (e.g., Maryland Unfair or Deceptive Trade Practices Statute, unfair competition).  Plaintiffs are seeking an injunction, destruction of advertising materials, and an award of monetary damages, among other requested relief. 

• Young Again Products, Inc. v. Young Again Rejuvenation Clinic, LLC, Case Number 8:2007cv02254, filed August 24, 2007

Plaintiff Young Again Products, Inc., a Maryland company that describes itself as being "in the business of production and sale of health and nutritional supplements," has sued Young Again Rejuvenation Clinic, LLC, which is reportedly a New Jersey company operating the site youngagainclinic.com, for allegedly "engaged in the unauthorized use of the Young Again™ Mark by utilizing the Mark in its company name, in its website’s uniform resource locator (“URL”) (also referred to as the domain name) and/or on its website to offer its services and sell related supplement products, including hormone therapies" in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) (Lanham Act), dilution of a famous mark in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1125(c), and unfair competition in violation of Maryland's common law.  Young Again Products is seeking a declatory judgment enjoining Young Again Rejuvenation Clinic, LLC, from using the Young Again mark, monetary damages, and other relief.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Summary:  A recent survey asked corporations "Overall, has your company made money from the patent system?"  Pharma and biotech companies responded with a resounding "Yes."

In a survey conducted August 7, 2007, University of Missouri School of Law Associate Professor and Patently-O blawger Dennis Crouch asked companies whether they had made money from the patent system.  His published results showed that:

"On average, pharmaceutical companies see patents as a profit center while software companies see patents as an overall loser. (At 95%CI, Software & EE results each differ significantly from Pharm results)."

The survey results are based on responses from 131 corporate employees who claim to be "highly involved with their company patents."  See the Overall, has your company made money from the patent system? survey for details and graphical results. 

Comments:

• Although the survey was admittedly non-scientific, the responses and trends are consistent with anecdotal evidence that I am familiar with:  in general, chemical, pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies see value in their patent portfolios more so than, say, software companies (especially those with financial services software patents).
  
  
• The explanation for the survey results?  It largely depends on whom you ask.  Bio and pharma companies invest significant sums of money to develop a single drug or biologic candidate that may or may not receive market approval.  They want to recoup that investment, and the exclusivity of a patent grant represents a means to achieve that goal. 
  
  
• This survey should come as no surprise (okay, maybe a little surprise) to a majority of the estimated 300 Maryland companies operating in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors of the economy. 
  
  
• FYI:  Maryland, has the fourth largest cluster of biotechnology companies among states in the U.S. (Source: Ernst & Young, Beyond Borders, Global Biotechnology Report 2006).  Many of them consistently rank among the top entities in Maryland receiving patents from the PTO each year (see Patenting By Geographic Region: Maryland, 2005).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          Petersburg, Virginia-based Star Scientific, whose published corporate mission is to “reduce toxins in tobacco so that adult consumers can have access to products that expose them to sharply reduced toxin levels,” sued R.J. Reynolds for patent infringement in the District Court for the District of Maryland in 2001. A bench trial on the issue of the enforceability of the asserted patents was held in 2005. Apparently put off by what it viewed as an excess delay in receiving the District Court’s decision, Star petitioned the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) seeking a writ of mandamus from the court that would order the Maryland District Court to issue its decision regarding unenforceability within 30 days. Star's petition was filed before June 7, 2007, which is the date the Maryland District Court issued an order stating that its decision would be posted on June 29, 2007.   Defendants/respondents R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (a North Carolina corporation) and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (a New Jersey corporation) opposed Star’s petition. 

          In an Order signed June 25, 2007, Federal Circuit Court Judge Pauline Newman denied Star’s petition, stating that the company had not “met its burden in this case,” which, for a writ of mandamus, required Star to establish that there had been a “clear abuse of discretion or that the District Court has ‘obstinately refuse[d]’ to adjudicate the matter” (citing Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655, 666-67 (1978)). 

          Ironically, the same day the Federal Circuit issued its Order denying Star’s petition, the Maryland District Court issued its decision on enforceability, effectively mooting Star’s petition to the CAFC. The District Court found Star’s patents to be unenforceable on the basis of inequitable conduct by Star’s attorneys during prosecution of Star’s patents before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. Star responded forcefully to the decision.  In a June 27, 2007, press statement, it stated:

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

          According to the Copyright Office web site, the Office is reengineering many of its internal systems, including the system for registration and recordation.  The implementation of an online registration system as part of the reengineering process reportedly requires that the Office amend its implementing regulations governing the procedures by which the public will be able to submit, and the Office process, copyright registrations and recordations. 

          The Office announced the availability of interim rules that identify the principal changes and upgrades to the registration system, and also announced the proposed amendments to the regulations to accommodate online registration.  The Office has commenced Beta testing of the electronic online registration system, which went on-line July 9, 2007.  According to the Office, the Beta testing will be limited to selected participants until system testing is complete, at which time the Office will open the electronic registration system to the public.

Comments

• Once the Copyright Office's on-line registration and recordation system is fully operational, the government's three administrative bodies that govern IP--the U.S. Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Offices--will provide for further electronic filing of applications and forms over the Internet

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Brian Wm. Higgins, J.D., P.E.

I represent authors, artists, and educators, as well as engineers, doctors, scientists, small not-for-profit companies and multi-billion dollar international corporations. My law practice focuses on patent litigation and patent procurement in the life sciences sector (drugs, nutritional supplements, and medical devices), but I also provide patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret counseling in the financial, telecommunications, automotive, environmental protection, and consumer electronics industries, to name a few. As a registered patent attorney and professional engineer, I help companies maximizing the value of their technology assets in the United States and around the world by strategically identifying and managing the business risks associated with procuring, maintaining, licensing, and enforcing intellectual property assets.

Education

J.D., University of Maryland School of Law

M.S., Johns Hopkins University, Whiting School of Engineering (environmental engineering)

B.S., Arizona State University (chemical engineering)

Admissions and Registrations

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Maryland Court of Appeals

District of Columbia

Professional Engineer (P.E.)

Professional Career

Blank Rome, LLP: Attorney

Science Applications International Corporation: Engineer

Woodward-Clyde Consultants: Engineer

U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine (CHPPM); Captain/Engineer

Community Service

In addition to blogging for this web site, I volunteer my time as an ad hoc peer reviewer for the Journal of Environmental Health (a National Environmental Health Association publication) and other association publications.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link