The case of Recif Res., LLC v. Juniper Capital Advisors, L.P., No. CV H-19-2953, 2020 WL 6748049 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2020), arose out of failed discussions between potential investors in an oil and gas development project. Ultimately, the Court concluded that the plaintiff Recif Resources, LLC (Recif) failed to present evidence showing that its alleged trade secrets had economic value or that the defendants, collectively called Juniper, used those trade secrets.
Continue Reading Failure to Prove Independent Economic Value in Oil & Gas Trade Secrets Case
Intellectual Property
Just a Picture on a T-Shirt (Part 2): The Solution
The last trademark-centric article posted, entitled, “Just a Picture on a T-Shirt: The Basics of the Most Common Trademark Application” was intended to be a two-parter. The article revealed a hole in the trademark regulation discussed later, and the second part of the article needed to await a solution to that hole, which also appears below. Let me explain . . . .
Continue Reading Just a Picture on a T-Shirt (Part 2): The Solution
Fifth Circuit Affirms Trial Court’s Judgment that Competitor Did Not Misappropriate Trade Secrets
In Six Dimensions, Inc. v. Perficient, Inc., No. 19-20505, 2020 WL 4557640 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2020), the Fifth Circuit explores the issue of what happens when an employer hires a new employee who is in possession of his former employer’s trade secrets. In Six Dimensions, plaintiff Six Dimensions’ former employee left his Six Dimensions employment with a USB drive of Six Dimensions’ training materials. The employee started work at competitor Perficient and brought with him the USB drive. The evidence at trial demonstrated that there was discussion between the employee and Perficient about uploading the Six Dimensions’ training materials to Perficient’s server, but Perficient ultimately decided not to use the training materials.
Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Affirms Trial Court’s Judgment that Competitor Did Not Misappropriate Trade Secrets
Just a Picture on a T-Shirt (Part 1): The Basics of the Most Common Trademark Application
If trademark applications were Chinese food, the logo on the front of a shirt would be General Tso’s chicken. It’s what “Piano Man” is to the bar crooner—a fan favorite, a crowd pleaser. So it would make sense that familiarity with filing of trademarks would necessarily include familiarity with this particular process. After all, you wouldn’t open a pizza restaurant without access to pepperoni.
Continue Reading Just a Picture on a T-Shirt (Part 1): The Basics of the Most Common Trademark Application
Bona Fide Intent to Use as Applied to “Empire Records” (1995)
“Empire Records” (1995), A conversation between Ethan Embry (“Mark”) and Rory Cochrane (“Lucas”):
Mark: Oh! I’ve decided I’m going to start a band.
Lucas: Really? [Leaning in], the first thing you need, is a name. Then you’ll know what kind of band you’ve got.
Mark: Yeah. I know. I know. I was kinda thinking about, umm, “Marc”. What do you think of that?
Lucas: Is that with a “C” or with a “K”?
Mark: Well, my name is with [checking his nametag], a “K”, so I was thinking maybe my band could be with a “C”. So that way, its kinda like that psychedelic, you know, trip thing.
So Mark, in an effort to know what type of band he has, goes to the Trademark Electronic Search System and conducts a search of *Ma{“r”1:2}{“ckqxh”1:2}*[bi,ti] in International Classes 009 (downloadable music sound recordings) and 041 (Live performances by a musical group). He believes the results to be promising and decides to move forward with his trademark application.
Continue Reading Bona Fide Intent to Use as Applied to “Empire Records” (1995)
Navigating Amazon’s Neutral Patent Evaluation in Real Life
Congratulations to my colleague Angelique McCall. She recently published two articles on Amazon’s Neutral Patent Evaluation in The Tipsheet, the newsletter of the Intellectual Property Section of the Texas State Bar. You can also find the articles on IP Watchdog.
Continue Reading Navigating Amazon’s Neutral Patent Evaluation in Real Life
Save Your Money: You Can’t Register that Social Movement Phrase
In the first Spiderman movie of the superhero era in which we still find ourselves, J. Jonah Jameson believed he thought of a catchy title for the bad guy. To his assistant, he then said the following declarative: “Call the patent office, copyright the name “Green Goblin.” I want a quarter every time someone says it!”
This line demonstrates a mistake made by many, and it isn’t simply that the Library of Congress rather than the United States Patent and Trademark Office registers copyrights. Instead, it illuminates a general misconception that through intellectual property protection, a common phrase can become the exclusive right of one individual or entity. We see this belief personified in trademarks, when an individual or entity seeks to register a common—and arguably public—phrase. Were such a registration to issue, the holder would have a legal presumption of ownership of the phrase and the exclusive right to use the phrase throughout the United States and any U.S. territory on or in connection with the goods/services listed in its trademark registration certificate.
A search of the USPTO’s Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) reveals that the mark “BLACK LIVES MATTER” has been applied for thirty times. The Office received its first of these applications in January 2015, and its most recent less than ten days ago. Similarly, the mark “I CAN’T BREATHE” was first applied for in December 2014. See U.S. Trademark Application No. 86479784. Since May 29, 2020, the same phrase or slight alterations thereof have been applied for more than ten additional times, while applicants have applied to register the term “ALL LIVES MATTER” or iterations thereof eighteen times.
Unfortunately for the owners of these applications, all of whom have paid a filing fee of at least $225 USD—and in many instances more—most of the applications are unlikely to register. Here is why . . .Continue Reading Save Your Money: You Can’t Register that Social Movement Phrase
Ladies A– Lessons Learned from “A” Name Change
While fans of the country music band Lady Antebellum have long abbreviated the band’s name for convenience, the band announced on June 11, 2020 that it would be officially changing its name to “Lady A.” Merriam Webster defines “antebellum” as “existing before a war, especially existing before the American Civil War.” And while the band’s motivations for the name change seem pure, the name change itself created ripples in the trademark and entertainment world that should have been anticipated and could have been avoided.
Continue Reading Ladies A– Lessons Learned from “A” Name Change
Crafting The Jury Charge in Trade Secrets Cases — Lessons from Title Source v. HouseCanary
In June 2020, the San Antonio Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Title Source, Inc. v. HouseCanary, Inc., No. 04-19-00044-CV, 2020 WL 2858866 (Tex. App.–San Antonio June 3, 2020, no pet. h.), reversing and remanding for new trial a $740 million judgment in favor of HouseCanary on its Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act (TUTSA) and fraud claims against Title Source.
Continue Reading Crafting The Jury Charge in Trade Secrets Cases — Lessons from Title Source v. HouseCanary
Eastern District of Virginia Holds that Plaintiff’s Reasonable Royalty Testimony Precludes a Permanent Injunction
The Eastern District of Virginia has issued multiple opinions addressing the Texas Uniform Trade Secret (TUTSA) in Steves & Sons, Inc. v. JELD-WEN, Inc., No. 3:16CV545, 2018 WL 6272893 (E.D. Va. Nov. 30, 2018). Its latest opinion addressed whether plaintiff was entitled to both reasonable royalty damages and a permanent injunction following trial. Defendant argued that allowing both would constitute an impermissible double recovery. Surprisingly, the Court agreed.
Continue Reading Eastern District of Virginia Holds that Plaintiff’s Reasonable Royalty Testimony Precludes a Permanent Injunction