Intellectual Property on the Web Trademark, Copyright and Patent Issues That Impact All Companies in the Internet Age The material provided herein is for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice or counsel. Please help yourself to food and drinks Please let us know if the room temperature is too hot or cold Bathrooms are located past the reception desk on the right Please turn OFF your cell phones Please complete and return surveys at the end of the seminar 2 Trademark and Copyright Issues on the Web Jeanne Hamburg Why Important? • Top IP concerns: – – – – – Cybersquatting Unlawful copying of digital media content Reverse engineering Phishing Sale of counterfeit goods online 4 Overview • Transactional Issues: – Licensing Web Content – Web Publishing – Web Site Development • Counseling Issues – Web Content Clearance/Fair Use • Contentious Issues – – – – Domain name recovery (cybersquatting) DMCA Litigation of online copyright infringement and licensing cases Copyright and trademark issues arising from phishing, online counterfeiting, key word purchases, hyperlinking, pop up ads, framing 5 Licensing Web Content • Distinguish whether content is being licensed or just a trademark • Is the content copyrightable? • What type of use is contemplated? (May not require a license) 6 Licensing Web Content • What kind of license? • What type of grant? • Representations and Warranties • Credit, right of attribution, right of publicity 7 Web Publishing • Publish and/or purchase a book that is printed and shipped to you or to download a digital copy 8 Web Publishing • Form of license, same issues • Technological safeguards on unauthorized copying • Does third party site have terms of use prohibiting unauthorized use of digital content purchased? 9 Web Site Development • Hiring of third party (independent contractor) to develop site • Who will own content created and the html code used to create it? 10 Web Content Clearance: Fair Use • You are a site owner or third party owning content appearing on third party site without permission • Cannot assume creative content (graphic, textual, sound recordings, etc.) are not protected by copyright simply because available on web • Sites claim to make material available that is in “the public domain” (copyright has expired) but may not be 11 Web Content Clearance • If license content from such a site, look for representations and warranties that site owner has the rights • Look for terms of use that may restrict use of the licensed content; often a one time “click through” • Right of publicity/privacy issues if person is depicted in connection with promoting a business 12 Web Content Clearance: Fair Use • “Fair use” codified at 17 U.S.C. 107 • Allows the user of copyrighted material to do things otherwise exclusively the right of the copyright owner— so permission not required • Must be for “fair use” purposes enumerated by statute: e.g., criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research • Four factor test for “fair use”: (1) purpose and character of use; (2) nature of work; (3) amount and substantiality of portion used; (4) effect on marketplace value 13 Contentious Issues • Cybersquatting • DMCA • Litigation of online copyright/licensing cases • Trademark and copyright issues unique to the web 14 Cybersquatting • Trademark, or confusingly similar mark, is used in a web site address • Prohibited by federal law • Vehicles for domain name recovery 15 Federal Court Action for Cybersquatting • Rarely done unless there is also another act of trademark infringement • Expensive • No showing of bad faith required 16 UDRP Proceedings • • • • • • • • Arbitration proceeding Not necessary to own registered mark Confusingly similar No legitimate right to the domain name Registered in bad faith ICANN WIPO in Switzerland and NAF in Minneapolis Complaint, Reply, and Surreply, then a single member or three member panel will decide. All filed electronically. 17 DMCA: Service Provider Liability • DMCA effective weapon for those whose copyrights are infringed on the web • Makes the host of content, who receives notice of the infringement from the copyright owner or its counsel, liable if it does not take down the content • Fantastic remedy when infringer’s identity is not known or infringer is uncooperative 18 ISPs Frequently Contacted Under DMCA • Apple (iTunes, TETRIS infringements) • Google – Gadgets – Android • Amazon 19 20 21 22 23 DMCA: Anti-circumvention • Makes it unlawful for someone to hack through technology designed to protect the unauthorized exploitation of copyrightable content • Applies only if the content to which unauthorized use is being blocked is copyrightable (e.g. circumvention of access to alphabetical directory listing would not violate DMCA) 24 Litigating Online Copyright Infringement Cases • Copyrightable expression (factual data organized logically not protected) • Access to copyrightable work (can often be demonstrated with IP addresses) • Copying – Copying is presumed from substantial similarity— the key test for infringement • Fair Use 25 Litigating Online Copyright Infringement Cases • Must obtain registration before you sue; expedited registration may be secured for this purpose (10 days vs. several months) • Preliminary injunction often ends the case • Declaratory judgment is popular for the alleged infringer • Must bring suit in federal court • Often choice of jurisdiction 26 Litigating Online Copyright Infringement Cases: Licenses • “Click through” agreements or “terms of use” can raise special issues – – – – Important to attend to the terms Consent to jurisdiction Restricts use of content that is not copyrightable Adhesion: courts generally find these agreements binding – Authority to bind company – Hospital sued by provider of health care ratings 27 Phishing • Criminally fraudulent process of attempting to acquire sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details by masquerading as a trustworthy entity in an electronic communication • Communications purporting to be from popular social web sites, auction sites, online payment processors or IT administrators are commonly used to lure the unsuspecting public • Typically carried out by email or IM, and it often directs users to enter details at a fake website whose look and feel are almost identical to the legitimate one. Even when using it may require tremendous skill to detect that the website is fake • MasterCard/UDRP recovery and investigation 28 Legislation on Phishing • No legislation directly prohibits, but there may be copyright and trademark remedies available since site content and trademarks are copied • Credit Card Fraud Act • The Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act • Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act • California's Anti-Phishing Law California in 2005 became the first state to enact legislation designed specifically to deter phishing. Some victims of phishing, including those who provide Internet access service to the public, own a Web page, or own a trademark, may recover up to $500,000 for each proven violation of the statute. Other victims may recover up to $5000 for each violation of the statute. The statute also allows the state's attorney general or a district attorney in the state to bring an action to enjoin further violations. 29 Online Counterfeiting • Best Practices for Trademark Owners – Educate the public so they are not deceived on online searches, marketplace and shopping sites – Request that Payment Service Providers (such as credit card and debit card companies, PayPal) terminate service and indemnify PSP for wrongful termination – Report abuses of PSP’s trademark if trademark owners are unable to make a purchase on a site bearing the PSP’s mark 30 Online Counterfeiting • Contact the providers of Internet shopping services under the DMCA or Lanham Act – – – – – NGC trade dress of coin holders (ebay form) eBay, Inc. Yahoo Google Amazon 31 Is Copying of Hyperlinks a Copyright Infringement? – In the DeCSS case Universal v. Reimerdes, 2600 Magazine prohibited from posting hyperlinks to DeCSS code because it found the magazine had linked for the purpose of disseminating a circumvention device – Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry: linking to unauthorized copies of a text might be a contributory infringement of the work's copyright – Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com found that hyperlinks to ticket broker sites copied by tickets.com from the ticketmaster web site were not infringements of copyright 32 Hyperlinking Best Practices • In an email, do not provide a “live” hyperlink • Beneath a hyperlink in a site, include a disclaimer that the site owner is not affiliated with, does not endorse or sponsor the trademark owner’s services 33 Framing 34 Framing • Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com: Google's inline links were not infringements of the copyright owner's rights to copy and display its work. 35 Pop Up Ads 36 Pop Up Ads • Are a site owner’s copyrights or trademarks infringed when a competitor’s pop up ad is displayed when a consumer access the site? • Most courts hold no when: – No “use in commerce” of the site owner’s trademark in the ad itself – Not a derivative work 37 Key Word Purchases • Search engines such as Google sell third party trademarks as “key words” which will display the purchaser’s web site on a search by the user for the key word/trademark 38 Key Word Purchases 39 Key Word Purchases • US courts split on whether this is unlawful – Is there likelihood of confusion, trading off on goodwill earned by the trademark owner or is this just like a virtual marketplace where different branded goods are displayed on virtual “store shelves” next to each other? • Issue may be treated differently abroad and in US 40 Pay Per View/Pay Per Click Advertising • What is PPV/PCC? • Is the PPV or PPC ad of a third party (not the trademark owner) an infringement if it does not use the trademark in the ad but is displayed on key word search of trademark? • In 2006 Yahoo prohibited PPV or PPC advertisers from bidding on third party trademarks 41 Pay Per View/Pay Per Click Advertising • Google's AdSense program still permits this; 95 percent of Google's revenue comes from AdSense. • What are “fraudulent clicks”? 42 43 Questions & Answers Session Part 1 Seminar Intermission Business Method Patents and the Bilski Case Chris Casieri What is a Patent? • Exclusive rights granted to an inventor for a limited period of time in exchange for a public disclosure of the invention • Rights extend for 20 years from earliest filing date or 17 years from date of issuance depending when the application was filed 47 What is the Origin of U.S. Patent Law? • Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution empowers the U.S. Congress: – “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” 48 What are the Types of U.S. Patents Available? • Utility Patents – Bilski’s application • Design Patents • Plant Patents 49 What Types of Subject Matter are Protectable by a Utility Patent? • Section 101 of US Patent law sets out: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 50 What is a Business Method Patent? • Business method patent is a type of utility patent which is directed to new methods of doing or conducting business 51 Famous Business Method Patent and Industries • Amazon’s one-click buying patent used for purchasing on Amazon.com • Business method patents are useful to the following industries: – – – – – E-commerce Insurance Investment Banking Tax Compliance 52 What Are Patent Claims? • Patent claims define, in legal patent terms, the extent of the protection sought in a utility application • A sample patent claim may read: – "Method for computing future life expectancies, said method comprising steps X, Y, Z, ..." 53 What is the Bilski Case and What is its History? • The Bilski’s patent application is a pure business method patent application which has raised questions about what types of inventions may be too abstract to qualify for US patent protection 54 In general, Bilski’s main claim requires the steps of: • Initiating a series of transactions between a broker and purchaser by which the purchaser may buy a commodity at a first fixed rate based on historical price levels • Identifying a producer of the commodity • Initiating a series of transactions between the broker and producer, at a second fixed rate, such that risk positions balance out 55 Legal History of Bilski • US Patent Examiner rejected all claims • USPTO’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirmed the Examiner’s decision • Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the USPTO’s rejection of all claims • Bilski appealed to the US Supreme Court for review the CAFC’s decision 56 Why is Bilski Important? • CAFC’s decision was extraordinarily over broad • As a result, software, pure business methods, medical diagnostic methods, biotechnology methods, medical device and e-commerce patents may be unpatentable/invalid in view of the CAFC’s decision 57 What Test was Adopted by the CAFC and What was Their Decision? • CAFC applied a particular machine or transformation (MOT) test: – A claimed process is surely patent-eligible under § 101 if: (1) it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or (2) it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing – In other words, transformation/reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include a particular machine 58 Additionally Issues That Further Narrowed the CAFC’s Decision Include: • Mere field-of-use limitations are generally insufficient to render an otherwise ineligible process claim patent-eligible • Insignificant post-solution activity will not transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process • Methods of organizing human activity are not patent-eligible under US patent law 59 What is the Historical Standpoint Taken by the Supreme Court? • The Supreme Court typically allows inventions that incorporate or apply abstract concepts such as mathematical formulas, as long as the invention, as claimed, has a sufficiently practical impact in the real world. 60 What Alternatives are There to the MOT Test Adopted by the CAFC? • In the 1998, the CAFC utilized the straightforward concrete, useful, tangible test (the CUT test) • CAFC effectively overruled the CUT test with their Bilski decision 61 What are the Issues Before the Supreme Court? Key question to be considered by the Supreme Court: • Whether the MOT test should command patentability outcomes possibly not intended by Congress or required under the plain language of the statute 62 How May the Supreme Court Decide? • The Supreme Court may: – Affirm the MOT test, but rule that it is not the definitive test for determining patent eligibility – Rule that business methods are inherently abstract ideas and are not patentable – Affirm the CAFC’s decision, making the MOT test the bright-line test for establishing patentability under 35 USC 101 63 How Should Software/Business Methods be Protected Until the Supreme Court’s Decision? • Software and business methods should still be protected with patents • Patent claims should be included that satisfy the narrow MOT test • Patent claims satisfying the broader CUT test should also be included 64 Claim Satisfying the MOT test • A method comprising: – Providing a computer network having a programmed computer and a VOIP device – Initiating a first sales transaction between two parties over the computer network via the VOIP device – Identifying a producer with the programmed computer over the computer network – Initiating a second sales transaction between the producer and a party over the computer network via the VOIP device 65 Claim Satisfying the CUT Test • A method comprising: – Initiating a first sales transaction between two parties – Identifying a producer – Initiating a second sales transaction between the producer and a party 66 Questions & Answers Session Part 2 Thank you for coming!