EOC Week 8: Bratz Vs. Mattel

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a jury should not have been allowed to consider MGA’s claims that it was the victim of trade secret theft during a trial that was convened to consider a lawsuit by Mattel, which contended that MGA stole the idea for Bratz from Mattel.  The case dates to 2004 when Mattel first filed a lawsuit asserting that the designer of the toys, Carter Bryant, was working for Mattel when he did the initial drawings and early work on the Bratz, hip-hop-inspired dolls with large eyes, heads, lips and feet, and tiny noses. The Bratz doll, introduced in 2001, was a blockbuster and posed a serious challenge to Mattel’s Barbie after decades of fashion doll dominance. Article However, this feud has been going back and forth between both companies with judges giving one company rights to Mattel for the images, yet another judge allowing MGA to continue to produce the Bratz Dolls. It seems as if start of this battle created one of the messiest law suits in recent years and will continue to progress forward, but in what direction? That’s still to be determined. However, Time.com has an idea. They state, “So instead of bleeding money in courts, the companies would be better off spending every dime on market research, as the real winner of the doll-vs.-doll battle will be decided by their customers. "The consumers who are buying dolls don't know anything about a lawsuit," Silver said. "Ninety-nine percent don't know or don't care. They just want to buy the doll their kid is asking for." Article  Sounds like a fair way to look at it. Personally, I think the dispute is getting way out of hand and that each company is money hungry for the revenue of the Bratz Dolls. I, too, don't personally care for the dolls themselves because I think they give little girls a bad image of what a real woman look like, but that's just me. However, the customers do have the final say on these dolls. In other words, may the best doll win.

BOC Week 8: Progress on Final Project

As of our last class I looked up many lawyers in the intellectual property field for consideration. It seemed quite nerve racking to have to call an attorney as a student and a rookie in the field. I luckily have two aunts who are attorneys and can help me with this project or at least guide me to someone who can. When thinking about what to ask on these interviews with the attorneys I was quite timid. I really had to think about what I was going to ask. I wanted to sound like I was a professional in the field and knew what I was talking about. Coming up with 10 questions was quite the struggle, I almost feel like I am pretending to know what I am talking about while trying to find questions that pertain to my field of study and that I actually care to know about and may benefit me.

As far as classwork goes, I am pretty up to date with my blog and my tweets. I will be honest and say that there are a dew days that I forget to tweet, but I get myself caught up by class time. Hopefully I can remember to tweet everyday so that I don't get myself behind. I shouldn't procrastinate on homework because I should be doing it every week in order to receive the full credit.

EOC Week 7: Lawyers

Alexandra Del Pozo
702-254-1186


Sophia Del Pozo
702-497-2493


Kenehan & Lambertsen Limitied
702-997-1732


Weide & Miller
702-382-4804


Richard H. Newman
702-667-4811


Michael Navarro
702-385-3025


Yvette R. Freedman
702-383-9950


Kirk Nevada Walker
702-893-3789


Weiss and Moy
702-784-7682


Marc John Randazza
888-667-1113

EOC Week 5: Patent Trolls

When reading the article "New Breed of Patent Claim Bedevils Product Makers" by Dionne Searcey from the Wall Street Journal, I was surprised on the outcome of the case. Raymond E. Stauffer who is a patent attorney in Roseland, NJ sued Brooks Brother Inc. in Federal Court because they labeled their bow ties with expired patents from 1950. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that had dismissed Stauffer's case saying he didn't have standing to bring it. I guess I was shocked that companies with such profit and value are marking their merchandise with expired patents, which is against the law. Why put yourself in jeopardy of being fined or caught? I mean that is a patent trolls job. "A patent troll is a disparaging term for someone who sues for patent infringement but who does not make or sell any products using the patented technology. In other words, the patent troll is in the business of sueing companies, not in the business of making or selling anything." (Patent, Copyright & Trademark pg. 112) "It absolutely is a startling development in the interpretation of that provision," says Michael C. Smith, a defense lawyer from Marshall, Texas, who is representing Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and mouse-trap maker Kness Mfg. Co. in suits claiming false patent marking. "A lot of these products always have patent numbers on them, and it never occurred to anyone to take them off." Mr. Smith, who declined to discuss the lawsuits he is handling, says he generally advises clients: "Now is a good time for you to have somebody run down your products" and check their patent numbers. Patents have a life span of 17 or 20 years. To keep them valid, companies must pay maintenance fees every four years. Once they expire, the holder is expected to remove the numbers from products. "A patent is a right provided by a government that allows an inventor to prevent others from manufacturing, selling, or using the patent owner's invention. This right covers the invention as specifically described in the patent application's claim alowed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or other patent-examining agencies in other countries." (Patent, Copyright & Trademark pg. 101) The way Stauffer calculated the liability against Brook Brothers I feel should have had a different outcome. They marked 120 different styles of ties, which sell for about $45 to $100 a piece. But he did say he didn't know how many individual ties were falsely marked, that accurate number of knowing probably would have helped his case slightly. "I would have settled this case for $25,000 back in December of 2008," Mr. Stauffer says. "Brooks Brothers, however, seemed eager to want to litigate the case, and I was delighted to give them the opportunity." So far, none of the suits have reaped the gigantic awards that plaintiffs say could be possible. "Claims are statements included in a patent application that describes that structure of an invention in precise and exact terms, using a long-established formal style and precise terminology. Most patent applications contain more than one claim, each of which describes the invention from a slightly different viewpoint." (Patent, Copyright & Trademark pg. 38) Some of the cases have settled because companies fear a bad outcome or don't want to incur large legal fees fighting them. "You're paying the hostage fee," says Mark Willard, a lawyer who represented hand-tool manufacturer Ames True Temper Co. in a suit involving a shrub rake. "It was manufactured in China using an old mold that still had the expired patent number on it," says Mr. Willard, adding that the company has long had in place a policy of monitoring patents. "This one fell through the cracks."