Many people are in an uproar regarding the jury verdict in the case trying Jose Garcia Zarate, a 5-times deported illegal entrant and convicted felon, who fatally shot Kate Steinle in 2015. The entire matter raises too many issues to analyze in one article, so we will focus on legal implications of certain “sanctuary” policies of the hundreds of US city, county, and state jurisdictions and the authority of federal “ICE detainers”.
Part 2: What Was Here Before AIA Got Here?
This is the second in a series of blog posts examining the current state of the United States patent system, which is statutorily framed by the America Invents Act ("AIA"). The AIA was signed into law on September 16, 2011. Since that time, the AIA and its phased-in-over-time provisions have had a dramatic impact – in my view, much of it negative – on the United States patent system.
A common misconception about trademarks and service marks (collectively, “marks”) is that a business applies for them much like an inventor applies for a patent on an invention. This is incorrect. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) only registers marks that are already in use in commerce by the applicant for registration. Although registration creates certain additional rights primarily related to enforcement, the applicant’s rights derive from its own use of the mark (or in some instances, the use by a related entity).
The US Diversity Visa Lottery (“DV Lottery”) program is getting a lot of airtime in the last couple weeks after Uzbek national Sayfullo Saipov drove on a bike path in lower Manhattan on October 31, killing eight people and injuring several more. Many may never have heard of the program before now, but as evidence about Saipov was revealed, we all learned that he was resident in the US since 2010, having received an immigrant visa through the DV Lottery program. In this article, we will give a brief outline of the history of the program, how it works, and then address factors that may determine whether it is an immigration program whose clock has run out.
This is the opening post in a series of blog posts examining the current state of the United States patent system, which is statutorily framed by the America Invents Act ("AIA"). The AIA was signed into law on September 16, 2011. Since that time, the AIA and its phased-in-over-time provisions have had a dramatic impact – much of it negative – on the United States patent system.
Most companies have trade secrets. These may include customer lists, strategic information related to product marketing, a formula or methodology used in making a product, and business methods that improve efficiency or reduce costs, among other items. Often such trade secrets are critical to a company’s ability to compete and succeed. Unlike with patents, where owners must disclose the details of their inventions to receive patent rights, the owners of trade secrets risk losing legal protection if they do not keep details secret.
In my Blog post dated March 8, 2015, I noted that the question of whether an allegedly fraudulent petition to the Copyright Office to register a copyright can be a basis for personal jurisdiction in the District of Columbia was currently before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. I also noted that the parties, including defendant Erling Vignisson represented by Farkas+Toikka , were awaiting a ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
CAN COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION BE A BASIS FOR PERSONAL JURISIDICTION IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA?
Generally, to establish personal jurisdiction over a non-resident, a court must engage in a two-part inquiry. First, examine whether jurisdiction is applicable under the state’s long-arm statute, and second, determine whether a finding of jurisdiction satisfies the constitutional requirements of due process. See GTE New Media Servs., Inc. v. BellSouth Corp., 199 F.3d 1343, 1347 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The District of Columbia long-arm statute provides that a District of Columbia court has personal jurisdiction over any person as to a claim for relief arising out of certain enumerated contacts with the District. D.C. Code Ann. § 13-423(a).
The term “intellectual property” generally means creations of the mind that are legally protected usually by copyrights, trademarks or patents but also may qualify for protection as trade secrets. In the United States, copyrights, trademarks and patents are generally the subject of federal laws and regulations, while trade secret protection is provided under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act as adopted by most of the states. The nature and scope of protection afforded to the different forms of intellectual property differ.