Which Countries Pose the Highest IP Risks to U.S. Businesses?

by Sheldon Mak & Anderson on May 17, 2013

Los Angeles patent attorneyUkraine was recently flagged by the Office of the United States Trade Representative as the worst abuser of U.S. intellectual property (IP) rights. The designation was part of the agency’s annual report on the adequacy and effectiveness of U.S. trading partners’ protection and enforcement of IP rights.

As explained by the U.S. Trade Representative, the agency designated Ukraine a Priority Foreign Country (PFC) due to severe deterioration of IP enforcement. Specifically referenced areas of concern included “government use of pirated software and piracy over the Internet, as well as denial of fair and equitable market access through the authorization and operation of copyright collecting societies.”

This was the first time in seven years that a country earned this designation. The PFC designation is reserved by statute for countries with the most egregious IP rights violations, policies and practices with the greatest adverse impact on relevant U.S. products, and that are not entering into good faith negotiations or making significant progress in negotiations to provide adequate and effective IPR protection. Under Section 301 of the 1974 Trade Act, the United States is authorized to seek sanctions directly or through the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Ten countries – Algeria, Argentina, Chile, China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia, Thailand, and Venezuela – are on the Priority Watch List, the U.S. Trade Representative’s second most egregious ranking. With regard to China, the report cites troubling “indigenous innovation” policies that may unfairly disadvantage U.S. rights holders and the growing problem of misappropriation of trade secrets.

As the report highlights, “Thefts may arise in a variety of circumstances, including those involving departing employees, failed joint ventures, cyber intrusion and hacking, and misuse of information submitted to government entities for purposes of complying with regulatory obligations.” The report also notes that “public reports have further indicated that actors affiliated with the Chinese military and Chinese Government have systematically infiltrated the computer systems of over one hundred U.S. companies and stolen hundreds of terabytes of data, including all forms of trade secrets, such as proprietary technology, manufacturing processes, and confidential business information.”

At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. Recognized as one of the country’s “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News and Best Lawyers, our attorneys possess more than two decades of experience. Our full-service IP firm provides local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.

Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) or email us at tri@usip.com to find out how we can provide powerful protection for your unique ideas.

We have offices conveniently located in Pasadena (626-796-4000, 100 Corson Street Third Floor, Pasadena, CA 91103-3842); Ventura County (805-988-0876, 300 East Esplanade Drive, Suite 1200, Oxnard, CA 93030-1247; Riverside (951-787-7770, 5885 Brockton Avenue, Riverside, CA 92506-1863); Upland (909-946-3939, 222 N. Mountain Avenue, Suite 210, Upland, CA 91786-5714); and Orange County (855-874-3327, 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 130, Irvine, CA 92612-1001). 

 

{ 0 comments }

Patent vs. Trade Secret Protection: Which One Is Better?

by Sheldon Mak & Anderson on May 16, 2013

California copyright attorneyIn some cases, trade secret protection of an invention is a viable alternative to patent protection. A trade secret is information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that derives independent economic value from not being generally known to or readily ascertainable to others who might obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.

In order to maintain its value, a trade secret owner must take precautions to prevent disclosure of the secret information. Conversely, patent protection requires the inventor to provide detailed information about the invention in order to be granted the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention for a specific period of time.

The two types of intellectual property also have a number of other key differences:

  • Process for protection: Unlike patents, trade secrets cannot be federally protected through applications to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Rather, the owner of the trade secret holds the responsibility for keeping it safe. If the holder fails to maintain secrecy or if the information is independently discovered or otherwise becomes pubic knowledge, protection as a trade secret is lost.
  • Range of protection: U.S. patent law limits the scope of patent protection to include any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof. A trade secret can include any of the various types of information referenced above such as customer lists.
  • Timeframe for protection: Trade secret protection can begin at any stage of the inventing process, while patent protection must comply with deadlines established under federal patent law.
  • Limitations of protection: Patents granted by the USPTO are limited to the United States, unless the inventor takes further steps to gain international protection. So long as the information remains confidential, trade secret protection can extend globally.
  • Term of protection: While patents have a specific term of years, trade secret protection does not expire. However, trade secrets can be discovered through independent discovery and reverse engineering.

Given the significant differences, choosing the most beneficial type of protection involves careful consideration of both the business and legal implications. For assistance, we encourage you to contact our experienced IP attorneys for a free 30-minute consultation.

At Sheldon Mak & Anderson, we recognize that innovation is your competitive edge – and it needs protection. Recognized as one of the country’s “Best Law Firms” by U.S. News and Best Lawyers, our attorneys possess more than two decades of experience. Our full-service IP firm provides local, regional, national, and international legal services in the following areas: patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, IP litigation, international patent and trademark prosecution, licensing, alternative dispute resolution, and green technology.

Contact our knowledgeable intellectual property attorneys today TOLL FREE at 1-855-UR IDEAS (1-855-874-3327) or email us at tri@usip.com to find out how we can provide powerful protection for your unique ideas.

We have offices conveniently located in Pasadena (626-796-4000, 100 Corson Street Third Floor, Pasadena, CA 91103-3842); Ventura County (805-988-0876, 300 East Esplanade Drive, Suite 1200, Oxnard, CA 93030-1247; Riverside (951-787-7770, 5885 Brockton Avenue, Riverside, CA 92506-1863); Upland (909-946-3939, 222 N. Mountain Avenue, Suite 210, Upland, CA 91786-5714); and Orange County (855-874-3327, 2102 Business Center Drive, Suite 130, Irvine, CA 92612-1001). 

{ 0 comments }

EU Seeks to Modernize Trademark System

May 15, 2013

trademark lawyer Los AngelesThe European Union (EU) continues to announce ambitious initiatives to modernize its intellectual property laws. The latest proposal seeks to overhaul how the EU protects trademarks.

In Europe, trademarks can be registered at national level or at EU level as a Community trademark (CTM). The two types of trademarks coexist, and the same mark may be registered as a Community and/or as a national trademark.

Read more on EU Seeks to Modernize Trademark System…

Read the full article →

Latest High-Profile Software Decision Tackles Standard-Essential Patents

May 14, 2013

Patent Attorney CaliforniaMotorola (now owned by Google, Inc.) and Microsoft Corp. are the latest high-tech companies to square off in the so-called “patent wars.” In the lawsuit, Microsoft alleged Motorola tried to excise excessive licensing fees, while Motorola claimed that Microsoft infringed its standard-essential wireless technology patent.

Read more on Latest High-Profile Software Decision Tackles Standard-Essential Patents…

Read the full article →

Understanding Design Patents: A Primer

May 13, 2013

PatentsWhile design patents are not as popular as their utility patent peers, they still offer a number of benefits for inventors, particularly when seeking to protect the unique appearance of an item.

Read more on Understanding Design Patents: A Primer…

Read the full article →

Congress Announces Broad Review of U.S. Copyright Laws

May 10, 2013

California IP attorneyHouse Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) recently stated that his committee will undertake a broad review of U.S. copyright law and conduct a series of hearings on the matter “in the months ahead.”

Read more on Congress Announces Broad Review of U.S. Copyright Laws…

Read the full article →