Anthony Bolzan

The Legal Drama of Noncompete Clauses Ever feel like your workplace is a soap opera? Well, you're not alone! A recent court case involving a Massachusetts company and a noncompete clause has all the drama of a legal thriller. Here's the scoop: BRG, a company, was found to have hired employees from a competitor, FTI, allegedly encouraging them to break their noncompete agreements. Secret meetings took place in Washington, D.C., and New York City, where confidential information was exchanged like clandestine notes in a high-stakes game. The case revolved around the 'center of gravity' of the wrongful conduct, which the court found was not sufficiently connected to Massachusetts to uphold an $18 million punitive award. It's a reminder that in the world of law, the 'center of gravity' isn't just a physics term. Let's debate: Are noncompete clauses a necessary evil or just plain evil? #LegalDrama #NoncompeteClause #LegalInsights #BusinessLaw #CareerGrowth

1

The January 18, 2024 USPTO trademark fee will increase (moderately) the cost of most federal trademark applications by $100. If the filing is an ITU (intent to use), then $150. If you need to draft a custom identification of goods because your product or service is unique, that privilege will double in costs from $100 to $200. To stem some of the frivolous filings that claim every product or service within an International Class, there will be a rolling surcharge for exceeding 1,000 characters in the identification. Renewals at year 5 post-registration will typically cost $150 more and 10-year renewals $125 more. Letter of Protests (an option to preemptively notify USPTO of an unexamined pending mark that should not register) go up to $150 from $50. Overall, this is not a Draconian increase and if it helps get first action pendency back down from 8 months to 2 or 3 that would be a welcome trade. #trademarks #uspto #intellectualproperty #trademarkpractice #brands

7

The American Bar Association (ABA) has just released groundbreaking guidance on AI ethics in legal practice. As a lawyer specializing in Gen AI and automation, I'm excited to unpack this crucial development for you. 🔍 Key Insights from the ABA Guidance: 📚 Competence Requirement: Lawyers must develop a "reasonable understanding" of AI's capabilities and limitations. This doesn't mean becoming AI experts, but staying informed about how AI tools can impact our practice. 🔒 Confidentiality Concerns: We must ensure AI tools adhere to strict confidentiality measures. Client data protection remains paramount, even as we leverage new technologies. 💼 Ethical Billing Practices: Transparency is key when billing for AI-assisted work. We need to clearly communicate AI usage to clients and ensure our fees remain fair and justified . ✅ Accuracy and Verification: It's our duty to verify AI-generated outputs before using them in legal proceedings. This includes double-checking citations and legal analyses to maintain the integrity of our work. 🔄 Ongoing Education: As AI evolves, we must commit to continuous learning to stay competent in both legal and technological aspects of our practice. 💡 What This Means for the Legal Profession: For Lawyers: It's time to embrace AI as a powerful tool while recognizing our ethical responsibilities. We need to strike a balance between innovation and professional conduct. For Clients: Expect more transparency about AI use in your cases. This guidance ensures your interests are protected as law firms adopt new technologies. For Law Firms: Consider developing AI ethics policies and training programs to ensure compliance with these new guidelines. 🌟 The Big Picture: This guidance marks a significant step in integrating AI into legal practice responsibly. It's not about replacing lawyers, but enhancing our capabilities while maintaining the highest ethical standards. Let's continue the conversation in the comments below! #LegalTech #AIEthics #LawPractice #ArtificialIntelligence #LegalInnovation #ABAGuidance

2

Join our Foley team next week at Startup Boston Week as we hear from industry experts – including our own Paige Moscow and Alicia Dorner – on topics that will drive startups towards a journey to success.   #SBW2024 #Boston #Entrepreneurs

5

The Fed Circuit's recent Allergan ruling provides some much-needed assurance to owners of complex patent families -- but questions remain. In the article below, I share some thoughts on the Allergan and In re Cellect rulings and how they may affect patent portfolio management. #PatentLaw #FederalCircuit #USPTO

9

“Focused on GAI, the opinion addresses six core principles: competence, confidentiality, communication, meritorious claims and candor to tribunal, supervision and fees. A theme of reasonableness underlies the opinion; competence, for example, does not require GAI expertness, but a ‘reasonable understanding’ of the technology’s capabilities and limitations, which cannot remain ‘static.’ How much ‘independent verification or review’ will depend on the circumstances of the task. When the ABA first discussed adding a technological component to the competence rule, concern was raised as to the cost to the smaller firms or solo practitioners. The opinion appropriately does not attempt a one-size-fits-all admonition, but emphasizes the balancing of factors.” https://lnkd.in/eFb7nYp5

1

The TX AG argued the company made representations about its generative AI products that were false, misleading or deceptive – a violation of the the TX consumer protection act (DTPA). The issue is the accuracy and safety of the products – the company stated its hallucination rate was less than 0.001%. The product is used to summarize patients’ condition and treatment for use by hospital staff, and the AG found the company may have deceived hospitals about the accuracy and safety. The AG noted hospitals and other healthcare entities must consider whether AI products are appropriate and train their employees accordingly. Very interesting to see this pursued as a deceptive trade practice. My guess is that if the company hadn’t led with advertising that the products were “highly accurate” and with such a low hallucination rate, hospitals would have shouldered more of the risk in using the products.

12

The Federal Circuit just issued Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., No. 23-2367, Dkt. 51 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 16, 2024). Others have posted about this case in the context of the ongoing investigation into IP Edge. [Edited] Federal courts (but not attorneys) have inherent power beyond FRCP 45 to compel any third party in the USA to attend a hearing, regardless of the geographic limitations (in-state, or within 100 miles) of FRCP 45(c). In your opinion, is this the right outcome? Also, if courts can compel witnesses across the USA, then is the compulsory process transfer factor (unwilling 3rd party witnesses) in the venue transfer analysis effectively moot for domestic witnesses?

12

9 Comments

The USPTO announced another data breach yesterday (Aug. 15, 2024). The data relates to unpublished patent applications that assigned rights to a company (which is usually the majority of cases). The data includes the inventor, title, application number, filing date and invention title. This is more than enough for phishing schemes because the patent applicant would naturally assume the entity proffering such confidential information was an official USPTO employee. This comes on the heels of a May 2024 admission that trademark applicant data had been compromised for months leading to a rash of continued and aggressive criminal activity (See https://lnkd.in/ed_tYhXs). The take-away is to check with your IP counsel. If you are represented, the USPTO will initiate communications through your attorney, not you. Furthermore, legitimate attorneys will not directly solicit clients with high-pressure (and fraudulent) communications. #fraud #uspto #trademarks #patents https://lnkd.in/endeK32e

3

The FTC is taking action(s) against deceptive use and marketing of AI tools, including against Rytr - a company that provided its clients with the (AI) means to generate false consumer reviews. Interestingly, Rytr was also charged with engaging in an unfair business practice by offering a service that is likely to pollute the marketplace. Interesting to see how it affects other business tools that can (and are likely to) be abused by their clients. https://lnkd.in/dzPDyDar #AI #FTC

17

The USPTO finally gets it – more Orange Book patents does *not* mean less competition. Soon they might figure out that continuation patents are not the problem either! Check out these quotes from yesterday's USPTO Drug Patent and Exclusivity Study (available here: https://lnkd.in/eGv2C2VR): - “[S]imply quantifying raw numbers of patents and exclusivities is an imprecise way to measure the intellectual property landscape of a drug product….” - “[A] a higher number of patents may not necessarily delay a generic launch…” For example, “patents tied by terminal disclaimers will have the same patent term….” - “[P]atent expiration dates, like the number of patents, may not be predictive of the timing of actual launch of competing products....” - “In some cases … the timing of the entry of generic products is not fully reflected by a computation of patents and exclusivities and competition could be affected by other factors.”

25

👉 A common question ❓ from #patent application filers is whether selling a device covered by a patent prior to filing their application is detrimental to patentability. When the sale is "public" 📢, it can be advantageous ⚡ and result in being able to exclude patents subsequently filed by others as prior art. Here are three take-aways from the Federal Circuit's analysis of this issue. ✅ If a patent owner “privately” sells the invention’s device, to another, it is not a “publicly disclosed” 📢 sale, even if non-confidential, that would trigger 🚦 a legal exception to exclude a subsequent patent filing by another as prior art. In other words, a non-confidential sale of the invention is not 🛑 an exception to the prior art under § 102(b)(2)(B). ✅ The court noted that the purpose of statutory section is to protect “an inventor who discloses his #invention 💡 to the public 📢 before filing a patent application because the inventor has made his invention available to the public—a major objective 🥅 of providing patent protection in the first place.” ✅ Finally, the court concluded that the legislative history states that “public disclosure” requires that the invention 💡 be made available to the public 📢, and that a sale arranged via private messages 📱 in particular is not a public disclosure. #iplawyer #patentlawyer #atlantapatentlawyer #atlantaiplawyer

17

New Episode! $1.4M Med-Mal Verdict on Arm Fracture Case with SANDRA NEUMAN of Sandra Neuman Law, LLC Powered by LawPods #TrialStrategy #MedMal #LawPodcast

6

Ward Law Office LLC is very excited to attend MEDevice in Boston this week. We are looking forward to discussing how Ward can support your innovative developments in medical device technology. If you are at the conference and see our registered patent attorneys, Jake Ward and Amy Rinaldo, make sure to say "Hi" and ask us about Ward's intellectual property expertise and other legal services! #MEDeviceBoston #MedTech #Inventing #WardLawOffice #Innovations #Patents #Trademarks #Branding #RegulatoryLaw #AdvertisingLaw #InternetLaw

6

As the dust has settled following a brilliant few days in Boston at the Trade Secret IP Protection and Litigation conference I have a number of thoughts. Having heard arguments from both sides of the discussion on whether to catalogue trade secrets from a collaboration and litigation perspective my view is that knowing what your trade secrets are is essential: cataloguing achieves this. Secondly, the debate on the FTC's ban (or not, as it has transpired) from a European perspective was fascinating. The ban on non-competes by the FTC was an attempt to harmonise the law across a country which has wildly differing views on how non-competes should work and thereby provide business certainty. Yet the opposite was achieved. Personally, non-competes are justified when used to achieve a legitimate business objective if they are reasonable and proportionate in both scope and duration. This should allay any concerns the FTC has from an anti-trust point of view. I do not believe legislation is needed to achieve this result. Perhaps companies should consider paid garden leave for relevant employees as an alternative to non-competes and thereby decrease the risk of them being declared void? Let’s talk about technology disclosure instead of invention disclosure Chris Buntel to increase awareness of trade secrets within companies during that process. Finally, are we beginning to see signs that the most intangible of intangible assets can be valued? Trade secret insurance is now available. If an insurance policy can ascribe a value to a trade secret does this mean that companies, particularly start-ups can raise capital on this asset class in the same way patents are utilised? I would like to thank my fellow panellists Tom Pease; Chris Buntel, Julie Lappin, and Beth Krewson for all of their insights. Thank you to Duncan Henderson and Pelumi Olu-Osifeso at Kisaco Research for organising an awesome event. #tradesecret #ipleadership #intellectualproperty #litigation

30

1 Comment

So, the bill was rejected because it didn't hold small AI models to the same level of responsibility as the big ones. It’s pretty obvious that this bill, which seems more focused on costs, is ignoring social interests and public safety. On the bright side, auditing both the big tech companies and smaller startups could lead to more fair and balanced regulations. Plus, it might help push back against monopolization by the big players. But in the end, it's hard to say whether the aim is social justice or just boosting profits. Time will tell.

11

🛠️ Do you do competitor teardowns—on your competitor's patents? No more stealth purchases and breaking out the Torx 🪛 Use patents or whitepapers, or other literature that may exist— Here I've selected a benign example of US20230176593, it's the most recent patent publication for which Elon Musk is named as an inventor. This one's very conceptual in nature, with the actual implementation abstracted into code. Could be about ride hailing, but probably more about retrieving your own car from the valet station. ➡️ Tell me about this patent  ➡️ Is this a robotaxi patent?  ➡️ Tell me about the problems this patet solves and the advantages it achieves ➡️ Give me some inventive improvements over this patent relating to safety convenience and user experience ➡️ Now give me some wildcard S-curve jumps that would render this patent obsolete You get the picture— some of the S-curve suggestions are indeed wild—like Neuralink x Tesla autonomous control 🧠⚡️🚖 ‼️ 🚘 #tesla 💎#innovation 💻#softwarepatents 

15

5 Comments