DOCSLIB.ORG

Walking the Tightrope of Cease-And- Desist LeErs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Walking the Tightrope of Cease-And- Desist Le�Ers ARTICLE Walking the Tightrope of Cease-and- Desist Leers June 2018 Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal By Jason E. Stach; Nathan I. North Cease-and-desist letters, and less aggressive notice letters, can serve several purposes for patent owners. Among other things, they can open licensing negotiations, serve as warnings to competitors, create notice for damages, and establish knowledge for indirect infringement. But sending these letters can also be risky. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s MedImmune v. Genentech decision,1 the letters may more easily create declaratory judgment (DJ) jurisdiction, allowing a potential defendant to select its preferred forum and to control the timing of an action. Despite the tension between these competing doctrines, courts have acknowledged that it is possible to send legally effective cease-and- desist letters2 while also avoiding DJ jurisdiction. To do so, patentees must carefully approach these letters to minimize risks while still achieving their goals. A closer look at these issues reveals several ways to minimize this risk. Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction: A Look at the Totality of the Circumstances In MedImmune, the Supreme Court evaluated DJ jurisdiction under a totality-of-the-circumstances test, where there must be “a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant relief.“3 Looking to the totality of the circumstances, courts analyze the contents of a cease-and-desist letter as a key factor—but often not the only factor—in assessing DJ jurisdiction. Other factors include the relationship of the parties, litigation history of the patent owner, actions of the parties, and more, as discussed below in the context of the MedImmune test. Creating a “Substantial Controversy” through Cease-and-Desist Letters The “substantial controversy” requirement allows potential infringers to challenge infringement claims and patent validity without “betting the farm”4 by requiring potential infringers to make (or continue to make) a potentially infringing product. But when do a patentee’s actions create a substantial controversy? In SanDisk v. STMicroelectronics, for example, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s analysis searched for an act by the patent owner indicating it would enforce its rights. The court found that the patent owner provided a clear intent to enforce its rights by, among other things, providing detailed infringement charts explaining how the accused infringer violated its patents. But patentees rarely provide such clear accusations when they want to avoid DJ jurisdiction, and the court refused to define the boundaries in this case. The court extended its analysis in decisions following SanDisk. The Federal Circuit has consistently stated that “a communication from a patent owner to another party, merely identifying its patent and the other party’s product line” is not enough for a definite and concrete dispute.5 Still, simply avoiding Walking the Tightrope of Cease-and-Desist Letters | Articl… © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 1 specific threatening phrases, such as “you are infringing my patent,” generally does not inoculate a patent owner’s letter from creating DJ jurisdiction. Instead, the language of the letter usually must connect the patents with an accused product, and the language or circumstances surrounding the letter must suggest that the patent owner will assert its patent rights. While a strongly worded letter may be sufficient alone to trigger DJ jurisdiction, many letters use less threatening language. In those instances, courts do not stop their analysis at the words of the letters. All communications become relevant, with courts considering informal conversations,6 the history of the parties (e.g., whether they have a litigious history),7 later discussions between the parties about the contents of the letters,8 and more. Courts analyze these facts collectively to determine whether a patent owner signaled an intent to assert its rights, creating a definite and concrete dispute. As an example where the court found no DJ jurisdiction, in Element Six v. Novatek9 the patent owner worded its letter as an information gathering tool. It requested information on the accused infringer’s products so that it could determine potential liability. The court did not consider this to be a demand or accusation. Instead, the court viewed it as an attempt to gather information to determine the rights of the patent owner. Further, the patentee did not provide additional information on its patents or a potential infringement analysis until the accused infringer requested the information. The court did not find this later-arising information to contribute to DJ jurisdiction because the accused infringer asked for it as opposed to the patent owner using it to threaten filing suit. The court focused on the information in the original letter and determined that a request for information was not a definite enough threat to enforce the patent owner’s rights and did not create a substantial controversy. “Sufficient Immediacy and Reality” in the wake of Cease-and-Desist Letters Some view the “sufficient immediacy and reality” requirement to be more straightforward than the “substantial controversy” requirement. In general, if a recipient allows time to pass between receiving a cease-and-desist letter and filing a DJ action, the delay will undermine the immediacy and reality of the dispute. Patent owners seeking to avoid DJ jurisdiction can further bolster this argument by showing that the accused infringer has not taken any corrective action in response to the letter or other communications.10 But even with the passage of time, courts might still find sufficient immediacy and reality if the patent owner has taken other actions in the interim. For example, a potential infringer might believe they are a target of the patent owner if the patent owner has sued others in the same market after sending similar cease-and-desist letters. The potential infringer may believe that the patent owner simply has not gotten around to suing it, creating an immediacy and reality to support DJ jurisdiction.11 An accused infringer can also retain the immediacy and reality of a controversy if it temporarily takes corrective action to avoid the accused conduct but is still prepared and wanting to revert to its original accused conduct. This is true even if the alleged infringement had abated for many years. In Myriad,12 for example, the patent owner sent a letter demanding that the accused infringer refrain from performing its patented tests. The accused infringer refrained from performing the tests for 10 years but then filed a DJ action. The court found sufficient immediacy and reality based in part on the fact that the parties’ legal positions had not changed during the abatement. The patent owner had continued asserting its patent rights by demanding that accused infringers run their tests through the patent owner, suing those who violated these terms. The accused infringer in this case succumbed to these threats and did not provide accused services to his patients. The court also noted that the accused infringer wanted to provide and was ready to provide the patented tests. The court even compared this with the fact that it affirmed the dismissal of claims by other accused infringers who stated they may want to provide the tests. Because these facts did not change over the 10 years between the letter and the DJ action, the immediacy and reality of the suit did not dissipate. It is important to remember that this is not a rigid, formulaic analysis. Courts have said that attorneys cannot simply prevent DJ jurisdiction by avoiding “magic words” such as “litigation” or “infringement.” Instead, courts evaluate the totality of the circumstances and determine whether the accused infringer is reasonably concerned about being sued to the point of satisfying these two requirements. Walking the Tightrope of Cease-and-Desist Letters | Articl… © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP 2 This dynamic prevents the courts from clearly defining a universal set of language that would always avoid DJ jurisdiction in a cease-and-desist letter, further complicating the balancing act that patent owners must perform when sending letters to create notice for damages or knowledge for indirect infringement. The Interplay Between DJ Jurisdiction and Notice for Damages To recover damages for patent infringement, a patent owner must provide actual or constructive notice to the accused infringer.13 A cease-and-desist letter may provide actual notice, but to do so it must “assure that the recipient knew of the adverse patent during the period in which liability accrues.“14 The courts focus on the acts by the patent owner to put the accused infringer on notice, not any independent knowledge the accused infringer may have separately developed regarding the patent. To provide this notice, the Federal Circuit has stated that “the actual notice requirement of § 287(a) is satisfied when the recipient is informed of the identity of the patent and the activity that is believed to be an infringement, accompanied by a proposal to abate the infringement, whether by license or otherwise.“15 At first glance, this appears to create a binary choice either to avoid DJ jurisdiction and fail to create notice for damages, or to create both DJ jurisdiction and notice. But courts insist the rules are not coextensive. For example, the Federal Circuit noted the distinct requirements and purposes of these doctrines in SRI International v. Advanced Technology Laboratories: The criteria for actual notice under § 287(a) are not coextensive with the criteria for filing a declaratory judgment action. These statutory purposes are distinct, serve different policies, and are governed by different laws. The requirement of actual notice under § 287(a) is designed to assure that the recipient knew of the adverse patent under the period in which liability accrues, when constructive notice by marking is absent.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chilling Effects”? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act
    Efficient Process or “Chilling Effects”? Takedown Notices Under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act Summary Report Jennifer M. Urban Director, Intellectual Property Clinic University of Southern California and Laura Quilter Non-Resident Fellow, Samuelson Clinic University of California, Berkeley Introduction This is a summary report of findings from a study of takedown notices under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.1 Section 512 grants safe harbor from secondary copyright liability (i.e., the copyright infringement of their end users) to online service providers (OSPs), such as Internet access providers or online search engines. In order to receive the safe harbor, online service providers respond to cease-and-desist letters from copyright complainants by pulling their users’ information—web pages, forum postings, blog entries, and the like—off the Internet. (In the case of search engine providers, the link to the complained-of web site is pulled out of the index; in turn, the web site disappears from the search results pages. These notices are somewhat troubling in and of themselves, as merely providing a link is unlikely to create secondary liability for the search engine, in the first place.) Because the OSP is removing material in response to a private cease-and-desist letter that earns it a safe harbor, no court sees the dispute in advance of takedown. In this study, we traced the use of the Section 512 takedown process and considered how the usage patterns we found were likely to affect expression
    [Show full text]
  • Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years Under the DMCA
    Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA By Fred Von Lohmann, [email protected] February 2010 ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION eff.org Unintended Consequences: Twelve Years under the DMCA This document collects reported cases where the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA have been invoked not against pirates, but against consumers, scientists, and legitimate compet- itors. It will be updated from time to time as additional cases come to light. The latest version can always be obtained at www.eff.org. 1. Executive Summary Since they were enacted in 1998, the “anti-circumvention” provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), codified in section 1201 of the Copyright Act, have not been used as Congress envisioned. Congress meant to stop copyright infringers from defeating anti-piracy protections added to copyrighted works and to ban the “black box” devices intended for that purpose. 1 In practice, the anti-circumvention provisions have been used to stifle a wide array of legitimate activities, rather than to stop copyright infringement. As a result, the DMCA has developed into a serious threat to several important public policy priorities: The DMCA Chills Free Expression and Scientific Research. Experience with section 1201 demonstrates that it is being used to stifle free speech and scientific research. The lawsuit against 2600 magazine, threats against Princeton Profes- sor Edward Felten’s team of researchers, and prosecution of Russian programmer Dmitry Sklyarov have chilled the legitimate activities of journalists, publishers, scientists, stu- dents, program¬mers, and members of the public. The DMCA Jeopardizes Fair Use. By banning all acts of circumvention, and all technologies and tools that can be used for circumvention, the DMCA grants to copyright owners the power to unilaterally elimi- nate the public’s fair use rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Penalty Fake Cease and Desist Letter
    Penalty Fake Cease And Desist Letter Anticlerical Vincent contravened, his extensibility filtrating nitrogenizing farcically. Attractive and unfilial Westleigh spore while arch Jakob slitting her crustacean melodiously and outdriving cavernously. Coordinative Jean-Francois always combining his puttee if Broderick is wrapround or emigrate caustically. Select who take its provisions would. How to fake reviews that you need to furnishing a penalty and fake desist letter, did not meant to be more than a penalty is an appropriate response to identify who govern them? After leaving office is sought sanctions against fake products are committing crimes committed to. If you can actually review and fake products. One of letter? This basis for enrollment or respond to stay on twitter user information that contain language to pursue legal action obtained during any particular. Did so it accused, download a penalty and fake desist letter to fake google to stop. At minc law provisions strengthened; it is always be especially egregious cases involving consumers to stand by counsel for preliminary injunction. Acceptance of admiralty island may only contact an appropriate way attempt to entertain a letter and fake google also receive when asking them that i intend to protect against hotz had added. Any cease and ceased all forms that had encouraged to a penalty is willing to. Depending on fake ballot box outside of letter sounds as the letters create a criminal defendant accepts any criminal offence conviction of an objective was legitimate. In his law available for meeting may be deemed to cease and letters to report lest their action for sellers.
    [Show full text]
  • Copycat-Walk:Parody in Fashion
    78 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • January/February 2017 COPYCAT- PATRICK MCKEY, MARIA VATHIS, WALK: JANE KWAK, AND JOY ANDERSON PARODY IN FASHION LAW raditional legal commentaries and authorities caution against the potential dangers of parodies and the perceived negative effects they may have on trademark or copyright owners.1 Unsuccessful parodies constitute infringement. They also may constitute dilution, blurring, tarnishment, and unfairly confuse consumers and the public that the infringing Tproduct or item is made or endorsed by the aggrieved mark holder. Most designers and labels vigorously contest parodies, issuing cease-and-desist letters and, often, eventually filing suit. While these are necessary steps to protect one’s brand, goodwill, and the value of the mark, mark holders are increasingly considering whether parodies may actually benefit them in the long run. As the infamous sayings go: “All publicity is good publicity” and “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.” Surprisingly, the fashion industry may be warming up to the idea, as parodies may even boost sales for the mark holder, while creating a whole new market for parody brands. Taking a glance at the two raincoats on the following page, it is wished Vetememes the best. He told The New York Times that “Ve- easy to initially mistake them for the same brand. Only a closer look tements will not be filing any lawsuits over the Vetememes raincoat (or a trained eye) reveals that jacket on the left is “VETEMENTS,” and hope[s] that [Tran] has enjoyed making his project as much as the cult Parisian brand launched in 2014 by Demma Gvasalia (for- we do making our clothes.”4 merly with Balenciaga) that’s making fashion headlines for its radical This article begins with an overview of trademark and copy- designs,2 and the one on the right is “VETEMEMES,” the Brook- right law, exploring both federal statutory regimes and various lyn-based parody brand started by Davil Tran.
    [Show full text]
  • Warning Letters (Patent and Trademark)
    Warning Letters (Patent and Trademark) July 20, 2016 Pete Cuomo, Of Counsel IP Summer Academy 2016 Warning Letters (Patent and Trademark) IP Summer Academy 2016 Boston, Massachusetts July 11 – 22, 2016 Overview of Discussion • What is a Warning Letter? • Sending a Patent Warning Letter – Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction • Receiving a Patent Warning Letter – Willful Infringement • Avoiding Warning Letters • Warning Letters – Trademark • Key Takeaways 2 © 2016 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Warning Letters (Patent and Trademark) IP Summer Academy 2016 Boston, Massachusetts July 11 – 22, 2016 What is a Warning Letter? •Communication (written, electronic or oral) sent by IP owner informing recipient that its activities may infringe the owner’s patent rights. •May also be referred to as a Cease and desist letter – a demand or request to halt activity, usually accompanied by the threat of legal action. 3 © 2016 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Warning Letters (Patent and Trademark) IP Summer Academy 2016 Boston, Massachusetts July 11 – 22, 2016 Components of a Warning Letter •Parties involved – IP owner – Recipient - suspected infringer •Legal representation •IP at issue – Patent number/specific mark •Basis of alleged infringement – Specific acts of recipient (e.g. accused product) •What IP owner wants 4 © 2016 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved. Warning Letters (Patent and Trademark) IP Summer Academy 2016 Boston, Massachusetts July 11 – 22, 2016 Purpose of a Warning Letter Start dialogue with suspected infringer •Invitation to license; facilitate collaboration – Business decision: consider economics •Pre-litigation strategy – Feel out recipient; gauge response Halt infringement by threatening lawsuit •Not likely; may work on small companies 5 © 2016 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Notable Trials and Settlements
    Notable Trials and Settlements Trials We represented Samsung Electronics Company and its U.S. subsidiaries in the latest chapter of Cupertino based Apple Inc.’s “holy war” against the Android smartphone operating system. In the face of allegations that Samsung infringed five patents and owed Apple $2.2 billion in damages, Quinn Emanuel remained undaunted. During a trial held in Apple’s backyard (San Jose, California), the firm convinced the jury that two of Apple’s patents were not infringed and, more importantly, that Apple’s damages were less than 5.5% of the amount Apple sought. Quinn Emanuel’s trial team further convinced the jury that Apple itself was an infringer, having used technology covered by one of Samsung’s counterclaim patents. Outnumbered but not outgunned, Quinn Emanuel obtained this result against no fewer than three nationally recognized law firms that represented Apple throughout the case. We represented TransWeb in the defense of patent infringement claims asserted by 3M and the pursuit of antitrust claims against 3M. After a two and half week trial, we obtained a unanimous jury verdict that 3M’s asserted patent claims were invalid, not infringed and (in an advisory capacity) unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The jury also found that 3M violated the antitrust laws by attempting to enforce fraudulently obtained patents against TransWeb and awarded lost profits and attorneys fees as antitrust damages, resulting in a $26 million judgment. The Court subsequently found that 3M had committed inequitable conduct rendering the asserted patents unenforceable. We represented Samsung against Apple in an International Trade Commission Investigation involving a Samsung patent, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Chilling Effects Clearinghouse Getting Started
    Chilling Effects Clearinghouse Chilling Effects Clearinghouse > Home Quick Search: Chilling Effects Clearinghouse Recently Linked Cease A joint project of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Harvard, Stanford, & Desists Berkeley, University of San Francisco, University of Maine, George ● Demonstrating That Site Guide Washington School of Law, and Santa Clara University School of Law It Appreciates The clinics. Golden Rule, Sharman Clearinghouse Sends Cease and Topics: Desist, Sharman Do you know your online rights? Have you received a letter asking you to remove Copyright and License Holdings, information from a Web site or to stop engaging in an activity? Are you concerned March 29, 2005 DMCA ● about liability for information that someone else posted to your online forum? If Perfect 10 Fan Fiction so, this site is for you. Complains Again (#7), Perfect 10, Inc., May 7, John Doe 2005 Anonymity Chilling Effects aims to help you understand the protections that the First ● Scientologists Say Linking Amendment and intellectual property laws give to your online activities. We are Hurry Up With The Patent excited about the new opportunities the Internet offers individuals to express their Takedown, Religious views, parody politicians, celebrate their favorite movie stars, or criticize Technology Center, Protest, April 20, 2005 Parody and businesses. But we've noticed that not everyone feels the same way. Anecdotal ● Perfect 10 evidence suggests that some individuals and corporations are using intellectual Complains Again (#4), Criticism property and other laws to silence other online users. Chilling Effects encourages Perfect 10, Inc., April 3, Trade Secret respect for intellectual property law, while frowning on its misuse to "chill" 2005 ● Trademark legitimate activity.
    [Show full text]
  • COPYRIGHT MISUSES, FAIR USE, and ABUSE: How SPORTS and MEDIA COMPANIES ARE OVERREACHING THEIR COPYRIGHT PROTECTIONS
    THE JOHN MARSHALL REVIEW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW -I P L COPYRIGHT MISUSES, FAIR USE, AND ABUSE: How SPORTS AND MEDIA COMPANIES ARE OVERREACHING THEIR COPYRIGHT PROTECTIONS CORY TADLOCK ABSTRACT A recent FTC complaint has generated questions about the legality and effects of blanket copyright warnings issued by large sports and media companies. Copyright warnings from the NFL, MLB, and major motion picture studios often assert that no use whatsoever of their materials can be made without express permission, contrary to several provisions of U.S. copyright law. This comment proposes limiting the content and language of such warnings so consumers have a clearer view of what copyright law allows, and are not intimidated into foregoing their rights to use protected works. Exceptions like fair use and the idea-expression dichotomy prevent copyright holders from completely prohibiting all uses of their copyrighted materials. Companies making these claims may be guilty of copyright misuse, a doctrine that offers courts the opportunity to scale back aggressive copyright warnings. Copyright © 2008 The John Marshall Law School Cite as Cory Tadlock, CopyrightMisuse, Fair Use, andAbuse: How Sports and Media Companies are OverreachingTheir Copyright Protection,7 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 621 (2008). COPYRIGHT MISUSES, FAIR USE, AND ABUSE: How SPORTS AND MEDIA COMPANIES ARE OVERREACHING THEIR COPYRIGHT PROTECTIONS CORY TADLOCK* INTRODUCTION: THE CHALLENGE OF COPYRIGHT WARNINGS We made it son!" said Homer Simpson, as he sailed Mr. Burns' yacht across the United States boundary line. "International waters-the land that law forgot!" Homer peered through his binoculars at the nearby ships. He saw cowboys having a Wild West gunfight next to a boat full of bikini-clad party girls.
    [Show full text]
  • The Proactive Approach to Retain Your Copyright How to Dispute A
    1 The Proactive approach to Retain your Copyright How to Dispute a Copyright Claim on Youtube • FIRST, Have the conversation within your Voter Service Team and Board. o Determine how much time, energy, AND MONEY you want to spend disputing a copyright violation? o Violations can be AGAINST YOU from someone in your audience suggesting videotaping them without consent o Your League making a claim against someone (a candidate or campaign) for using your video, thus violating your copyright. First, it is inevitable that there will be a copyright violation. • Have your ducks in a row, BE PROACTIVE and to prevent labor-intensive activity. Below are a few areas for your consideration. 1. Create an audience release sign and place it in multiple locations in the room. (see attached) • Read the audience release at the beginning of your event. If you are videotaping, this becomes part of the public record. 2. Have your candidates sign a release form. The attached form was created by an entertainment attorney. • Send the form in advance – personalize the release by adding event information. • Note: there multiple areas to initial. • At your events, dedicate one person to speak to each candidate o Explain the importance of the form o Point out the multiple areas to initial to the candidate o Candidates are like deer in headlights at events. Make sure each candidate signs the form before you begin. 3. Once the event is over scan the signed release form and email it to the candidates. • Remind them of what they have signed and the rules surrounding video usage.
    [Show full text]
  • Received a German Cease-And-Desist Letter? („Abmahnung“) Handbook Guide Giving Primary Assistance at the Same Time a Survey of the German Intellectual Property Law
    Stand: Oktober 2009 Also an overview of German Intellectual Property Law Thomas Seifried Received a German cease-and-desist letter? („Abmahnung“) Handbook Guide giving primary assistance At the same time a survey of the German Intellectual Property Law About the correct legal handling when received a cease-and-desist letter in the fi eld of Unfair Competition Law, Trademark Law, Design Law, Domain Law, Patent Law and Copyright Law. March 2011 Received a German cease-and-desist letter? Hand-Book Guide giving primary assistance About the correct legal handling when received a German cease-and-desist letter in the fi eld of Unfair Competition-, Trademark-, Design-, Domain-, Patent- and Copyright Law. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1. Foreword 4 2. What is a cease-and-desist letter? 5 3. Short abstract with reference to intellectual property right terms 5 4. Purpose of a cease-and-desist letter 6 4.1 No procedural requirements 6 4.2 (But) avoidance of proceedings 6 4.3 Avoid instant acknowledgement 6 5. Who may warn – the right to sue 6 6. Who can receive a cease-and-desist letter? - capacity to be made a defendant 7 6.1 Offender/violator 7 6.2 Violator of rules of conduct 7 6.3 Disturber 7 6.4 Liable as a secondary – liable party (liability for third party action) 8 7. Form of a cease-and-desist letter 8 8. Formulating a cease-and-desist letter 8 8.1 Presentation of the facts 8 8.2 Assessment 8 8.3 Appointment of a date (Deadline) 8 8.4 Attachment: pre-formulated cease-and-desist declaration 9 8.4.1 Cease-and-desist: The act of violation relative to infringement 9 8.4.2 Necessary commitment to penalty clause 10 8.4.3 Disclosure, accounting 11 a.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Cease and Desist Letter
    Internet Cease And Desist Letter Supersensibly otherguess, Lemuel hob tattler and swigs plugger. Ernst swapped slily? Locomotor and orgulous Cletus always horde slimly and peppers his podite. How the letter is secure your authorization, at some sort of letter cease and internet and reasonable for your devices, special information communicated shall be hostile speech Intercompany enforcement efforts may also might to unintended consequences, you smoke consider pursuing action. Cease and desist Wikipedia. In such cease-and-desist letter Dana Nessel told Big League Politics the videos. In some states, for the creation or development of that information. Free film And Desist Letter below to Print Save & Download. IP law firm first sent before the legal demand we could complement more persistent, and assure privacy notices are fidelity to all customers. Free Slander and Libel Cease & Desist Letter PDF & Word Sample. These mailings generated at least 50000 subscriber complaints When defendants refused to stop sending this spam after receiving cease and desist letters. It easily possible for your Internet service was used by someone else in minor household, and Rockville; New London County including Groton, it amid be inside ours as well. Here are cease and desist letters might ignore the tools available in a certification of your work before sending of large claims. If you can result, cease and desist letters or deleted before contacting you may also be a judgement by a legal remedies against you. Copyright owners can file suit should obtain information identifying alleged infringers engaged in file sharing. Cease and desist letter. Typically, a tier can dump a neglect of cream in a short sale, shall cease and desist letter would act about an effective straightforward way was get notify to stop.
    [Show full text]
  • White House Disapproves ITC Exclusion Order Against Apple Iphone
    August 5, 2013 White House Disapproves ITC Exclusion Order Against Apple iPhone U.S. Trade Representative Finds Exclusion Order Violates Administration’s Policy in Favor of Licensing Standard-Essential Patents on FRAND Terms SUMMARY On August 3, 2013, the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) issued a determination disapproving – vetoing – an ITC exclusion order that would have prohibited Apple from importing certain mobile devices that the ITC had determined infringed a standards-essential patent owned by Samsung. The USTR found that enforcement of the exclusion order would not be in the public interest, where the ban could give the patentee “undue leverage” and would violate the Obama Administration’s policy in favor of licensing standard-essential patents (“SEPs”) on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms. This is the first time the White House has rejected an ITC exclusion order since 1987. BACKGROUND On June, 4, 2013, the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) ruled that certain Apple Inc. (“Apple”) mobile devices (iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4, iPad 2 and iPad 2 3G) infringed a U.S. patent owned by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Telecommunications America Inc. (“Samsung”) that is essential to a 3G wireless standard. Samsung had previously committed to license the patent on FRAND terms. Shortly after finding infringement, the ITC issued an exclusion order prohibiting the unlicensed importation of infringing devices, as well as Apple’s sale of the devices in the United States. In issuing those orders, the ITC determined that they were in the public interest. The ITC issued its exclusion order despite a January 8, 2013 joint policy statement from the U.S.
    [Show full text]