Intellectual Property Infringement and Patent Law – Intellectual Property

An intellectual property infringement is the violation of an intellectual property right. The different types of intellectual property rights are copyrights, patents and trademarks. Thus, an intellectual property infringement may for example can be a
Trademark infringement-
It is an infringement of the exclusive rights attaching to a trademark without the permission of the trademark owner or any licenses. Violation may happen when one party, the “infringer”, uses a trademark which is alike or confusingly related to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to goods or services which are matching or similar to the products or services which the inventory covers. The proprietor of a trademark may inaugurate legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registration.
Patent infringement-
It is the commission of a forbidden act with reverence to a patented invention without getting permission from the patent holder. License may be typically being granted when you take permission. The description of patent infringement may differ by jurisdiction, but it normally consists of using the patented invention. In New York, White Plains and all cities within New York, it is used to have a commercial purpose to constitute patent infringement
Copyright infringement-
It is the unauthorized or forbidden use of work under copyright as well as infringing the copyright holder’s sole rights, for example, the right to copy or reproduce the copyrighted works.Some of the techniques to detect intellectual property infringement comprise of:1) Fictitious entry, for example:
Fictitious dictionary entry-An example to fictitious entry is Equivalence incorporated in the New Oxford American Dictionary.
Trap street -A fictitious street incorporated on a map for the exploit of “trapping “probably copyright infringement of the map
2) Watermark, is a familiar image or outline in paper used to recognize authenticityIn today’ deepen financial recession, it should be on every decision maker’s dash board. It can be an extremely fine line between an organization remaining steady and sustainable and fighting for its economic survival. Often it gets unnoticed, economical, and ‘financial survival can lie in valuable management i.e.organization ability to be familiar with, make the best use of, position, and take out value from its property.Some intellectual property infringements need a proper process of register by the holder to the Intellectual Property Office, in order to yield protection and monopoly rights to the holder. Whereas copyright and design rights, occur automatically upon formation, but do not look after from a third party’s self-governing creation simply from copying.Of course, intellectual property infringements, only look at the expression of approximations, not at the ideas themselves, at a very first phase it is significant that, right privacy provisions are put in place to make sure that discussion of the various parties are at the beginning, are protected and not revealed. However, a company must be aware of how and when Intellectual property infringement is created, in order to take all the required steps for its exploitation as well as protection. This stated that contracts of employ requires adequate provisions, commissioned works have to be protected by suitable contracts and dealing with creation of intellectual rights which invest the intellectual property in the company commissioning the work.However once a company has recognized its intellectual property, it needs to:· It must manage its intellectual property portfolio.· It must conduct a review and make a decision whether it is obligatory to maintain all trade mark, patent, domain name registrations and registered designs.· It must maximize and capture value.· It must enforce one’s rights and Monitor infringement.

When Does an Employer’s Intellectual Property Policy Go Too Far? – Intellectual Property

Many companies require their employees to agree to written policies that clarify Intellectual Property ownership of employment-related work product.The typical form of such a written policy provides that all Intellectual Property such as patentable inventions, copyrightable works of authorship or trade secrets, that are created by an employee in the course of his or her employment, are fully assigned to — and therefore owned exclusively — by the employer.Additionally, other companies, particularly those engaged in software development or the creation of media content, have recently gone even further.Some businesses have demanded that their employees agree to policies that assign and transfer complete right, title and interest to all Intellectual Property created during the entire time of employment – regardless of whether such inventions were created within the scope or course of employment.One potential rationale for the recent proliferation of such policies is the growing difficulty in drawing clear technological lines between “on-duty” and “off-duty” creative activities. With the ubiquity of smart phones, laptops, netbooks, jump drives and other portable devices, it has become more difficult to draw clear lines between when and where a particular item of Intellectual Property was actually reduced to practice (in the case of patents) or first fixed in tangible form (in the case of copyrights).This is particularly true with digital content, which is no longer generated solely within the confines of a physical office setting, but can be captured and edited anywhere, at any time.Consequently, employers may consider taking the broadest possible approach, and demand a universal acquisition of all employee-created Intellectual Property regardless of the employee’s location, time, manner, or purpose when creating it.However, employees often fear that this arrangement makes it dangerously tempting for the company to claim rights in their employees’ personal creative projects without offering any additional compensation, other than the benefit of continued employment.They may fear that employers may show up to assert these rights only after the personal project has demonstrated economic value, and effectively use the policy as a justification to legally acquire that for which they never actually bargained in the first place.As a policy matter, some commentators have argued that permitting enforcement of such overbroad employer-employee Intellectual Property ownership policies will have deleterious effects on society, as employees’ incentives to create independent content, and to contribute to Open Source Code and Creative Commons will be stifled.Recognizing these valid policy concerns, and the potential for employer abuse, in at least 8 states, demanding acquiescence from employees through an overbroad policy of claimed Intellectual Property ownership as a required condition of continued employment has been declared unconscionable, void as against public policy, and/or lacking adequate contractual consideration, absent additional compensation other than continued employment.For example, California specifically exempts all inventions and Intellectual Property created outside of the workplace and without use of company facilities. In addition to the protections of the California Labor Code, California statutes provide other types of protections to creators of copyrightable works when they, as “independent contractors,” enter into work-for-hire agreements with those who commission their works.This scenario is quite common in the entertainment field, where business entities often attempt to reduce overhead expenses by hiring writers as independent contractors rather than employees.California provides strong disincentives for employers to implement such a policy. California law provides that one who commissions a “work made for hire,” as defined in Section 101 of the Copyright Act, is considered the employer of the creator of the work for purposes of workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance.Consequently in California, whenever a creator works on a work made for hire basis as defined by federal copyright law, that creator automatically becomes an “employee,” obligating the employer to bear the cost of workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance.Further, unless one obtains workers’ compensation insurance before entering into such a work made for hire agreement with the creator, before any work is performed, and before any payments are made, there is potential criminal as well as civil liability for failure to maintain such insurance. California issues penalties of up to $100,000 against uninsured employees. In addition, the creator may be entitled to make unemployment benefit claims despite the fact that both the hiring entity and the creator envisioned that the creator would be an independent contractor.From the employer’s standpoint, acquisition of employees’ personal Intellectual Property could also open the proverbial can of worms. By having such a policy in place, employees’ participation on social networking sites, uploading of video clips, blog submissions and even family photographs could technically become the Intellectual Property of the employer. Even offensive materials could become part and parcel of the employers’ theoretical roster of corporate property.Most employers would presumably want to distance themselves from this unsupervised private behavior by arguing that these are personal activities that constitute “frolics and detours,” and are not employer-authorized activities from an agency perspective. However, attempting to maintain such distance from employees’ personal activities is arguably at odds, at least in principle, with simultaneously claiming legal title and ownership over the same materials.In conclusion, companies would do well to assert Intellectual Property ownership rights to copyrightable works, inventions, trade secrets and other materials created by employees within the scope of employment. However, a blanket policy which lays claim to any and all employee-created Intellectual Property-whether related to employment or not, is both unwise and potentially unenforceable.