Loren Donald Pearson

Loren Donald Pearson is a Registered Patent Attorney and a Florida Bar Board Certified Intellectual Property Attorney.  He is a partner at Assouline & Berlowe, PA and leads its intellectual property group.  Read his profile

  Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List iconJoin Email List  

Entries in infringement (3)


Google Penguin 2.0 / Keyword TM Infringement

Google is always looking for ways to improve its search results and to prevent others from gaming their algorithms. 

To that end, Google deployed its new SEO guidelines.  If you are involved with SEO, you should check out Google's video on where they are going with their algorithms (i.e. Penguin 2.0):


Now bringing this back to trademarks...

Webmasters should not use another's trademark as a keyword or metatag on their own website.  Imagine coke.com should not be using "Pepsi" as its keyword.  Using another's trademark, might be an act of infringement and could lead to liability for trademark infringement.  A third party's complaint might injure your legitimate page rank in Google.

If you notice a competitor using your trademark (registered or unregistered), the competitor is probably committing trademark infringement.  If you have a registered trademark, you can submit a complaint to Google and have the offending site removed.  If you do not have a registered trademark, you can enforce your common-law trademark rights judicially.


Dilbert Comic--Patent Juries

I read a Dilbert comic from February 26, 2013, about patent juries that I thought was worth sharing.  The link is below:


Issues of infringement and damages are usually decided by a jury in a patent infringement lawsuit.  The cartoon demonstrates how important it is to have a lawyer that can explain to a jury the nuances of an invention involving cutting-edge technology.

Dan Weiss forwarded this comic to me.  Dan practices in the area of municipal law, including property tax appeals.


S.H.I.E.L.D. Bill Hopes to Curb Patent Trolls

The Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act of 2012 H.R. 845 was introduced by Representatives Defazio and Chaffetz to provide patent-infringement defendants with a means to reflect the cost of successful defense back on a non-practicing entity/plaintiff/patent holder.

A very good discussion of the problem and the pros of the bill are provided on Dennis Couch's PatentlyO Blog.

The article does not discuss any of the cons.

The significant cons of the bill are that owners of presumptively valid patents are subjected to the significant cost of buying a bond to guarantee the cost of the defendant's defense.

Exceptions are provided to original inventors, owners who exploit the technology, and universities.

My opinion is that the current system provides adequate checks to a plaintiff.

Rule 11 provides an adequate check to non-infringement.  To avoid Rule 11 sanctions, a plaintiff should conduct an investigation of an accused device and a claim analysis (i.e. a claim chart) before filing suit.  If none is conducted and the accused device is not infringing, the plaintiff may face a Rule 11 motion by the defendant for the cost of the defense.

The USPTO's procedures provide a means to challenge validity.  The purpose of the USPTO's examination is to provide a presumptively valid document.  Why attach further burdens on the inventor?  A defendant can challenge the validity of a patent through administrative remedies.