Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein, LLP - Intellectual Property Law Amster, Rothstein & Ebenstein is a well-established mid-sized legal firm engaged exclusively in the practice of intellectual property law, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, unfair competition and related matters. Since our inception in 1953, we have earned an impressive record of successes for our clients, from individuals to multinational corporations, both domestic and worldwide. These successes are borne of the vigorous application of legal expertise, innovation and objective analysis. en Thu, 03 Dec 2020 04:14:43 +0000 Floodlight Design CMS Michael Jones to Be a Panelist at Brooklyn Law School’s Career Conversations Remote Symposium On January 13 at 12pm, Michael Jones will be a panelist at Brooklyn Law School&rsquo;s Career Conversations remote symposium where lawyers in various fields of practice will speak to Brooklyn Law School students and alumni about their career paths. Michael will be part of the IP panel discussion.&nbsp;&nbsp; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0000 Amicus Curiae Brief of eComp Consultants in Support of Petitioner in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. et al. Click to download PDF: <a href=",%20Inc.%20et%20al..pdf">Amicus Curiae Brief of eComp Consultants in Support of Petitioner in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. et al.</a> Thu, 03 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0000 New York Intellectual Property Lawyers Association’s PTAB Committee to Host Virtual December Meeting on Discretionary Denials The next monthly meeting of the NYIPLA PTAB Committee, to be held on December 1, 2020 at 4pm EDT, will discuss the PTAB's discretion to institute trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the new proposed rulemaking by the USPTO with respect to discretionary denials. (CLE credit will be offered). APJ Kal Deshpande (and possibly others) from the PTAB will attend the meeting in listening mode.<div>&nbsp;</div><div>The USPTO is seeking public comments on considerations for instituting trials under the Leahy Smith America Invents Act. The deadline to submit comments was originally November 18, 2020 but <a href="">has been extended to December 3, 2020</a>.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The group will begin the session with a presentation discussing the current state of the law related to the PTAB's discretionary denial power and delve into whether the proposed rules make sense.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>ARE Law attorneys and PTAB Committee members Devin Garrity and Chris Lisiewski will be helping to prepare this presentation. Partner Charley Macedo is co-chair of the PTAB Committee.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Following the presentation, the PTAB Committee will virtually hold its annual holiday party. All are welcome to join.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>There is no charge to PTAB Committee members to attend, and CLE will be available.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Every month, the NYIPLA PTAB Committee holds video conference calls to discuss the latest and greatest events involving the PTAB. All members of the NYIPLA are welcome to join the PTAB Committee at no extra cost and participate in these discussions and presentations.&nbsp; &nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Learn more about the PTAB Committee.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>If you are already registered as a member, you should have the Zoom log-in information. If you are not, or do not have log-in information, please contact Co-Chair, ARE Law partner <a href="">Charley Macedo</a> or committee coordinator ARE Law associate <a href="">Chris Lisiewski</a>.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div> Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0000 ARE Patent Law Alert: DABUS AI: The Test Case for When a Computer can be an Inventor on Patents for Innovation it Purports to Create <div><strong>Abstract</strong></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>In &ldquo;2001: A Space Odyssey&rdquo; (1968), Stanley Kubrik and Arthur C. Clarke mesmerized audiences with a supercomputer H.A.L. 9000, engaging in conversations and performing human like tasks.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Fast forward more than 50 years, and in 2020, and &ldquo;Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience&rdquo; (&ldquo;DABUS&rdquo;) a patented (see U.S. Patent No. 10,423,875) Artificial Intelligence (&ldquo;AI&rdquo;) system, created by Stephen Thaler, is the face of a computer system (instead of a person) as an &ldquo;inventor&rdquo; or &ldquo;author.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>DABUS, a system of interconnected neural network modules that have been trained in the field of a general endeavor that postulate and test new designs for products and other inventions, such a &ldquo;warning light&rdquo; and a &ldquo;food container.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Thaler, as the designer of DABUS, has filed for patents in various of the major patent offices, naming DABUS as the &ldquo;inventor&rdquo; and himself as &ldquo;assignee.&rdquo; In this article, we discuss the status of Thaler&rsquo;s efforts &ndash; to date &ndash; to have a computer system, instead of a human, as an &ldquo;inventor&rdquo; on a patent application, in the U.S., E.U. and U.K., while applications remaining pending in many other patent offices throughout the world.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><strong>DABUS</strong></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>&ldquo;Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience&rdquo; (&ldquo;DABUS&rdquo;) is an AI system created by Dr. Stephen Thaler. According to Dr. Thaler, DABUS is an AI agent designed as a &quot;creativity machine&quot; to mimic a natural person's creative problem-solving skills.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>On behalf of DABUS, Dr. Thaler filed patent applications on two inventions he alleged were created by DABUS, i.e., the computer system, without a human inventor.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>In <em>Dana-Farber Cancer Institute v. Ono Pharmaceutical</em>, 964 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit summarized that &ldquo;[t]o be a joint inventor, one must:&nbsp; (1) contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention, (2) make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention, and (3) do more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.&rdquo; (quoting <em>Pannu v. Iolab Corp</em>., 155 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 1988); emphasis added).</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Thus, U.S. patent law has historically recognized the inventor as the person, or persons, who contribute to the invention's conception or reduction to practice. While the current interpretation of inventorship requires a conception of the invention, some argue that AI currently does not have such a capability. Although listed as the legal representative for DABUS and the assignee of the DABUS applications, by listing DABUS as the sole inventor on the submitted patents, Dr. Thaler tested the boundaries of the law with patent applications for DABUS's creations.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>In 2018 and 2019, Dr. Thaler filed parallel patent applications via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (&quot;PCT&quot;) in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, China, Korea, Taiwan, India, Japan, Australia and Canada.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><strong>U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Response</strong></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>In April 2020, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (&quot;USPTO&quot;) published its decision by Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy Robert W. Bahr denying a request to name DABUS as the sole inventor on U.S. Application Serial No. 16/524,350, entitled &ldquo;Devices and Methods for Attracting Enhanced Attention.&rdquo; See <em>In re Application No. 16/524,350</em>, Decision on Petition (USPTO) (available <a href=";utm_content=&amp;utm_medium=email&amp;utm_name=&amp;utm_source=govdelivery&amp;utm_term=">here</a>).</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Procedurally, the issue came up in the context of the USPTO issuing a Notice to file Missing Parts of a Non Provisional Application, since the Application Data Sheet (or &ldquo;ADS&rdquo;) submitted with the application &ldquo;does not name each inventor by his or her legal name.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>In denying a petition to vacate the decision refusing to vacate the notice to file missing parts, the USPTO concluded that &ldquo;current statutes, case law and USPTO regulations and rules limit inventorship to natural persons.&rdquo; (Decision at p. 6).&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Thereafter on August 27, 2019, the USPTO issued a <em>Request for Comments on Patenting Artificial Intelligence Inventions</em>, 84 Fed. Reg. 44,889 (USPTO Aug. 27, 2019).&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The USPTO issued its report on October 6, 2020, after repeatedly extending the period for comments. Public Views on Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Policy (USPTO October 2020) (&ldquo;the Report&rdquo;) (available <a href="">here</a>).&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The Report generally concluded that the majority of the comments submitted reflected a view that the &ldquo;concept of artificial general intelligence (AGI) &ndash; intelligence akin to that possessed by humankind and beyond &ndash; as merely a theoretical possibility that could arise in a distant future.&rdquo; (report at ii).&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The Report further concluded that &ldquo;[a] cross all IP topics, a majority of public commenters expressed a general sense that the existing U.S. intellectual property laws are calibrated correctly to address the evolution of AI. However, commenters appear split as to whether any new classes of IP rights would be beneficial to ensure a more robust IP system.&rdquo; (<em>Id</em>. at iii).&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Thus, rather than address the question raised by the patent applications naming DABUS as the inventor, the USTPO in the Report took the position that it is too soon to decide the issue, since, notwithstanding the applicant&rsquo;s assertions, the technology is &ldquo;merely a theoretical possibility that could arise in the distant future.&rdquo;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>At least for now (or until a new administration comes into power), it seems unlikely that the USPTO will adopt new rules allowing for computers (or other non-humans) to be named as &ldquo;inventors&rdquo; on U.S. patents.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><strong>EU Response</strong></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>In November 2019, the European Patent Office (&quot;EPO&quot;) refused two European patent applications regarding DABUS following non-public oral proceedings, similar to the United States.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The patents were rejected on the grounds that they did not list a human being as an inventor, a principle set out by Article 81 and Rule 19(1) of the European Patent Convention.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>In January 2020, the EPO released the reasoning behind its decision. The EPO's interpretation of the European patent systems legal framework found that a natural person must be the designated inventor in a European patent. Additionally, the term inventor being a natural person appears to be in an internationally appliable standard, held by various courts worldwide.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The EPO also emphasized that the designation of an inventor bears a series of legal consequences, including:</div><div>&nbsp;</div><ul><li>the designated inventor can benefit from the rights linked to that status; and&nbsp;</li><li>to exercise these rights, the inventor must have a legal personality that AI systems do not possess.&nbsp;</li></ul><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Moreover, the EPO noted that provided a name to a machine is not sufficient to satisfy the previously mentioned European patent requirements.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Dr. Thaler has appealed this decision and is currently awaiting the result.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><strong>UK Response</strong></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>In September 2020, the UK High Court of Justice (Patents) issued its decision on the DABUS appeal, <a href="">Thaler v The Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs And Trade Marks</a> [2020] EWHC 2412 (Pat). This decision summarily approved judgment and thus falls in line with prior rulings handed to Dr. Thaler from the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO), the EPO, and the USPTO, further solidifying that, at least for patents, an inventor must be a natural person.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The UKIPO previously held that naming a machine as an inventor did not meet the requirement of a natural person being identified as the inventor, as outlined in the Patents Act 1977. UKIPO was also not satisfied that Dr. Thaler had derived his initial right to apply for the patent due to his &quot;ownership of the creativity machine DABUS.&quot;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Though the appeal rejected the DABUS patent applications, the court did note that the question of whether the controller of an AI machine that invents can be himself the inventor, was not argued before them, stating &quot;[i]t would be wrong to regard this judgment as discouraging an applicant from at least advancing the contention if so advised.&quot;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>It may also be worthy to note that in September 2020, like the USPTO, the UK government called for views as to the implications AI might have for <a href="">IP policy</a>, possibly signaling the continuation of this conversation.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><strong>Others Coming</strong></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Currently, appeals of the original patent rejection decisions are pending in the US, UK, EU and Germany. Initial patent decisions are being awaited in Israel, China, Korea, Taiwan, India, Japan, Australia and Canada.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Most recently, the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (&quot;WIPO&quot;) recently published a corresponding international patent application under the PCT, which names DABUS as the designated inventor.&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>See <a href="">WO2020/079499 A1</a>, published&nbsp; April 23, 2020, naming as inventor &ldquo;DABUS, The invention was autonomously generated by an artificial intelligence&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><strong>Conclusion</strong></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>While there are plenty of ways to protect inventions made through AI and machine learning processes, (see Charles R. Macedo, &quot;<a href=" Artificial Intelligence Innovations as Intellectual Property Opportunities and Pitfalls v2 (w-026-6317).pdf">Protecting Artificial Intelligence Innovations as Intellectual Property: Opportunities and Pitfalls,&quot; Practical Law</a> (2020)), the real challenge is whether the law can catch up with the technology and figure out a proper way to determine if and who should profit from AI innovation.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>For more information on how AI and machine learning are being used and/or protected by intellectual property, please contact the authors.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>* Charles R. Macedo is a partner, and Herbert A. Blassengale, IV was a law clerk at Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP. Charley's practice focuses on intellectual property issues, including patent, trademark and other intellectual property. Charley can be reached at <a href=""></a>.</div><div>&nbsp;</div> Mon, 23 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Charley Macedo to Present Introductory Remarks at the Annual Friedman Lecture on Excellence in Appellate Advocacy On November 20, Charley Macedo will present introductory remarks at the <a href="">Annual Friedman Lecture on Excellence in Appellate Advocacy</a>. Charley will also introduce the event&rsquo;s speaker, the Honorable Raymond T. Chen, Circuit Judge, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.&nbsp;<br /><br /><div>This event honors the life and work of Federal Circuit Judge Daniel M. Friedman, and elevates the dialogue on excellence in appellate advocacy. Charley served as a law clerk for Judge Friedman and has been a part of this event for many years.&nbsp;</div><div><br /><a href="">Learn more about the event</a>.<br />&nbsp;</div> Fri, 20 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000 ARE Copyright Alert: New York Federal Court Finds Embedded Instagram Post Is Fair Use In a series of alerts our firm issued in <a href="">April</a> and <a href="">July</a> of this year, we reported on the fast-changing law surrounding whether it is copyright fair use to embed Instagram posts, where the underlying Instagram posts include copyrighted works.<br /><br /><div>Our prior alerts noted that perhaps in response to <em>Sinclair v. Ziff Davis LLC</em> and <em>McGucken v. Newsweek LLC</em>, Instagram had changed its policy to no longer encourage embedding posts, and we concluded that &ldquo;the ultimate rule to live by is anything but clear.&rdquo;&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>We now report on a November 2, 2020 decision from the Eastern District of New York, which found fair use and granted a sports news publisher&rsquo;s Motion to Dismiss a Complaint by a photographer. See <em>Boesen v. United Sports Publ'ns, Ltd.</em>, No. 20-CV-1552 (ARR) (SIL), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 203682 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2020) (&quot;Boesen&quot;).<br />&nbsp;</div><div><strong>Background</strong></div><div>In a fairly narrow holding, the Boeson Court held that the following was fair use: the defendant, United Sports Publications Ltd., a sports news publisher, ran an article on a tennis magazine's website that covered the retirement of professional tennis player Caroline Wozniacki, and in particular noting her carreer and that the retirement was announced on social media, namely Instagram.&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>The article also embedded the original Wozniacki Instagram post, which featured a cropped low-resolution version of the plaintiff's photograph of Wozniacki playing tennis at a young age. The plaintiff, professional Denmark-based photographer Michael Boeson, filed a copyright infringement suit against the defendant United Sports Publication Ltd.&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div><strong>Discussion</strong></div><div>Judge Ross of the Eastern District of New York granted the defendant's Motion to Dismiss, finding that the fair use defense was established on the face of the complaint.&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>Focusing on the &ldquo;purpose and character of use&rdquo; factor of the copyright fair use test, the court held this factor strongly favored the defendant. The court reasoned that use of the photo was &ldquo;transformative,&rdquo; in that the article created a new meaning for the photograph.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>The court noted that the article did not merely present the copyrighted image, but instead since the post was itself a subject of the article (namely that this tennis player announced her retirement on the Instagram platform), it transformed the function of the work in the new context.&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>On its face, the defendant&rsquo;s article reported Wozniacki's retirement announcement and the very fact that her retirement took place on Instagram. Thus emphasizing that the article embedded the Instagram post announcing Wozniacki's retirement only incidentally included the photograph. The court emphasized that the only way the defendant could inform its readers about Wozniack's choice to announce her retirement on social media was by reproducing that post.&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>Because the photograph did not appear on its own, but as part of the post alongside the text, the court also decided that it would be implausible that the defendant&rsquo;s use would compete with the plaintiff's business or affect the market or value of his work.&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>Comparing the Sinclair and McGucken cases (which were the subjects of our prior alerts), one might conclude that the pendulum is swinging back in favor of fair use &ndash; but we think the finer point is simply that no matter what the general rule is, if you are writing about an Instagram post, then without distinguishing facts it may&nbsp; be fair use to embed that very post in your writing.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>We will continue to monitor and report on the use of embedded Instagram posts of photographs.&nbsp; In the meantime, please feel free to contact us to learn more.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><a href="">Chester Rothstein</a> is a partner, and Herbert A. Blassengale, IV is a law clerk at Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP.&nbsp; Their practices focus on all facets of intellectual property, including copyright and trademark litigation associated with social media. They can be reached at <a href=""> </a>and <a href=""></a>.</div><div>&nbsp;</div> Tue, 10 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Key Takeaways from the 2020 AUTM 2020 Software Course <div>Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein was honored to participate and sponsor the AUTM 2020 Software Course. Our firm has been (and continues to be) a longtime supporter of AUTM.</div><br /><strong>Recap</strong><br /><br type="_moz" />The five sessions of this year&rsquo;s course focused on different aspects of issues facing tech transfer offices (TTOs) in developing, protecting and monetizing software and data rights.<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></small></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Session 1: Open Source Software</span></b></small></span><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p></o:p></span></b><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><br /></small></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In the first session, Drew Bennet from University of Michigan, George Chellapa from University of Chicago and Chris Ghere from University of Minnesota focused on open source software issues, and provided insights on such useful topics as:</span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><br /></small></span></p> <ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">if and when to select an open source license; </span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:" new=""><o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">which license to select; and</span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:" new=""><o:p></o:p></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">hybrid licensing models </span></small></span></li></ul><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">For an interesting example of where failing to comply with open source restrictions went awry in a case from 2008 that still is relevant today, see partner Charley Macedo&rsquo;s Oxford University Press article, </span></small></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><a href=""><i><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Copying of Open Source Software in Violation of Artistic License Was Not Licensed</span></i></a><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">, which was published in the <em>Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice</em>.</span></small></span><br />&nbsp;<br /><strong><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Session 2: Patenting Software Current Insights</span></small></span></strong><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></small></span><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In the second session, Cindy Chepanoske from Carnegie Mellon University, headed up a panel consisting of Christina McDonough (also from Carnegie Mellon) and David Bailey from the University of Michigan, as well as Imelda Oropeza from Stanford University and Louisa Salomon from Johns Hopkins Technology Ventures.&nbsp; </span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><br /></small></span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">This panel offered insights into patenting artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies, and discussed a real world example of a portfolio selected to test the edges of patenting bioinformatics, as well as how TTOs can navigate with stakeholders in making at times difficult decisions on how to proceed (or not to proceed) with software related inventions.</span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><br /></small></span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Check out a courtesy copy of our Practical Law white paper,&nbsp;&ldquo;</span></small></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href=""><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Protecting Artificial Intelligence Innovations as Intellectual Property: Opportunities and Pitfalls</span></small></a><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">,&rdquo; (last updated in September 2020), in which we explain the basic components of machine learning solutions, and the intellectual property protections and challenges that are available (or not) for each component.<br /></span></small></span></p><br type="_moz" /><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Session 3: Licensing Models</span></b></small></span><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p></o:p></span></b><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><br /></small></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br />In the third session, Drew Bennet from the University of Michigan, Laura Dorsey from University of Washington and Andrew Morrow from University of Minnesota shared their insights on various options available for licensing software directly or through an app store.</span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><br /></small></span><br type="_moz" /><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">For a useful checklist on key statutes and regulations that should be considered when launching a mobile application, see our white paper for Practical Law, &ldquo;</span></small></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href=""><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Mobile Device And Applications Key Laws Chart</span></small></a><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">.&rdquo; </span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:&#10;"><o:p></o:p></span><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><br type="_moz" /></small></span></o:p></span></b><br type="_moz" /><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Session 4:&nbsp; Dealing with Data</span></b></small></span><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p></o:p></span></b><br type="_moz" /><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br />In this fourth session, our panelists explored the concept of data as the new &ldquo;oil.&rdquo;&nbsp;Charley was honored to join this panel led by Dan Dardani from MIT, along with his colleague Myron Kassabara, Cindy Chepanoske from Carnegie Mellon University, and Dr. Dinesh Divakaran from Duke. &nbsp;</span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p></o:p></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br /></span></small></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">The panel discussed:<br /></span></small></span><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">the various forms of data that are now available to licensing in and out;<br /></span></small></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">perspectives of TTOs as consumers of others&rsquo; data to develop machine learning algorithms and other models for monetization;<br /></span></small></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">perspectives of TTOs as data providers used by others to develop machine learning algorithms and other models; and<br /></span></small></span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">concrete examples of both models and issues spotting to help guide TTOs in the process</span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:" new=""><o:p></o:p></span></li></ul><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">For more on data issues for machine learning, check out ARE Law&rsquo;s video recap from our panel at the </span></small></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href=""><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Licensing Executive Society 2020 Annual Meeting</span></small></a><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">.</span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:&#10;"><o:p></o:p></span><br type="_moz" /><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><b><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><br />Session 5:&nbsp;Roundtable Discussion<br /></span></b></small></span><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p></o:p></span></b><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">In this final session, Dr. Charles Williams from University of Washington led a roundtable discussion addressing open questions that arose from the first four sessions.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /></span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p></o:p></span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">Each of these sessions are available in AUTM&rsquo;s Learning Center.&nbsp;<br /></span></small></span><span style="font-size:14.0pt;font-family:"><o:p></o:p></span><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">If you have any&nbsp;questions or would like to further discuss any of the topics we covered this month, reach out to Charley at&nbsp;</span></small></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href=""><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"></span></small></a><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"> and </span></small></span><span style="font-size: medium;"><a href="" title=""><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">connect with him on LinkedIn</span></small></a><small><span style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif;">.&nbsp;</span></small></span><span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: Arial, sans-serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></div> Tue, 03 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Douglas A. Miro Selected as a 2020 Top 100 New York Metro Super Lawyer Congratulations to partner Douglas A. Miro who has once again been selected as a Top 100 New York Metro Super Lawyer in the intellectual property category. This is the fourth time Doug has been named to this prestigious list.&nbsp;<div>&nbsp;</div><div>Leading fashion, retail and manufacturing companies regularly call on Doug for strategic advice on the establishment, maintenance and defense of their intellectual propety.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Each year, Super Lawyers recognizes the top attorneys in different regions via a multi-phase selection process that involves peer nomination, independent research and peer evaluation. The New York Metro lawyers who receive the highest point totals during this selection process are further recognized in New York Metro Super Lawyers Top Lists.</div> Tue, 03 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Nine Amster Rothstein & Ebenstein Lawyers Named to the 2020 Super Lawyers List in New York Intellectual Property Law Amster Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein proudly congratulates each of the nine lawyers who were selected to the 2020 Super Lawyers list as top lawyers in New York state for their contributions in intellectual property law.<br /><br /><div><a href="">Doug Miro</a>&nbsp;has once again been selected as a Top 100 Super Lawyer in New York. <a href="">Chester Rothstein</a> has been named to the list for the first time.&nbsp;</div><div><br />Our selected lawyers include:<br /><br /><br /><strong>Partners</strong><br /><ul><li><a href="">Daniel Ebenstein</a></li><li><a href="">Anthony Lo Cicero</a>&nbsp;</li><li><a href="">Charley Macedo</a>&nbsp;</li><li><a href="">Douglas Miro</a>&nbsp;</li><li><a href="">Chester Rothstein</a></li><li><a href="">Neil Zipkin</a></li><li><a href="">Mark Berkowitz</a></li></ul><strong>Associate</strong><br type="_moz" /><ul><li><a href="">Sandra Hudak</a>&nbsp;</li></ul><strong>Senior Counsel</strong><br type="_moz" /><ul><li><a href="">Richard Mandaro</a>&nbsp;</li></ul></div><br type="_moz" />The annual Super Lawyers list recognizes the top five percent of lawyers in New York for their professional achievements. Attorneys are selected through a process that includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations. The Rising Stars list recognizes the top 2.5 percent of lawyers who either are under the age of 40 or have been in practice for 10 years or less.<br /><div>&nbsp;</div> Thu, 29 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Charley Macedo and Christopher Lisiewski to Present a Mock PTAB Hearing Exploring Difficult Issues That Come Up During a PTAB Trial at the New York Intellectual Property Law Association Fall Patent Law Series Partner Charley Macedo and associate Christopher Lisiewski&nbsp;will be speakers at the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) <a href="">Fall Patent Law Series</a>. They will be part of a panel on November 10 providing attendees with a mock PTAB hearing that will explore difficult issues that come up during a PTAB trial.&nbsp;<div>&nbsp;</div><div><a href="">Learn more and register</a>.</div><div>&nbsp;</div> Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000 [VIDEO] Key Takeaways from the LES Annual Meeting on How to Identify, Prepare and Package Data for Monetization in AI On October 18, partner Charley Macedo moderated a well-received session at the Licensing Executives Society&rsquo;s Annual Meeting on &quot;How to Identify, Prepare and Package Data for Monetization in AI.&rdquo; He was joined on the panel by Nicole A. Spence CIPP/US from IBM, Benjamin Beavan from Getty Images and Barry Brager from Perception Partners.&nbsp;<div>&nbsp;</div><div><a href="">This video clip </a>includes key takeaways from each speaker from the session, including:</div><ul><li>Charley explains some of the best IP options available for protecting training sets</li><li>Nicole discusses some of the key terms IBM looks for when it licenses Data in for Watson and Licenses Data Out for The Weather Channel</li><li>Ben explains the value points Getty Images offers for training sets</li><li>Barry explains how Perception Partners leverages AI in its product offering</li></ul><div>Please contact <a href="">Charley</a> if you would like to view the full presentation. Watch the video clip on the <a href="">ARE Law LinkedIn page</a>.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;<br /><img src="LES Key Takeaways" alt="" /></div> Tue, 27 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000 ARE Copyright Alert: Artificial Intelligence Recognized as a Reliable Method in Expert Evaluation of Similarity of Works <strong>Introduction</strong><div>Many thought leaders have hypothesized that it will not be long before artificial intelligence (&ldquo;AI&rdquo;) and/or machine learning (&ldquo;ML&rdquo;) systems will be used as part of legal analysis process. We have seen AI/ML systems be used to help law firms in a wide variety of ways to prepare their legal services.<br />&nbsp;</div><div>Now, in the context of a Daubert motion, one district court potentially opened the flood gates for using AI/ML systems at trial.<br />&nbsp;</div><div>In an order dated October 21, 2020, Judge Guidry from the Eastern District of Louisiana, recognized the reliability of an expert&rsquo;s methodology &ldquo;given that he conducted artificial intelligence assisted facial recognition analysis of [the masks at issue] to determine whether the use of mathematics and target facial recognition algorithms comparing the two works would find that human perception would works to be substantially similar.&rdquo; <em>Bertuccelli v. Universal City Studios LLC</em>, No. 19-1304, Order (E.D. La. Oct. 21, 2020).<br />&nbsp;</div><div><strong>The Case</strong></div><div>In <em>Bertuccelli</em>, plaintiffs, Jonathan Bertuccelli and Studio 3, Inc., brought a claim for copyright infringement against defendants, including Universal City Studios LLC and Universal City Studios Productions LLLP, alleging defendants&rsquo; use of a mask of a baby face in the Happy Death Day feature films infringes plaintiffs&rsquo; &ldquo;King City Baby&rdquo; copyright.<br />&nbsp;</div><div>Defendants moved to exclude opinion testimony by plaintiffs&rsquo; proposed experts as inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence and the standard set out in <em>Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.</em>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>Under <em>Daubert</em>, the court must determine (1) whether the expert&rsquo;s testimony reflects scientific knowledge, is derived by the scientific method, and is supported by appropriated validation; and (2) whether the testimony will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence.<br />&nbsp;</div><div>Specifically, defendants argued that the &ldquo;proposed testimony is unreliable and that neither witness is qualified to opine on issues related to copyright infringement.&rdquo; Slip op. at 2. However, plaintiff asserted that the expert &ldquo;reliably applied mathematical analysis using artificial intelligence facial and target algorithms to predict human response to similarity between [&lsquo;King City Baby&rsquo;] and the Happy Death Day mask.&rdquo; Id.&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>The court remarked on the expert&rsquo;s experience with &ldquo;algorithmic reasoning for artificial intelligence-enabled driving systems, including facial recognition technology&rdquo; and reasoned that the expert&rsquo;s &ldquo;methodology [is] reliable given that he conducted an artificial intelligence facial recognition analysis of the King Cake Baby and Happy Death Day mask to determine whether the use of mathematics and target facial recognition algorithms comparing the two works would find the human perception would view the works as substantially similar.&rdquo; Slip op. at 4. Accordingly, the court denied defendants&rsquo; motion to exclude the opinion testimony. In denying the motion to exclude, the court noted that defendant&rsquo;s concerns with the proposed testimony &ldquo;can be explored on cross-examination and do not necessitate completely excluding their opinions and testimony.&rdquo;<br />&nbsp;</div><div><strong>Conclusion</strong></div><div><em>Bertuccelli</em> is no doubt just one of many decisions yet to come that will address the boundaries of when AI/ML systems may be used to assist the fact finder in legal disputes.&nbsp; It is a brave new world in which we live.</div><div><br />For more information on how artificial intelligence and machine learning are being used and/or protected by intellectual property, please contact the authors.<br />&nbsp;</div><div><em><a href="">Charles R. Macedo </a>is a partner, and <a href="">Chandler Sturm</a> is an associate at Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP. They each focus on advising clients on a wide array of intellectual property issues, including litigating patent, trademark and other intellectual property disputes.&nbsp;</em></div><div>&nbsp;</div> Mon, 26 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Charles R. Macedo Publishes Updated Practical Law Practice Note on Understanding PTAB Trials: Key Milestones in IPR, PGR and CBM Proceedings<br> <a href="/images/file/2020-10-19%20Understanding%20PTAB%20Trials%20Key%20Milestones%20in%20IPR%20PGR%20and%20CBM%20Proceedings%20(3-578-8846).pdf">This Practical Law Practice Note</a> by Charley Macedo discusses key milestones in post-grant patentability challenges at the US Patent and Trademark Office under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). It reviews typical timelines and procedures at key milestones in inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR) and covered business method (CBM) patentability challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).<br /> <br /> <a href="/images/file/2020-10-19%20Understanding%20PTAB%20Trials%20Key%20Milestones%20in%20IPR%20PGR%20and%20CBM%20Proceedings%20(3-578-8846).pdf" target="_blank">Click here to read the full article.</a> Mon, 19 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Practical Law Practice Note by Charles R. Macedo on Appealing Patent Trial and Appeal Board Final Written Decisions This Practical Law&nbsp;Practice Note by Charley Macedo discusses procedural and strategic considerations involved in appealing final written decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in <em>inter partes</em> review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method (CBM) patentability challenges under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA).&nbsp;<br /><br />The article also explores grounds, timelines and practical considerations for requesting rehearing of a final written decision before the PTAB and appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.<br /><br /><br /><a href="/images/file/2020-10-19%20Appealing%20Patent%20Trial%20and%20Appeal%20Board%20Final%20Written%20Decisions%20(w-006-9741).pdf" target="_blank">Appealing Patent Trial and Appeal Board Final Written Decisions</a>&nbsp; Mon, 19 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Charley Macedo and Christopher Lisiewski Appear on the New York Intellectual Property Lawyers’ Association’s Podcast on the Importance of the Facebook v. Windy City Decision In <a href="">this episode of Podbites</a>, the New York Intellectual Property Lawyers&rsquo; Association&rsquo;s podcast, associate Chris Lisiewski interviews partner Charley Macedo on the importance of the Facebook v. Windy City decision.&nbsp;<div><br />The decision, which was issued on September 4, 2020, holding, inter alia, that there is no such thing as same party joinder in IPRs and Section 315(c) is about joinder of parties to a proceeding and not joinder of issues. This decision also brings up a host of related decisions on institution, consolidation, appealability and non-appealability of PTAB decisions, POP panel decisions, the Administrative Procedures Act, Chevron deference, Skidmore deference and obviousness.&nbsp;&nbsp;</div><div><br /><a href="">Listen to the full podcast</a>.<br />&nbsp;</div> Mon, 19 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Key Takeaways From the LES 2020 Annual Meeting Session on How to Identify, Prepare and Package Data for Monetization in AI &nbsp;Check out key takeaways from our partner Charley Macedo and his co-panelists' session at the Licensing Executives Society (U.S.A. and Canada), Inc. Annual Meeting on &quot;How to Identify, Prepare and Package Data for Monetization in AI.&quot;<div>&nbsp;</div><div>The tips include:</div><ul><li>Some of the best IP options available for protecting training sets</li><li>Key terms IBM looks for when it licenses data in for Watson and licenses data out for The Weather Channel</li><li>The value points Getty Images offers for training sets</li><li>How Perception Partners leverages AI in its product offerings<br /><br /><br />&nbsp;</li></ul><iframe src="" height="968" width="504" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="Embedded post"></iframe><br type="_moz" /><br type="_moz" /> Mon, 19 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Charley Macedo to Discuss SCOTUS Arthrex Decision at Next New York Intellectual Property Lawyers’ Association PTAB Committee On November 3, the New York Intellectual Property Lawyers&rsquo; Association PTAB Committee monthly meeting will focus on the Supreme Court&rsquo;s decision to grant certiorari in a trio of related petitions involving the Federal Circuit&rsquo;s October 31, 2019 decision in Arthrex v. Smith &amp; Nephew.<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">As advocated by amicus curiae Askeladden LLC (represented by NYIPLA PTAB Committee co-chair Charley Macedo) and the NYIPLA, the Supreme Court only accepted the threshold questions as to whether PTAB APJs were principal or inferior officers for purposes of the Appointment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and if so, did the &ldquo;fix&rdquo; work.&nbsp; <o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The session will begin with a refresher of what Arthrex held, how it was criticized/challenged in subsequent panel decisions with respect to these threshold issues, and a summary of some of the key issues to be raised in the briefing and ultimate decision. ARE Law associates and NYIPLA PTAB Committee members Chris Lisiewski and Chandler Sturm will be helping prepare this presentation.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">There is no charge to PTAB Committee members to attend and CLE credit is available.<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Every month, the NYIPLA PTAB Committee holds video conference calls to discuss the latest and greatest events involving the PTAB. All members of the NYIPLA are welcome to join the PTAB Committee at no extra cost and participate in these discussions and presentations.&nbsp; &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><a href="">Learn more about the PTAB Committee</a>.&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">If you are already registered as a member, you should have the Zoom log-in information. If you are not, or do not have log-in information, please contact Co-Chair, ARE Law partner&nbsp;<a href="">Charley Macedo</a>&nbsp;or committee coordinator ARE law associate&nbsp;<a href="">Chris Lisiewski</a>.<o:p></o:p></p> Mon, 19 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000 ARE Law Trademark Alert: “And That’s the Way the Cookie Crumbles:” The Third Circuit Reminds us that Functional Designs are not Protectable by Trade Dress and Copying is Okay Where There Are no Protectable Rights We spend so much of our lives hearing that &ldquo;copying&rdquo; is a bad thing.&nbsp;<div>&nbsp;</div><div>Sometimes it takes a simple case to remind us that in the business world, unless someone has a protectable intellectual property right, copying is fair game. In fact, copying is a good thing &ndash; it both promotes competition and lets sellers &ldquo;compete and build on one another&rsquo;s inventions,&rdquo; thus improving quality and lowering consumer costs.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The October 8, 2020 decision by the Third Circuit affirming the district court&rsquo;s grant of summary judgment finding no trade protection is such a case. Ezaki Glico Kabushiki Kaisha et al. v. Lotte International America Corp. et al., No. 19-3010 (3d Cir. Oct. 8, 2020).&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The facts are relatively straightforward. Ezaki and Lotte both make competing cookie sticks, the &ldquo;Pocky&rdquo; and the &ldquo;Pepero.&rdquo; As seen below, the cookie sticks are essentially identical:</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Ezaki&rsquo;s &ldquo;Pocky&rdquo;<span style="white-space:pre"> </span>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;Lotte&rsquo;s &ldquo;Pepero&rdquo;<br />&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;<img src="" alt="" /><span style="white-space: pre;"> </span>&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;<img src="" alt="" /></div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Ezaki has two federal trademark registrations covering its product configuration (i.e., its &ldquo;trade dress&rdquo;), both including a written description of the cookies as: &ldquo;an elongated rod comprising biscuit or the like, partially covered with chocolate.&rdquo; The federal trade dress registration puts others, like Lotte, on notice that Ezaki&rsquo;s cookie stick design is a source indicator, and that if others use a design confusingly similar, they will infringe Ezaki&rsquo;s registered trade dress.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>There was a long history between the parties before the litigation, but that&rsquo;s not important here. Ultimately, Ezaki got fed up and sued Lotte for trade dress infringement.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Given the similarity of the designs, there is little debate as to whether Lotte&rsquo;s Pepero cookie stick falls within the scope of Ezaki&rsquo;s registered trade dress. But even a registered trade dress is susceptible to challenge.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>To defend itself, Lotte countered that the trade dress is invalid because it is functional. As a matter of law, &ldquo;[t]he functionality doctrine keeps trademarks from usurping the place of patents&rdquo; and can be used as a defense against any trade dress--registered or not registered. See 15 U.S.C. &sect; 1052(e)(5) (stating that the Trademark Office cannot register any mark that &ldquo;comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional&rdquo;).&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>In finding Ezaki&rsquo;s cookie stick design functional, the Third Circuit provided a refreshingly straightforward opinion clearly explaining the legal limitations of trade dress law with respect to functional designs.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The Third Circuit made clear that a design is &ldquo;functional&rdquo; if it is &ldquo;useful.&rdquo; Perhaps recognizing it was in trouble, Ezaki argued that a sentence from the Supreme Court&rsquo;s Qualitex decision should be read to instruct that functionality should be narrowly construed to apply only to designs that are &ldquo;essential&rdquo;&mdash;not just &ldquo;useful.&rdquo; Dispensing that argument, the Third Circuit noted that &ldquo;[i]f the Lanham Act protected designs that were useful but not essential . . . it would invade the Patent Act domain.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Turning to the substance of the case, the Third Circuit found Ezaki&rsquo;s cookie stick design functional for the following reasons:</div><ul><li>The cookie stick is only partially covered with chocolate to allow people to hold it without getting dirty hands.&nbsp;</li><li>The elongated rod shape makes the cookie stick (1) easy to hold, (2) easy to eat without opening your mouth too wide; and (3) easy to share with friends because more cookie sticks can be packed into each box.&nbsp;</li></ul><div>The Third Circuit also noted that Ezaki itself promoted the convenient design of the cookie stick, thus touting its utilitarian advantages.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Lastly, Ezaki, like many facing a functionality defense, argued that there are alternative designs available thus making its design non-functional. The Third Circuit quickly shot down that argument noting that &ldquo;even when there are alternatives, the evidence can still show that a product design is functional.&rdquo;&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>The Third Circuit opinion ended by succinctly summarizing the entire case in one paragraph. It merits repeating here in its entirety:</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div style="margin-left: 40px;">Though Ezaki Gilco created Pocky, it cannot use trade dress to keep competitors from copying it. Trade dress protects features that serve only to identify their source. It does not cover functional (that is, useful) features. That is the domain of patents, not trademarks. There is no real dispute that Pocky&rsquo;s design is useful, so the trade dress is invalid. We will thus affirm. That&rsquo;s the way the cookie crumbles.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>We will continue to monitor the law of trade dress. In the meantime, feel free to contact us or another attorney at the firm.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><em>Chester Rothstein and Doug Miro are partners, and Benjamin Charkow is an associate at Amster, Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP. Their practices focuses on all facets of intellectual property law, including trademark law. For further information, please contact </em><a href=""><em></em></a><em>, </em><em><a href=""></a>&nbsp;</em><em>and </em><a href=""><em></em></a><em>.</em></div><div>&nbsp;</div> Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000 Sneak Peek Into Amster Rothstein's Licensing Executives Society's Annual Meeting Session - Machine Learning Tools Used for Monetization in AI In this sneak peek into Amster Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein's upcoming Licensing Executives Society's 2020 Annual Meeting session on October 18 on <a href="">how to identify, prepare and package data for monetization in AI</a>, speakers Benjamin Beavan from Getty Images and Barry Brager from Perception Partners discuss bounding boxes, a machine learning tool it uses to help prepare and segment data for clients.<div>&nbsp;</div><div>Our partner <a href="">Charley Macedo</a> will also be a speaker on the panel.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div><a href="">Learn more and register</a>.<br /><br /><iframe src="" height="599" width="504" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="" title="Embedded post"></iframe></div> Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000 ARE PTAB Alert: SCOTUS Grants Certiorari to Hear Questions Whether PTAB APJs Are Principal Officers And If So, Whether CAFC “Fix” Worked &nbsp;<div>Consistent with the position advocated by our firm, Amster Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP, on behalf of Askeladden LLC, with respect to the U.S. Government&rsquo;s petition for certiorari from Arthrex, the U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it has granted certiorari to hear: <br /><br />(1) whether PTAB APJs are principal or interior officers; and <br />(2) if they are principal officers, did the Federal Circuit&rsquo;s &ldquo;fix&rdquo; in Arthrex work.</div><div>&nbsp;</div><div>Our firm, on behalf of Askeladden LLC and the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA) submitted amicus briefs on this case.<br /><br />Connect with <a href="">Charley</a> and follow <a href=";-ebenstein/?viewAsMember=true">Amster Rothstein &amp; Ebenstein LLP on LinkedIn</a> to stay on top of the latest development in this case and other intellectual property issues.</div> Tue, 13 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0000