Archive for the ‘Economics’ Category

e-Car battery trade secrets: Renault says never mind

Friday, March 11th, 2011

As we commented on last January, on the verge of commercializing all-electric vehicles to compete against Nissan’s Leaf and  Chevrolet’s Volt, Renault revealed after a five-month internal investigation it had suspended three senior executives, with a decision on permanent sanctions to follow.  As it was to be expected, there were no direct official statements from the companies and executives involved…until now.

Nonexistent Accounts

One of the key “smoking guns” alleged in the original investigation, bank accounts alleged to have be controlled by the fired executives, did not exist as alleged in secrecy heavens Switzerland and Liechtenstein.  Renault’s CEO and COO have apologized to the executives and, according to some reports, pledged to repair the injustice.  The executives, on the other hand, have taken legal steps against their accusers.

Trade Secrets

Trade secret misappropriation in a technologically dynamic sector is a chronic problem which organizations must confront with sound policies and procedures.

Properly safeguarded, trade secrets can give an organization a substantial competitive edge. Once disclosed, however, they cannot be retrieved and their commercial value vanishes, although civil litigation may stop further dissemination and recover economic damages.

As an intellectual property consulting firm, IPmetrics has been instrumental in the appraisal and enforcement of for this type of property, as well as the rest of the spectrum, from Patents and Copyrights, to Trademarks and Rights of Publicity.

 

Patent (partial) Reform Passes Senate

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

As we have been watching recently, e.g. Reforms to Be Considered and First to File, two specific areas of damages in the proposed reforms to the Patent System, the False Patent Marking provisions (35 USC §292) and the Patent Infringement Remedies (35 USC §284), had mixed results as several sections were stricken along the way to a 95/5 vote.  The First-to-File system overhaul did pass, however, and will change corporate IP management strategies if the modified bill makes it through the House of Representatives.

False Marking

Current law allows “Any person” to sue for the “$500 for every such offense” penalty (35 USC 292(b)) and this has created a veritable cottage industry of “patent marking chasers,” particularly ever since the $500 penalty has been applied to each item so marked, creating windfall profits to the filers (and the US Treasury).

The reform bill as passed did change this subsection with the following language: ”(b) Any person who has suffered a competitive injury as a result of a violation of this section may file a civil action in a district court of the United States for recovery of damages adequate to compensate for the injury.” Consequently, the reform on this issue aims at limiting recovery to compensatory damages to persons with actual damages, restoring rationality to this niche of patent litigation.

Damages Determination

The proposed reform included, for Section 284 – Damages, adding a subsection specifying the procedure for determining damages.  It did not make it into the bill as passed. In fact, there is no instance of the number 284 in the whole document.

For the complete bill as passed by the senate, see this download from the GPO.