Patent Damages Reforms to be Considered Next Month

February 24th, 2011

Reuters reported that Majority Leader Harry Reid announced that the Senate aims to begin consideration next month, possibly by March 14, of a bipartisan bill to revamp the U.S. patent system and reduce the likelihood of what critics see as “excessive damage awards.”

The two areas of damages that we are watching closely are the reforms to the False Patent Marking provisions (35 USC §292) and to Patent Infringement Remedies (35 USC §284).

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 proposed reform bill seeks to strike 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.

Damages Determination

The proposed reform includes, for Section 284 – Damages, adding a subsection specifying the procedure for determining damages whereby: (a) The court shall identify the methodologies and factors that are relevant to the determination of damages to be considered by the court or jury; (b) The parties shall specify in a timely fashion the methodologies and factors proposed for instruction to the jury in determining damages, including the underlying legal and factual bases for their assertions; and (c) The court shall also consider whether one or more of a party’s damages contentions lacks a legally sufficient evidentiary basis.

Further reading

A full summary of the bill can be obtained on the Library of Congress’ THOMAS website.

Fictional beer and the future of Trademark Law

February 23rd, 2011

Duff-Cerveza-270x300In the fictional world of The Simpsons, Duff Beer is a popular brew. What if you developed a real-life beer with the same name and had instant brand awareness? That is what Mexican entrepreneur Rodrigo Contreras thought when considering how to invest the proceeds the book he published, The Achievements of President Fox, a 136 page collection of blank pages.

Contreras’ real-world Duff Beer has been selling in Mexico and Europe (but not widely in the USA), and The Financial Times has even written a profile piece on the venture, where Contreras insists he contacted Fox and the producers of The Simpsons in 2006 but got no response. Tellingly, the FT piece quotes a happy bartender explaining why sales have needed little in advertising: “The moment you offer customers Duff Beer from The Simpsons, they rip it out of your hands.” This is an example recently highlighted in a very thorough note by Benjamin M. Arrow, published in the latest issue of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, which has gotten deserved attention from the intellectual property community.

The situation above clearly suggests a trademark infringement, but it is not a straight forward application of the Lanham Act. The Duff identifier is not really used in commerce as a beer trademark, except within the fictional world. Copyright law, on the other hand, does not protect de minimis expressions like these. Nevertheless, it seems obvious that Contreras’ Cerveza Duff is trading on the goodwill of the fictional brand.

Twentieth Century Fox indeed has the only registration of the trademark “Duff Beer” in the US; it is a mark for Class 25, covering merchandising apparel such as shirts, t-shirts, tops, swimwear, shorts, pants, caps, or hats. They are missing coverage for the actual beer category though, that is a not-so-tiny technicality in defending a brand.

From the perspective of potential trademark infringement damages in a fictional trademark case, there may be a few potential theories to pursue, but the most promising ones would be related to unfair competition and the attribution of a portion of an alleged infringer’s profits to the advertising and goodwill generated by the show’s producers and distributors legitimately accruing to the fictional mark.