Thursday, January 28, 2010 3:11 PM - By Elie Mystal
Back when I used to practice law, I had the opportunity to do some low-level IP work for the National Football League. As Biglaw work goes, it was pretty fun. And I remember the staff lawyers at the NFL as a very nice and engaging group of men and women.
But sometimes, the IP gurus at the NFL really know how to act like an immense turd in a punch (super) bowl. Remember when the NFL cracked down on the “unlicensed” use of the term Super Bowl? Then there’s the NFL’s ongoing ridiculousness with American Needle. For the overlords of a sport that claims to be “America’s passion,” the NFL has a curious way of crushing the life out of anything that could even slightly siphon a dollar away from their clever system of unlimited revenue potential and fixed labor costs.
But the latest example of the NFL blitzing small entrepreneurs is arguably more ridiculous than everything that has come before. The NFL is claiming ownership over the phrase “Who Dat.” According to WWLTV in Louisiana, the NFL wants to own a chant:
As the Saints’ appearance in their first Super Bowl gets closer, the marketplace is being flooded with Saints merchandise and memorabilia as businesses are looking to cash in on the euphoria, but the NFL is cracking down on the use of their trademarks, including the iconic phrase “Who Dat.”
For those who haven’t had the pleasure of taking in a football game at the Superdome, the full chant goes: “Who dat? Who dat? Who dat say dey gonna beat dem Saints?” So let’s be clear — the NFL claims it owns a chant of ungrammatical pidgin English that can’t even be pronounced properly without using a Bobby Boucher accent. The NFL doesn’t have what they call “the social skills.”
I just got my grades, and needless to say they were less than stellar, approximately a 2.0 GPA. I got my Biochemistry PhD prior to attending a 2nd tier law school on a great scholarship, but now I stand to lose my scholarship lest I get a 4.0 (obviously unlikely due to my struggle this past semester).
What do I do? Obviously I need to buck up, work on my writing skills, and work harder at learning how to take law tests. However, I will now be forced to pay full price for two years of law school.
Assuming my grades will be mostly A’s and B’s going forward, do I still have a chance at a decent firm paying a decent enough wage to fend off the potential debt? Or should I pack it in and say it was a nice try?
— C Change
Dear C Change,
Can someone please explain to me what the hell people with advanced degrees are doing in law school? Law school is for generically smart people who lack other marketable money-earning skills. It is your duty as someone with a biochemistry Ph.D. to do important things like develop AIDS vaccines or effective cellulite treatments. Or just go to Pfizer and make a bagillion dollars ASAP. God did not intend for you to squander your math and science skills in a monkey hole somewhere attaching schedules to Chipotle securities offerings. That’s why He invented outsourcing.
The downfall of many smart people — such as yourself — is that they think they’re great at everything. If you’re getting multiple C’s your first semester at a T2 school,um, outlook NOT GOOD. Use that big brain of yours to cut your losses and quit, rather than rack up $100,000 just to slog through a degree because of pride. One advanced degree is enough! Mother always said you were greedy.
Listen, law isn’t your strong suit. It wasn’t mine, either. And that’s ok. You clearly excel in the sciences; I’m gifted at insulting people in fresh and exciting ways. We must each capitalize on these divine talents to forge our careers.
Today we bring you the news that another firm, intellectual property powerhouse Fish & Richardson, is also going the extra mile on bonuses. From an FR attorney:
Fish & Richardson announced “special” bonuses [last week]. Basically $10K for non-equity principals and $2K for paralegals and administrative staff…. This is on top of the regular bonuses, which is made up of an “hours” component (certain amount of guaranteed bonus per 100 hours billed) and a “merit” bonus.
With all of this added up, some associates’ bonuses blow the Cravath scale out of the water. Happy New Year indeed!
The full memorandum, from president Peter J. Devlin, after the jump.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009 11:41 AM - By Above the Law
Happy Holidays! The new year is just around the corner — might that mean a new job? After that bonus check clears, many associates step up their job searches.
Here’s one opportunity for your consideration, from our friends over at Lateral Link.
Description: The Washington, DC office of a prominent international firm is seeking an intellectual property associate with an electrical engineering background. The attorney should have 2-5 years of experience from another top firm and an electrical engineering degree.
If you are a Lateral Link member, please see Position #5705 on the Lateral Link site. If you are not a Lateral Link member, you can sign up for free at www.laterallink.com. You may also contact Jordan Abshire at jabshire@laterallink.com for more details on the position.
Monday, December 21, 2009 4:44 PM - By Elie Mystal
Condé Nast, which publishes Vogue, GQ, and a number of other publications that can be found at the airport, is suing to defend its pictures. Fashionista reports:
This morning brings news of a more literal form of infringement, filed by none other than Condé Nast. Who are they battling, you ask? An internet hacker—which is vaguely ironic given the company’s somewhat tepid relationship with the web for so many years.
Man, why hack when you can “fair use” your way out of so many problems? This hacker clearly should have gone to law school like everybody else these days.
Still, the weight of a major publishing company arrayed against one internet hacker is hardly a fair fight … for Condé Nast. But they have to try.
Click on the link below to read all of the details.
At first we were of the opinion that Balenciaga’s “Lego shoe” was too hideous to merit copying. But then we learned that Beyonce has been spotted in a pair. If it’s good enough for Beyonce, it’s good enough for the rest of us, right?
That was apparently the thinking of Steve Madden, which produced a very similar-looking shoe. Balenciaga’s original is on the left; the Madden version is on the right.
But Balenciaga’s not taking this sitting down. Earlier this week, the company sued Steve Madden.
What claims are being made in the lawsuit? Come up with some guesses. Then read more (and comment) over at our sister site, Fashionista.
Thursday, November 26, 2009 2:36 PM - By Kashmir Hill
For most of us, today is Thanksgiving! For a small segment of the population, today is the 2009 National Day of Mourning. The United American Indians of New England describe the day as:
An annual tradition since 1970, Day of Mourning is a solemn, spiritual and highly political day. Many of us fast from sundown the day before through the afternoon of that day (and have a social after Day of Mourning so that participants in DOM can break their fasts). We are mourning our ancestors and the genocide of our peoples and the theft of our lands. NDOM is a day when we mourn, but we also feel our strength in political action. Over the years, participants in Day of Mourning have buried Plymouth Rock a number of times, boarded the Mayflower replica, and placed ku klux klan sheets on the statue of William Bradford, etc.
The arrival of white folks from across the sea led to a Native American holocaust, theft of native lands, and the trivialization of Native American culture for the sake of national and college team mascots.
We’ve written a few times about the Native American battle to get the Washington Redskins football team to change its name. After a 17-year battle, the Native Americans lost a trademark suit against the team. The Supreme Court denied cert for the case earlier this month, meaning that the Redskins and their attorneys at Quinn Emanuel kept their laches victory. (As you certainly remember, not everyone at Quinn was pleased about that.)
In our post about the Supreme Court ruling, we asked:
Are we really going to make it through this entire case without any judge having to rule on whether or not it is appropriate to put “redskins” on a football helmet? Maybe not.
Drinker Biddle & Reath partner Philip Mause, who is representing the Native American plaintiffs, has another petition regarding the Redskins name pending before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The Board previously ruled in 1992 that “redskins” is defamatory and cannot be trademarked. But that decision was overturned in federal court due to the laches issue. The new case, though, is led by Amanda Blackhorse of the Navajo Nation; Blackhorse and her co-petitioners were in their late teens and twenties when they filed their petition, so the courts won’t be able to dismiss the case based on the time elapsed/age issue.
This petition means there might be a Drinker Biddle v. Quinn Emanuel, round two. We’ve got an interview with lead petitioner Amanda Blackhorse after the jump.
Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:17 PM - By David Lat
We received this info last night, from several readers in attendance. One of them wrote:
For the patent nerds out there, including me, Chief Judge Paul R. Michel of the Federal Circuit is retiring effective May 31, 2010. Just personally announced it at the FCBA annual dinner. Sent his resignation letter to Obama this morning.
[H]e said he’s motivated to retire instead of moving to senior judge status because he hates the muzzle that comes with being an Article III judge. He wants to lobby. He feels pretty strongly that certain parts of the pending patent reform act are outrageous.
Read more at Patently-O and the BLT (links below).
This semester we have received several warnings from our Internet service provider that copyrighted movies and TV shows are being downloaded illegally via our wireless network. The Information Technology office is now ascertaining who is doing this. Once we have names of the individuals involved, we intend to give them to the copyright holders for enforcement purposes.
This stance proved unpopular with BLS students, as well as ATL readers. In a poll, about 75 percent of readers answered “yes” when asked, “Should Brooklyn Law School do more to protect its students from being sued for illegal downloading?”
It seems that Brooklyn Law School has had a change of heart. Check out the email that went out this afternoon, plus selected reader comments, after the jump.
Today we received this e-mail from the administration, which is causing quite an uproar among the student body.
The gist of it seems to be that, contrary to the practice of other schools, BLS will begin actively investigating [illegal] downloading and proactively providing names of people to media [companies] so [the individuals in question] can be sued.
I believe the typical practice at other schools (graduate and undergraduate) and institutions is to wait for a subpoena and either cooperate or fight the subpoena, not to go out of their way to inform on their students.
The total cost of attendance at Brooklyn Law for the 2009-2010 academic year, for full-time students not living with their parents (God forbid), is a shade over $66,000. Shouldn’t that buy BLS’s silence?
Or is the law school in the right here? Shouldn’t law students, i.e., future lawyers, know and follow the law?
The Great Recession has been tough for many different types of firms — and that even includes intellectual property firms. During the past year, IP-focused shops have cut back on hiring, slashed salaries, and lost key partners to larger firms.
A few recent developments at Finnegan Henderson, the D.C.-based IP powerhouse, reflect the new realities. Multiple sources report the following:
1. Earlier this week, at an “all associates” meeting, the firm announced that it is freezing associate salaries.
2. At the same meeting, the firm announced that it is reducing first-year associate salaries from $160,000 to $145,000 (in all offices).
UPDATE: We understand that Finnegan has frozen support staff salaries as well.
Two additional items about Finnegan, after the jump.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009 10:56 AM - By David Lat
We’ve covered in these pages the many challenges faced by standalone intellectual property firms. One of them is competition from Biglaw shops seeking to scoop up top talent in the IP field.
Yesterday morning, Robert C. Sullivan Jr., president and managing principal of Darby & Darby, sent around an internal email announcing the departure of two prominent partners, Joseph Robinson (pictured) and Robert Shaffer. Robinson and Shaffer, who specialize in patent litigation, counseling and procurement, are joining the New York office of McDermott Will & Emery.
It’s not happy news for Darby, which a tipster describes as “one of the last IP boutiques of any meaningful size, [but] gasping for breath as it is.” Robinson, a biotech expert and noted patent litigator, is said to have been one of the firm’s top-grossing partners, “probably to the tune of about $4 million.” Darby is holding a town hall meeting to discuss the defections.
A source issues this warning to Robinson’s new colleagues at MWE:
[Robinson] is a control freak who wields the power he gets from high earnings with an iron fist…. He is a significant reason for the many partner and practice group defections at Darby in the past few years, and now he’s gone too. McDermott will love the revenue, hate the attitude.
In Robinson’s defense, does he sound all that different from many top partners or successful litigators?
Robert Sullivan’s email announcing the departures, after the jump.
Friday, October 16, 2009 12:36 PM - By Elie Mystal
The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) sued AT&T and Verizon looking to recoup additional royalty fees from people who use ringtones. ASCAP members already receive money from ringtone purchases, but they wanted more money. You know, like a little charge every time a phone rings or something. They lost:
A federal judge has dismissed the music industry contention that when a cellphone’s ringtone begins playing, copyright infringement starts happening since others can hear the song, essentially arguing that a mobile phone is a portable concert hall.
That argument meant that millions of mobile phone users were copyright scofflaws anytime anyone called them.
I don’t think the insufferable noise pollution emanating from the pockets and purses of lemmings who think they are showing individuality is anything at all like a public concert. I’m glad at least one federal judge agrees with me.
The decision (pdf) made it clear that there was no infringement when ringtones are played without any commercial purpose. So make sure you don’t ever ask somebody to pay you for the privilege of listening to your phone. Not only do you run a high risk of getting punched in the face, you also might cause this nonsense argument to waste more judicial time.
What should be done to protect fashion designers from copycats? Law professor Gerard Magliocca would probably say nothing, but other observers are more sympathetic to the designers. Law profs Scott Hemphill (recently married) and Jeannie Suk (half of celebrity couple Feldsuk) propose what they call “the squint test.”
Although fashion designs don’t currently enjoy copyright protection, designers who feel they’ve been ripped off do have other options. They can try suing under a theory of trade dress infringement, which is exactly what some of them have been doing.
Trade dress litigation over fashion designs seems as ubiquitous this season as thigh-high boots. Alexander McQueen recently sued Steve Madden, claiming that Madden’s Seryna peeptoe bootie is a ripoff of McQueen’s Faithful model (see for yourself here). Meanwhile, Forever 21, the fashion retailer known for cheap knock-offs, umm, affordable interpretations of designer fashion, has settled a lawsuit brought by Trovata, the Newport Beach clothing company. Trovata claimed that Forever 21 was copying its striped tees, sweaters and blouses.
You can read more, compare the designs, and comment, over at Fashionista (links below).
Thank you for registering to participate in the AIPLA Career Fair. Please be aware that our attendance for firms/companies participation in the AIPLA Career Fair is not what we expected for this year. We’ve followed up with the Firms and Companies and they have indicated that they do not have positions available and/or not hiring at the present time.
Currently we have 9 firms participating in the Career Fair and we have over 350 Job Seekers that have registered to participate in the Fair. We strongly encourage you to only plan to come to the Career Fair if you have a confirmed interview or were otherwise planning on attending the AIPLA Annual Meeting. If you joined as an AIPLA Student Member between September 1 through October 6, 2009 to participate in the AIPLA Career Fair we will offer you a complimentary Annual Meeting Registration…. The Annual Meeting, which runs from October 15-17, will offer Educational Session, Committee Meetings, Continuing Legal Education Credit and is a Great Networking Opportunity!
Regards, AIPLA Meetings Dept.
I can’t believe that I have to ask this, but does anybody know where an IP attorney can get a job?
Today we turn our attention to what’s widely viewed as a hot field: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. The reader who requested IP law as a subject offered an overview of the field:
IP is a very variable, different, and often forgotten practice of law that is mostly inhabited by engineers and science geeks who have no problems wearing Cosby sweaters and bad shoes around their workplaces.
More serious reflections, plus some questions, after the jump.
Friday, September 25, 2009 3:56 PM - By Elie Mystal
The myth that IP boutiques would be immune from the recession has already been debunked. Today, a few more intellectual property lawyers came back down to earth with the rest of the legal industry.
Above the Law has obtained an internal memo from the IP firm Townsend and Townsend and Crew. The firm is cutting salaries:
All- After much deliberation and consideration of the various issues involved, including the thoughtful input of the associates, the Policy Committee has made the decision to restructure associate compensation for 2010 as follows:
1) The associate pay scale for 2010 will be adjusted so that starting salaries for first year associates will be $145,000.
But don’t get too attached to that lockstep system, Townsend associates. After the jump, we see that Townsend wants to join the cool kids hanging out behind the gym lighting lockstep on fire.
Mainly we’re posting this because it’s a Friday afternoon and rainy (at least here in New York). We figure you need some entertainment to launch you into the weekend.
But there is a legal angle to this music video. It might have spawned intellectual property litigation, if Disney — and Miley Cyrus — didn’t have such a good sense of humor. Enjoy!
(If you like, feel free to discuss “fair use” issues in the music video context in the comments.)
Thursday, August 27, 2009 11:28 AM - By Elie Mystal
Sources report that Fish & Richardson will cut its entire corporate department as of January 1, 2010.
To be fair, Fish & Richardson is more known for its IP work. Its corporate department is relatively small. But cutting an entire practice group seems like an extreme cost cutting measure. The firm has already cut associate salaries and laid off associates.
There are a few things we don’t know. Although our sources tell us the corporate department will be cut firm-wide, our sources are clustered in only one Fish office. We don’t know if corporate associates will be offered other jobs in the firm as of 1/1/10, and we don’t know if the move is being precipitated by a large group of Fish corporate partners leaving.
That’s because the Fish associates we spoke with were informed of the news in a curious way. Details after the jump.
Back when I used to practice law, I had the opportunity to do some low-level IP work for the National Football League. As Biglaw work goes, it was pretty fun. And I remember the staff lawyers at the NFL as a very nice and engaging group of men and women. 
(62) Comments
J.D. Salinger, the celebrated (and reclusive) author of 
ATL Editors,
Who says “special bonuses” are so 2007? Earlier this week, we reported that 
At first we were of the opinion that Balenciaga’s 
We received this info last night, from several readers in attendance. One of them wrote:
Yesterday we 
The Great Recession has been tough for many different types of firms — and that even includes intellectual property firms. During the past year, IP-focused shops have 
We’ve covered in these pages the many challenges faced by standalone intellectual property firms. One of them is competition from Biglaw shops seeking to scoop up top talent in the IP field.
