Category Archives: IP Litigation

Happy World Intellectual Property Day!

light-bulb-current-light-glow-40889.jpeg

April 26 marks World Intellectual Property Day.  At Assouline & Berlowe, we have built a team of Intellectual Property (IP) attorneys that handle a wide range of IP issues that impact many aspects of business.  Most people (including attorneys) do not realize how often IP crosses into all areas of business, from employment law (trade secrets), business sales (IP due diligence), to bankruptcy (inventory and valuation).  IP creates valuable assets for businesses because the IP allows the IP owner to stop others from either using their protected IP without their consent.  IP is a powerful tool that could prevent copying, or monetize IP through licensing deals.  On the other hand, infringing someone else’s IP can be a significant liability for an unprepared business.

The Assouline & Berlowe IP team, including 3 registered patent attorneys, is well equipped to handle all aspects of IP prosecution and litigation.  Our IP team routinely files applications to secure patents, trademarks, and copyrights for clients.  Assouline & Berlowe handles IP in a wide range of industries, including alcoholic beverages, mattresses, transportation, cellular technology, security, and celebrities/influencers.  The IP team is highlighted below:

Peter Koziol co-chairs the firm’s IP litigation department.  Peter handles a wide range of IP, especially related to his background in computer science.  In 2017, Peter was lead counsel on approximately 15% of new patent litigation in the Southern District of Florida.  A majority of this patent litigation centered upon software based patent(s).  Peter is also well versed in drafting licensing agreements and co-existence agreements that relate to IP.  Peter is also equipped in handling IP prosecution, with an emphasis in software related IP.

Loren Pearson handles all aspects of domestic and international patent, trademark, and copyright applications.  His work includes evaluating new technologies for patentability, portfolio counseling, and intellectual property registration, prosecution, and litigation.  Loren has a background in chemical and material science, which aids in his ability to tackle complex inventions.  He is also knowledgeable with licensing agreements, opposition proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), infringement opinions, to name a few.

Greg Popowitz handles both IP prosecution and litigation.  His background in mechanical engineering and the automotive industry gives a unique perspective on mechanical based products and processes.  Greg handles the IP for an established adult beverage company, along with a wide range of small businesses and entrepreneurs.  Greg is able to assess the client’s needs and tailor fit a custom plan to properly protect and maintain the client’s IP.

Assouling & Berlowe’s IP team has a wide range of competencies to assist businesses with their IP needs.  Whether you need to secure IP protection for your intangible assets, monetize IP you already own, or purchase/license IP, the IP team at Assouline & Berlowe is well equipped to handle your IP needs.

Below is an inventory of the hundreds of patent and trademark applications and registrations handled by the IP Team at Assouline & Berlowe.  This does not include the hundreds of other marks and patents that have been addressed by Assouline & Berlowe attorneys, either from the standpoint of enforcement, counseling, and means of protection.  Over the years, some applications/registrations are abandoned for various business purposes.

PATENTS

pat1

pat2

pat4

pat3

TRADEMARKS

TM12

TM11

TM10

TM9

TM8

TM7

TM5

TM6

TM4

TM3

TM2

TM1

TM13

#worldipday

For any Intellectual Property questions, please contact our offices below.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

Miami: (305) 567-5576

Fort Lauderdale: (954) 929-1899

Boca Raton: (561) 361-6566

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Copyright, Intellectual Property, International, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution

“My Other Bag” is a Louis?

pexels-photo-463467.jpeg

Isn’t the point of a parody to be funny? “Weird Al” Yanovich is well known for his music that makes fun of popular artists/music, such as  Amish Paradise, a parody of Coolio’s Gangsta’s Paradise, and Eat It, a parody of Michael Jackson’s Beat It.   Weird Al is so well known that his successful fair use defense of copyright litigation has become a leading case on musical parody.

Fast forward to Louis Vuitton (“LV”), the Paris based luxury hand bag brand company.  Consumers world wide know the LV brand and the status behind “Having a Louis”.  LV claimed copyright and trademark infringement by My Other Bag (“MOB”), a California based entity.  In a recent decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of MOB.

MOB created a series of handbags where one side of the bag had a similar pattern of famous handbag company brands and the other side said “My Other Bag”.  In this case, MOB imitated LV’s interlocking L and V letters with interlocking M, O, and B letters.  Needless to say LV did not appreciate the similarity of the style and design of its famous mark.

With respect to likelihood of confusion with LV’s brands, the court noted differences between LV and MOB’s design, lack of market proximity, and lack of actual confusion.  From a dilution standpoint, the court said MOB’s bags are a parody of LV’s bags, bringing them within the fair use exclusion of trademark dilution. The critical point was that MOB was not using LV’s brands solely to increase their own sales by confusing consumers that MOB’s bags are associated with LV’s bags.  To the contrary, MOB was using LV’s well known brand and images as a parody because it was clear MOB was not trying to pass off their bags as LV produced bags.  Consumers would know they were buying a MOB bag, not a LV bag.

While a trademark owner has obligations to police their brand, trademark owners should carefully weigh all factors before bringing suit.  In this case, the parody fair use defense was strong for MOB, along with other factors.  More importantly, LV helped market MOB’s products by instituting this action and bringing more attention to the alleged infringement.  Now, “My Other Bag”, with the help of LV, has gained notoriety in the hand bag industry.  But they have a far way to go to compete with Weird Al.

Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney

AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell

Intellectual Property Litigation

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Copyright, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Uncategorized

2018 Litigation Department of the Year – for Real Estate and Other Litigation, Awarded to ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, by Daily Business Review

00236801

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, the BUSINESS LAW firm was very pleased to receive the following news:

Congratulations! On behalf of the Daily Business Review’s Managing Editor Catherine Wilson, Assouline & Berlowe was selected as one of the 2018 Litigation Departments of the Year in the Small Firm Category (under 70 attorneys), Real Estate and Other Litigation category by the Daily Business Review.

The DBR announced that the honorees will be recognized at an awards reception on Wednesday, May 30, at the Rusty Pelican, 3201 Rickenbacker Causeway, in Key Biscayne. The event will begin with cocktails at 6 p.m., followed by dinner and presentations at 7 p.m. 

It goes without saying that the Firm is exceptionally happy to hear of this news.

The hard work and results Assouline & Berlowe obtained for its clients in 2017 were taken into consideration by the DBR in awarding Assouline & Berlowe this prestigious award.

Case No. 1: David v. Goliaths – The Trial that Defined the Firm’s Resolve

In January 2017, Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.’s (“A&B”) client, Akbar Nikooie, reached the last stage of a “bet the firm” battle against banking giant JP Morgan Chase (“JPMorgan”) and the once ubiquitous title insurance company Attorneys’ Title Insurance Fund (“ATIF”). In a case that started in 2007, when Mr. Nikooie lost his life savings to a multi-level mortgage fraud on a mansion in the posh celebrity laden area of North Bay Road in Miami Beach, the last issue to litigate in this ten year long epic fight was a four day long trial to determine the amount of attorneys’ fees that should be awarded to Mr. Nikooie and against JPMorgan and ATIF.

A&B’s Peter E. Berlowe represented Mr. Nikooie in the original trial on the merits, which was heard in 2010 before Gil Freeman in Miami-Dade Circuit Court’s Complex Commercial Division. Judge Freeman’s judgment in the case was appealed to the Third District Court of Appeal. In 2014, the appellate court, three years after oral argument, split Mr. Nikooie’s mortgage into two parts based upon equitable subrogation grounds. However, after the appeal, Mr. Nikooie’s mortgage was deemed to be in first position on the property.

On remand, Judge Thornton, now presiding over the Complex Commercial Division, referred the attorneys’ fees trial to Special Magistrate Retired Chief Judge Joseph P. Farina (the “Fee Trial”). Mr. Nikooie was only represented by A&B partners Eric Assouline and Peter Berlowe. JPMorgan and ATIF, working together, were represented by legal giants Gray Robinson, Carlton Fields, Lerman & Whitebook, and Ballaga & Freeman.

Through the Fee Trial, A&B advised that although their case was initially handled on an hourly basis, when the client’s balance grew to a point where he could not keep up with JPMorgan and ATIF’s relentless onslaught, the A&B was prepared to withdraw from the case. A&B ultimately agreed to represent Mr. Nikooie on a partial contingency basis and expended over 3,500 hours on the case. The appeal was handled with co-counsel Erik Scharf on a full contingency basis. Mr. Nikooie sought to have all of the reasonable attorneys’ fees awarded to him and placed on his first position mortgage. Mr. Nikooie also sought a contingency fee multiplier as to any fees that were handled on a contingent basis.

At the Fee Trial, JPMorgan and ATIF argued that Mr. Nikooie’s attorneys’ fees should be split into two parts, as was done by the appellate court with the mortgage. JPMorgan and ATIF also argued that Mr. Nikooie should not be granted a contingency fee multiplier. Judge Farina heard testimony from the attorneys in the case and from expert witnesses Glen Waldman and David Friedman regarding the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees sought.

Judge Farina issued a twenty-one (21) page Report and Recommendation and awarded Mr. Nikooie all of his attorneys’ fees and costs, plus a 2.25 contingency fee multiplier, totaling $1,497,913.43, and agreed with Mr. Nikooie that the fee award should all be placed in first position with the first part of Mr. Nikooie’s split mortgage. This trial, which culminated ten years of litigation, was instrumental in bringing the parties to an amicable resolution.

Case style: Washington Mutual v. Gabriel Martin, P.A., et al., Case No. 07-01168 CA 40, Miami-Dade Circuit Court

  1. Name of client: Akbar Nikooie, Telephone: 305-235-8116
  2. Lead partners: Peter E. Berlowe and Eric N. Assouline, of Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.
  3. Opposing counsel: Leonard C. Atkins, of Ballaga & Freeman; Carlos D. Lerman, of Lerman & Whitebook; Marty J. Solomon, or Carlton Fields; and, Roland E. Schwartz, of Gray Robinson.

Case No. 2: Who Says You Cannot File a Lis Pendens for Unpaid Attorneys’ Fees?

A&B represented the personal representative of deceased attorney James Keegan. When Keegan died he had a very large receivable due to his firm for defending a client, Barbara Callado, and her family, on over twenty-five different mortgage foreclosure cases filed across the State of Florida on Callado’s real estate properties.

A&B filed suit on behalf of the estate and filed notices of lis pendens (“LPs”) for the particular balances due on the properties Keegan defended from foreclosure actions on behalf of Callado. Ordinarily, LPs are only filed based on a recorded instrument or a fraudulent transaction that involves tracing the funds to the property involved. Callado’s attorney moved to dissolve the LPs and argued that an attorney cannot obtain LPs without having such a right in their retainer agreement, i.e. a charging lien. In response, A&B argued that Keegan had benefited Callado and the property by providing the foreclosure defense services, no different than a material man provides a benefit under the construction lien statute. A&B argued that there was a “fair nexus” between Keegan’s legal fees generated protecting Callado’s properties from foreclosure and the properties themselves.

Judge Rodney Smith, the soon to be new federal judicial appointment by the President for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, denied Callado’s motion to dissolve the LPs, and Callado appealed. Miami’s Third District Court of Appeal affirmed Judge Smith’s order denying the motion to dissolve the LPs.

With little precedent on this issue, attorneys may now be able to secure payment on their unpaid legal fees through an LP on real property based on their work saving the property from foreclosure, or some other benefit to the property. The hard work establishing this previously unrecognized position was helpful in bringing a resolution to this dispute.

Case style: Arianne E. Keegan, as personal representative of the estate of James D. Keegan v. Barbara Callado, et al. – Lower Case No.: 15-010712-CA-01; Appeal Case No.: 3D17-0302

  1. Name of client: Arianne Elisabeth Keegan c/o Stuart Gitlitz, personal attorney for Ms. Keegan
  2. Lead partner: Eric N. Assouline, of Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.
  3. Opposing counsel: Gary M. Murphree and Brandy Abreu, AM Law

Case No. 3: Vacation of $2.3 Million Dollar Judgment and Quashing of Service for Non-Compliance with the Hague Convention.

Assouline and Berlowe, P.A. obtained the vacation of a $2.3 million dollar default judgment and a charging order on client’s membership interest in a Florida LLC, quashing of substitute service, and ultimately, the Plaintiff’s abandonment of its case against firm client, Andrés Alvarez Fonseca. Local international dispute resolution firm GST LLP (“GST”) represented Plaintiff WF Worldwide Group Mexico Financiamiento y Colocación de Equipo (“WF Worldwide”) and obtained the 2.3 million dollar default judgment that was ultimately vacated.

When Mr. Alvarez Fonseca, a Mexican businessman with real estate holdings in Miami, first approached the firm, he had just learned of the case against him and the resulting default judgment. Upon consultation with Mr. Alvarez Fonseca, the firm took swift and aggressive action that resulted in a significant victory for the client.

Upon investigating the lawsuit, A&B learned that Plaintiff WF Worldwide had filed the case on September 9, 2016. Plaintiff had then unsuccessfully attempted to serve Mr. Fonseca, a Mexican National residing in Mexico, in Miami and Mexico under the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague Convention” or the “Hague”). Upon its unsuccessful service attempts, Plaintiff sought substitute service through the Florida Secretary of State. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit of substitute service with the Court and subsequently obtained a default judgment in the amount of 2.3 million dollars against Mr. Fonseca.

A&B first filed Defendant Andrés Ricardo Alvarez Fonseca’s Motion to Quash Service of Process and Motion to Vacate Default Final Judgment (“Motion to Quash and Vacate Judgment”). Therein, A&B argued that Plaintiff’s substitute service was defective, primarily, because compliance with the Hague is mandatory where there is an occasion to transmit judicial documents for service abroad and Plaintiff had failed to comply with the Hague by prematurely seeking default judgment in contravention thereof.

While A&B’s Motion to Quash and Vacate Judgment was pending, Plaintiff moved forward with its collection efforts. During this time, Plaintiff obtained a charging order against Mr. Fonseca’s interest in a LLC, which held real property in Miami. A&B filed a Notice of Appeal on the Charging Order.

Honorable Judge Eric Hendon who presided over the case heard the Motion to Quash and Vacate Judgment, agreed with A&B’s argument, and ordered the substitute service quashed and the subsequent default judgment and charging order vacated.

After agreeing to accept service on behalf of its client, A&B cemented its victory by filing a strong Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or Forum Non Conveniens and in the Alternative to Compel Arbitration (“Motion to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration.”). The Motion to Dismiss or Compel Arbitration was the last filing in the case, as Plaintiff abandoned its prosecution of the matter. The case has since been closed.

Case style: WF Worldwide Group Mexico Financiamiento y Colocación de Equipo, S de R.L. v. Andrés Ricardo Alvarez Fonseca; Case No.: 2016-023579

  1. Name of client: Andrés Alvarez Fonseca
  2. Lead partner: Daniel E. Vielleville and Peter E. Berlowe of Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.
  3. Opposing counsel: Quinn Smith, Katherine Sanoja and Derek Womack of GST LLP

Although Assouline & Berlowe has other departments, the litigation department was built through the backbone of the firm’s founders, litigators Eric Assouline and Peter E. Berlowe. Assouline & Berlowe litigation attorneys have regularly had to go up against some of the top attorneys and firms in South Florida in battles against much better funded adversaries. Never deterred, the firm has pressed on, often against the odds, in order to zealously represent their client’s interest. Eric and Peter have steadfastly trained their associates to work with the same ethic and have only brought in partners with the same mindset. In no year in the past has this been more evident than in 2017, when the firm’s resolve was truly tested.

Founded in 2003, Eric and Peter obtained their litigation training as associates working with some the top lawyers in their fields at the international powerhouse, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP. At Weil, Eric and Peter were trained to accept nothing short of excellence in their work product and this training was instrumental in building the firm’s culture.

The firm’s culture is, and always has been since it was formed, to obtain the absolute best result for its clients, while thinking outside of the box and being ready to keep fighting for the client even when it may not be economically beneficial to the firm.

Intellectual Property litigation department:

1. Filed 10 patent infringement lawsuits in the Southern District of Florida ranging from technology for breakaway safety vests to secured automated notification systems. The cases that were filed by the firm are:17-cv-80529 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. TJX COS, Inc.; 17-cv-80512 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.;  17-cv-80511 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Balsam Brands, Inc.; 17-cv-80385 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Gemvara, Inc.; 17-cv-80259 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Batteries Online, Inc.  Opposing counsel includes: Bob Lee, Esq. of Alston & Bird LLP; Neil McNabnay Esq. of Fish & Richardson; David Finkelson, Esq. of McGuire Woods, Eleanor Barnet, Esq of Heller Waldman.

2. Resolved various patent infringement and declaratory judgment cases filed in Ed. TX, N.D. Iowa, and N.D. Indiana; Peter A. Koziol of Assouline & Berlowe was the lead partner on the Triple7Vaping.Com, LLC case, as he replaced Jerold Schneider (of Schneider Rothman IP Law Group) who at the time was 2017’s Florida Bar Intellectual Property Law Certification Committee chair. Opposing counsel was:Ms. Ranieri’s co-counsel were: David Conrad, Esq. and Ricardo Bonilla Esq. of Fish and Richardson (Dallas, Texas); Mathew S. Sarelson Esq. of Kaplan Young & Moll Parron (Miami)  The main contact person for the Intellectual Property litigation department is Peter A. Koziol, Esq., pak@assoulineberlowe.com – Telephone: 561-361-6566.

3. Served as lead counsel in a highly publicized action filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against the nation’s allegedly most “prolific’ patent licensing entity (according to the EFF), Triple7Vaping.Com, LLC et al v. Shipping & Transit LLC, S.D. Fla. Case No.: 16-cv-80855, and Case No. 17-1066 (Fed. Cir. 2017).

4. Led litigation and/or licensing negotiations in over 200 patent infringement matters (some pre-suit) throughout the United States in 2017 alone (approximately 10% being filed in various district courts throughout the country);  According to Justia, this accounts for approximately 15% of the total patent litigation new cases filed in the Southern District of Florida for 2017.

  • 17-cv-80262 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. BTO Sports, Inc.; 17-cv-80261 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Ellison Systems, Inc. d/b/a Shoplet.com; and
  • 17-cv-80510 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. C & A Marketing, Inc.;
  • 17-cv-80528 – Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC v. Dailylook, Inc.;
  • 17-cv-80914 – Safety Supply Corporation v. Abel Unlimited, Inc.

Upcoming matters in Intellectual Property litigation department:

  • Multiple trademark infringement actions for internationally acclaimed restaurant in Miami against misappropriators in New York and Georgia; and
  • Representation of game changing pharmaceutical benefit company against deceptive and tarnishing use of its name against a company accused of an organized enterprise pattern of “feedback extortion.”
  • Representation of foreign manufacturer of exercise equipment against rouge distributor that misappropriated its trademarks, merchandise and trade secrets;

In 2017, due to its litigation strength, the firm was able to resolve many matters for clients without filing suit. The firm helped it clients manage large portfolios of IP assets, including patent portfolios under development and used these assets to foster joint ventures, licensing and cross licensing agreements. The firm’s clients were able to use funding generated by licensing for further research and development of new technologies. However, when the clients’ intellectual property was misappropriated and the parties were unable to resolve their disputes amicably, the firm represented its clients in Court over what were often highly contested positions.

Peter A. Koziol chairs the Firm’s IP litigation department, which also includes Peter E. Berlowe, Eric N. Assouline, and Greg M. Popowitz. The firm credits the IP litigation department’s success with its client’s favorable positions, its members, and the additional support that it receives from the firm’s staff and other attorneys who are either seasoned litigators with experience in business, trade secrets and anti-trust law, or Florida Board Certified in Intellectual Property Law like partners Ellen M. Leibovitch and Loren D. Pearson.

It is Assouline & Berlowe’s experience that although IP litigation is generally a specialty practice, various litigation strategies require input from experts in other practice areas to obtain the best results possible for the client. Unique to Assouline & Berlowe is the law firm’s dedication to its current and past clients and the sophistication and experience of its attorneys which all share a strong focus and team approach to promoting business, commerce and technological innovation.

This included, for example the firm being retained in 2017 to defend an inventor funded company, Shipping and Transit, LLC (“S&T”) in a highly publicized dispute filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”). The EFF, which openly advocates for the abolition of software patents and is funded by variously similarly minded organizations (see, e.g. https://www.eff.org/thanks), sought to invalidate U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,415,207, 6,763,299, 6,904,359, and 7,400,970, and accused S&T of violating Maryland Law. The Order of Dismissal is attached and also available at: https://ecf.flsd.uscourts.gov/doc1/051117870855?caseid=485292&de_seq_num=337.

For questions about Assouline & Berlowe PA and any of its 2017 achievements, please contact Eric Assouline, Esq., co-founder and Litigation Department Chair.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: ENA@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, International, IP Litigation, Labor & Employment, Litigation, Real Estate

GREG POPOWITZ – A New Law Partner, Engineering the Firm’s Success

00231605

Patent Attorney Greg Popowitz, Litigation Partner Eric Assouline, and Legal Assistants Ana Hesny and Juliana Alvarez all toast to Greg Popowitz’s promotion to Partner at Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.

Being an attorney was never in his long term plans.  Growing up in South Florida, Greg Popowitz helped his father build wood projects around the house.  He also had the opportunity to take a Manufacturing class in junior high school.  Being able to construct (and sometimes deconstruct) projects took him down a path towards engineering.   Greg loved being able to see how things work, whether it was a simple mechanical pencil or changing the rotors on an automobile’s brakes. 

With that in mind, Greg applied to the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, in Atlanta, Georgia (or “GT” for short).  Greg started his freshman year of college in 1998 and chose to major in mechanical engineering. 

At Georgia Tech, Greg learned about the complexities of design, manufacturing, and failure analysis, just to name a few.  He also learned how important it was to work in a team environment.  Georgia Tech’s diverse student body afforded Greg the opportunity to work with students across the country and the world.  Greg also learned how to effectively manage his time given the highly technical and aggressive curriculum.  The study skills Greg acquired at Georgia Tech would pay handsome dividends for Greg down the road in law school. 

After graduating from Georgia Tech in 2002, Greg began to work for Visteon Corporation, a former subsidiary of Ford Motor Company.  Greg worked on drive shafts in the driveline systems division, based near the Motor City, Detroit Michigan.  Greg’s first rotation at Visteon started in the plant where he worked as a product engineer on current model designs.  Greg was involved in troubleshooting both design and manufacturing issues, which included Six Sigma principles.  Greg presented his findings to high level executives at Ford Motor Company.  Greg also worked on forward model designs, where he conducted durability tests and helped launch the driveshaft for the 2005 Ford Mustang. 

During his time at Visteon, a colleague received a patent on a new driveshaft that used a “slip in tube” design.  Greg started asking questions about patents and how a patent protects new inventions.  Greg spoke to Visteon’s in-house counsel, who happened to be a registered patent attorney.  For the first time, this sparked Greg’s interest in attending law school in order to become a patent attorney. 

In 2006, Greg applied and was accepted at Nova Southeastern Law School (NSU).  Greg also took and passed the patent bar exam in order to become a registered patent agent.  Greg interned at an Intellectual Property law firm in order to learn the practical sides of patent law. 

While interning, Greg saw firsthand how important a well crafted patent is when challenged in major patent litigation.  At NSU, Greg also had the opportunity to interview both George McGovern and John Anderson, former Presidential candidates.

After graduating from NSU (cum laude) and becoming a registered patent attorney, Greg worked at a large Florida law firm handling complex mortgage related litigation.  While the work was challenging, Greg quickly learned he wanted to focus more of his practice on IP and have more direct access to help clients on the front lines. 

Then, Greg accompanied his wife, Bankruptcy Attorney Ashley Popowitz, to a lunch, where he met Ashley’s friend and colleague, Eric Assouline.  Eric and Greg, who both shared an immense love for cars, immediately hit it off.  Eric wanted to find a way that Greg could add to the already highly talented IP and commercial litigation team at Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.

In 2013, Greg was offered an associate position at the Firm.  Greg’s practice centered on two main practice areas:  patent, trademark, and other related Intellectual Property prosecution matters; and commercial and business litigation matters.  On the IP side, Greg was able to speak to clients from the initial intake to delivering a registered trademark or issued patent.  Greg has seen small businesses grow and become recognized brand names.  Greg has been able to play a small role in helping businesses and entrepreneurs protect their inventions and brands and also create assets in the form of IP.  On the litigation side, Greg has been able to help clients bring a wide array of claims and also assist clients in defending similar claims.  While each case is different, Greg has learned to assess the nature of the case and help the firm’s clients achieve their long term goals.  Greg has also been involved in a handful of appeals involving the firm’s cases, which has allowed him to work closely with Eric Assouline to assist in writing appellate briefs regarding orders and judgments involving our clients. 

In April 2018 Greg will already be with Assouline & Berlowe for five years.  Greg has learned a great deal during his limited time at Assouline & Berlowe and he is surrounded by a wealth of talented attorneys and staff geared towards helping the firm’s clients maximize their results.  

Assouline & Berlowe is honored to promote Greg Popowitz to Partner and we are all excited to see how Greg can continue to engineer his and the firm’s success for years to come. 

Keep up the Good Work Greg!

#popowitzpartner

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Copyright, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, New Partner, Patent Prosecution, Uncategorized

When You Go to Court, all that Matters is “THE LAW” (and Reality)

.

Clients often ask attorneys, “what are my chances of winning?”  It sounds like a reasonable question.  But what clients do not seem to understand is that there is “the law” and there is “reality.”  All a good lawyer can tell you is: here is what I think is good about your case and here is what I see as the weaknesses, and here is the law “as I see it”.   Huh?

I was preparing for a hearing in Broward Circuit Court, on an Order to Show Cause why the other party’s entire case against my client and several others should not be dismissed.  I had case law precedent from both the Supreme Court of Florida and the District Court that binds the Judge hearing the case to support my client’s position.  I provided a copy of these cases to opposing counsel as we waited for our turn.

Before our case was heard, opposing counsel came over to me and advised that he agreed to dismiss my client as defendant from the case (leaving other defendants still in the case).  I thought this was great news, because the client would be very happy.

I still had to wait my turn for the hearing, because I wanted to make sure that the Judge’s order clearly reflected that my client was now out of the case.

I waited and waited and then I heard the calendar begin on the next round of hearings.  I asked the Clerk what happened since my case from the earlier round had still not been called.  The Clerk advised that I should notify the Judge that my case was not yet called.  the Judge asked me for the name of the case and I told him.  The Judge then blurted out “I find that cause was shown why the case should not be dismissed.”  As I said, luckily, opposing counsel and I had already agreed that my client was being dismissed from the case.  Opposing counsel so notified the Judge and he was ok with the dismissal of my client.

But what would have happened if we did not work it out?  What would have happened if I did not give opposing counsel a copy of the cases that supported our position?  Instead of going into the hearing with “the law on my side”, I would be going into this hearing with a Judge who had already made up his mind.  Perhaps I could have changed the Judge’s mind.  But I cannot count on that.

Instead, my client would be stuck in this case for who knows how long.  Could we appeal the Judge’s finding of cause to not dismiss the case, maybe.  Courts of appeal do not let you appeal every ruling as soon as it is made.  We could try, but it is likely it would not be heard until the case is over.

Maybe we would win the case in the end.  But maybe not.  And, if we did not win, could we appeal and argue that that the plaintiff’s case should have been dismissed at the Order to Show stage.  Probably.  Would we get the entire proceeding thrown out for failing to follow the correct procedure, maybe.

So many “maybes”.  Hmmm.  Sounds like there is “the law” and there is “reality”. 

Eric N. Assouline, Esq., Litigation Partner, Assouline & Berlowe, P.A.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Arbitration, Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Corporate Law, Intellectual Property, International Arbitration, IP Litigation, Labor & Employment

Expand Your Brand

 

TM So you want to apply for a federal trademark to protect your brand. How does it work?  Does it cover all use of the brand?  These are a sampling of the questions I receive from entrepreneur’s and business owners looking to protect their brands.  Securing a federal trademark is a complicated but worthwhile process.  The Intellectual Property attorneys at Assouline & Berlowe take the time to explain the process to the brand owner so they understand what to expect and how to maximize their protection.

When applying for a federal trademark, you must pick the class of goods/services that your brand covers based on your existing use, or expected use, of the brand in commerce. For example, you own and operate a retail space where apparel is sold and you want to protect the brand name of the retail space (the name of the store).  You may want to seek protection in a services based trademark class for the bran associated with the retail space.  If the apparel sold at the retail space, the products, use the same brand, you may want to seek protection in a second product based class for the applicable apparel.  You can seek federal trademark protection in multiple classes of goods/services in the same application.  Generally, the scope of your federal protection is limited to the class of good/services in your federal trademark registration. Common law rights are handled differently.

In a recently released opinion, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that a federal trademark registrant’s services based brand had extended protection related to goods. Savannah College of Art & Design, Inc. v Sportswear, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19168 (11th Cir. Oct. 3, 2017).  The Court relied on a prior trademark case that extended protection of federally registered service marks to goods, despite little rational as to the basis for the expansion.  The Sportswear case stated that a federal registered service mark does not have to register that mark for goods to “establish the unrestricted validity and scope of the service mark, or to protect against another’s allegedly infringing of that mark on goods.” Id. at *15.  The registrant still needs to show the alleged infringer’s use of its brand is creating consumer confusion as to the source or origin of the brand. Notably, the Court did not discuss the “natural zone of expansion” doctrine, which can be used be extend a trademark owner’s rights into a new product line that is a natural expansion of their prior use.

While the Sportswear case helps trademark owners for services assert their rights for related goods, the optimal method of protection is registering the brand in the class from the outset.  As a trademark applicant, you can seek registration based on your actual use of the brand in a services field, while also applying for the same brand in a goods classes based upon your bona intent to use the brand in business in the future.  A well thought out branding strategy may include preserving your rights in a field that you plan to expand into.  While the trademark cannot register until you begin use of the brand in the applicable class, you can effectively preserve your place in line for up to three years (extending use in 6 month intervals) while you are preparing to use the brand in commerce.  Utilizing a trademark attorney helps you develop a branding strategy to maximize your protection now and for the future.  Don’t forget, a trademark is an asset and can have immense value. Just ask Apple and Google, whose brands are estimated to be worth $170B and $101B by Forbes, respectively.

For any questions about patents, trademarks, and copyrights, or IP generally, please contact Greg Popowitz below.  Follow him on Twitter @InventionAtty.

Greg M. Popowitz, Esq.

Registered Patent Attorney

AV Rated by Martindale-Hubbell

Intellectual Property Litigation

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

Email: GMP@assoulineberlowe.com

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

LinkedIn  ||  Twitter

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, trademark

Protect Your Tech: Florida Bar CLE Edition

Chnm5lrWkAITLBQ

 

Earlier this month, I had the distinct pleasure to present at the Florida Bar Basic Technology CLE about how businesses, and their lawyers, can protect technology using Intellectual Property.  This was the first time a Florida Bar Basic CLE was focused on technology.  To keep the CLE interactive, the presentations included live tweeting using the #CLEHistory hashtag, interactive polls with the audience, and post presentation video outtakes.  The interactive nature of the CLE was perfect for a technology focused CLE.

My portion of the CLE focused on how technology is used protect intellectual property, with the focus on patents.  There are several options when determining how to use patent law to protect technology, from design patents to provisional and non-provisional utility patents.  There are key timetables and strategic considerations to assess when protecting your technology, both before and after the technology is finalized.

One of the interactive questions, pictured below,  I posted to the live audience was whether someone could put “patent pending” on a product as soon as a patent application was filed.  The question was posted during my presentation and the audience texted their results to get an immediate response to the question.  36% of the audience correctly chose the right answer of A – Yes.  Meaning you can put patent pending on a product as soon as you file a patent application.  However, the application must remain active, i.e. not abandoned, to continue marking the product as “patent pending.”  Notably, 44% of the audience thought patent pending depended on what type of patent application was filed.  This is not accurate as it does not matter if the patent application is design, provisional, or non-provisional.

assouline & belrlowe, interactive polling

There are many misconceptions about patent law and it is important to consult with a registered patent attorney to review your technology and plan to maximize your protection.  It was an honor to speak at the first Florida Bar Basic Technology CLE and I enjoyed the interactive nature of the CLE.  Check the Florida Bar CLE page as the Technology CLE will be available for download in the near future.

For questions about Intellectual Property matters involving Technology, contact  Greg Popowitz below.

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

213 East Sheridan Street, Suite 3

Dania Beach, Florida  33004

Main: 954.929.1899

Fax: 954.922.6662

http://www.assoulineberlowe.com/

Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment, Creditors’ Rights & Bankruptcy, Business Litigation, Corporate & Finance, Real Estate, International Law

Miami • Ft. Lauderdale • Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Business Litigation, commercial litigation, Copyright, Florida Bar, Intellectual Property, International Arbitration, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution