Tag Archives: ip litigation

Assouline & Berlowe’s Litigation Department Selected as Top 19 of 116 for Miami

Assouline & Berlowe is pleased to announce that Expertise has selected Assouline & Berlowe’s attorneys as the top 16 law firm for litigation, out of 119 selected.

Expertise published on its website that it based its results on the following criteria when choosing its top 19 selections:

  • Reputation: A history of satisfied customers giving excellent recommendations
  • Credibility: Established in their industry with licensing, accreditations, and awards
  • Experience: Masters of their craft, based on years of practical experience and education
  • Engagement: Approachable and responsive to clients and available for new business
  • Professionalism: Dedicated to providing consistent quality work and impeccable customer service

The Expertise website also stated the following information:

The selection process is performed annually across business categories and geographies. Minor updates may be made throughout the course of the calendar year.

Hand-Picking the Best

Our team conducts a manual review to verify the accuracy of the selections. We then write unique and detailed business descriptions for each hand-picked businesses.

Coming off the heels of already winning the Daily Business Review’s Litigation Department of the Year for Real Estate and Other Litigation (for Small Firms of 69 attorneys or less), the firm management is humbled by this award.

 

ERIC N. ASSOULINE, ESQ.

PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MIAMI ADDRESS

Miami Tower, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 3105, Miami, Florida 33131

 Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law,  Real Estate, International Dispute Resolution, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law, and Bankruptcy

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Awards, Business Litigation, commercial litigation, IP Litigation, Litigation, Uncategorized

Copyright Law – Supreme Court to Address Recoverable Costs

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted a petition for certiorari in the case styled as Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. in order to address split between the circuits as to the types of “costs” that may be recovered under the Copyright Act. 

As framed by the briefs in the case, Question Presented by the petitioner is: Whether the Copyright Act’s allowance of “full costs,” 17 U.S.C. § 505, to a prevailing party, is limited to taxable costs under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1821, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 8th and 11th Circuits, have held, or whether the Act also authorizes non-taxable costs, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit held.

Currently, there are three (out of twelve) federal circuit courts of appeal which allow certain costs to be recovered.  Those circuits are the First, the Sixth, and the Ninth.  The federal circuit courts of appeal that do not allow recovery of these costs are the eighth and the eleventh (which controls all cases filed in Florida). 

The result of this decision may change the law in the Eleventh Circuit, as to what costs are recoverable under the Copyright Act.

 

ERIC N. ASSOULINE, ESQ.

PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MIAMI ADDRESS

Miami Tower, 100 SE 2nd Street, Suite 3105, Miami, Florida 33131

 Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law,  Real Estate, International Dispute Resolution, Commercial Litigation, Corporate Law, and Bankruptcy

Miami · Ft. Lauderdale · Boca Raton

Leave a comment

Filed under Copyright, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Uncategorized

Partner Peter Koziol has Russian Patent/Copyright Infringement Case Dismissed

Patent Software Copyright

Internal Circuitry

Assouline & Berlowe, P.A. Partner and Patent Attorney Peter Koziol was featured in an article on the front page of the Daily Business Review entitled “Justice Watch:  A New Frontier in IP Law.”  Mr. Koziol discussed a recent dismissal for his client, Passcovery Co. Ltd., regarding alleged patent infringement and copyright infringement.

In 2013, Elcomsoft sued: a programmer;  a rival Russian password security company; and, that rival company’s Director General in the United States for violating the copyright law (under provisions of the U.S. DMCA) and alleged violations of its 2010 and 2011 GPU password hacking patents.

According to pleadings in the case, one of the original programmers for Elcomsoft, Ivan Golubev, broke his ties with Elcomsoft around 2010 and began working with long time rival Russian password recovery company Passcovery Co. Ltd.  According to the record, Passcovery is owned by Denis Gladysh who had also been making competing password recovery software under the Accentsoft brand since at least as early as 1999.

In its Complaint, Elcomsoft claimed that Golubev violated an employment agreement with it in Russia, and stole its ideas and infringed its U.S. Patent when he began working with Passcovery.  However, in support of a motion to dismiss Golubev, Passcovery, Co. Ltd. and Passcovery owner Denis Gladysh denied any wrong doing, said the GPU password hacking was obvious, made it clear that they contended that Elcomsoft forged the employment agreement, and showed that they have no significant ties to the United States. Golubev did not deny that he authored Elcomsoft’s software, but stated in a sworn declaration that the Employment Agreement that Elcomsoft says transfers the rights to the software to  is a fraud.

After reviewing the pleadings and the argument presented by both sides the Federal Court Judge dismissed the case against Passcovery, Golubev and Gladysh on the federal common law doctrine of forum non conveniens.

In her 11 page opinion, the Judge said it was unnecessary to decide whether or not there was any violation of U.S. law or if the Court had jurisdiction over the parties, because all the parties reside in Russia and that there was no evidence that  there was not an adequate remedy to use the Russian Courts.  She found that to take jurisdiction of the case would be inconvenient for the parties, the court, and the U.S. jurors.  Consequently, she declined assuming jurisdiction, and judgment was entered to dismiss the case.

Although the case was filed in the “Rocket Docket” of the Eastern District of Virginia, Peter A. Koziol, Esq. of South Florida firm Assouline & Berlowe defended the case on behalf of the defendants. Mr. Koziol is an internationally recognized Boca Raton based patent attorney that has served as special trial counsel pro hac vice in many international matters and for cases filed in Virginia, Delaware, New Jersey, California and Kansas.  Ccontact Peter below for any Intellectual Property matters.

Partner Peter A. Koziol

Registered Patent Attorney

Intellectual Property Litigation

ASSOULINE & BERLOWE, P.A.

2700 N. Military Trail, Suite 150

Boca Raton, Florida  33431

Main: 561.361.6566

Fax: 561.3616466

Email: PAK@assoulineberlowe.com

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, Intellectual Property, International, IP Litigation