jump to navigation

Changes to Canadian Trademark Law 11/17/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property, Legal Developments, New Resources.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

On June 19, 2014, Bill C-31, Canada’s Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 1, received Royal Assent. The Bill contains a large series of amendments to Canada’s Trade-marks Act and will allow Canada to (among other things) accede to three key international treaties: (1) the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks (the Madrid Protocol); (2) the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks (the Singapore Treaty); and (3) the Nice Agreement Concerning the International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (the Nice Agreement).

The new regime is expected to come into force by late 2016 or early 2017. Those already owning or considering registration of a Canadian trademark should be aware of these new changes to Canadian trademark law. Read the full article here.

For more information on trademark matters, please contact Callie Pioli, Thomas Dunn or Sean Detweiler.

Happy Birthday Coca-Cola® Bottle! 11/16/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

Coke Bottle100 years ago today, inventor Alexander Samuelson was granted the design patent for the bottle that would come to be known as the iconic Coca-Cola® bottle. The design patent lasted 14 years and then expired, but obviously the design has lived on, and is now considered protected under trade dress laws. The term of design patents filed on or after Dec. 18, 2013 is now 15 years from the date of grant. However, if the ornamental features covered by the design patent are sufficiently distinctive, such as the Coca-Cola® bottle, then over time the design may be protected by common law trade dress, and may even be registered at the Patent and Trademark Office, both of which can provide intellectual property protection for years beyond the design patent term.

For questions about design patents – or to Share a Coke® – please contact Sean D. Detweiler.

The Contours of Copyright #2: Can You Copyright Yoga Poses? 11/06/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property, Legal Developments, New Resources.
Tags: ,
add a comment

Attorney Howard ZaharoffBy Howard Zaharoff

Section 102 of the Copyright Act tells us that “choreographic works” – i.e., dances – are protected by copyright. So if you’re Alvin Ailey or Saroj Khan, the copyright police will protect you if someone copies or publicly performs your original choreography.

But what if you’re Beto Perez, who created Zumba; or Arnold Schwarzenegger (governor, actor, bodybuilder), who developed his own workout routines; or Bikram Choudhury (yoga guru and plaintiff), who in 1979 published a book describing his “Sequence,” 26 asanas and two breathing exercises performed for 90 minutes in a room heated to 105 °F? Does copyright protect original workouts or yoga sequences?

Probably not. At least according to the 9th Circuit in the recent case, Bikram’s Yoga College v. Evolation Yoga.

Discussion: Bikram Choudhury, self-proclaimed “Yogi to the stars,” was important in popularizing yoga in the U.S. He claimed he developed his Sequence after many years of research and verification, and he touted its many health and fitness benefits. But when two students who attended his 3-month teacher training started their own studio, offering a “hot yoga” class very similar to his Sequence, he sued for infringement.

The district court ruled that the Sequence was a “collection of facts and ideas” not entitled to copyright protection. Choudhury appealed and the Circuit Court upheld the lower court’s finding.

The Court first reasoned that the Sequence is “an idea, process or system designed to improve health” (Choudhury himself described his Sequence as a “system” or “method” designed to “systematically work every part of the body”). Since Section 102 of the Copyright Act is clear that copyright does not protect any idea, process or system, the Court easily concluded that the Sequence was an unprotectable idea or system. Put differently: “Choudhury thus attempts to secure copyright protection for a healing art,” an obvious no-no.

Nor does the grace and beauty embodied in the Sequence matter, since many processes can be beautiful –a surgeon’s movements, a baker’s kneading – without being copyrightable. In other words, “beauty is not a basis for copyright protection.”

The Court similarly dispensed with Choudhury’s argument that, even if individual yoga poses cannot be copyrighted, the original sequence of poses he developed is copyrightable as a “compilation,” that is, a work formed by “the collection and assembling of preexisting materials.” Not so, said the Court: because Choudhury himself claimed that “the medical and functional considerations at the heart of the Sequence compel the very selection and arrangement of poses and breathing exercises,” the entire Sequence, no less than the individual poses, is itself a process and “therefore ineligible for copyright protection.”

The final – and, as discussed below, least satisfying – part of the Court’s holding is that the Sequence cannot be protected as a “choreographic work.” The Court acknowledged that this term isn’t defined in the Copyright Act (though the legislative history makes clear that the term excludes “social dance steps and simple routines”). But that doesn’t matter, says the Court: “The Sequence is not copyrightable as a choreographic work for the same reason that it is not copyrightable as a compilation: it is an idea, process, or system to which copyright protection” may not extend.

The Court also noted that daily life consists of “many routinized physical movements, from brushing one’s teeth to pushing a lawnmower,” which could be characterized as forms of dance (by whom, the Court does not say). Only the idea/expression dichotomy prevents people from obtaining “monopoly rights over these functional physical sequences.” So at least in the 9thCircuit, arrangements of physical movements with a functional purpose, such as improving one’s health or fitness, no matter how aesthetic or beautiful, are merely unprotectable ideas or processes and therefore cannot be claimed as anyone’s copyright.

An Interlude for Copyright Aficionados: The Court’s final argument – that compilations of physical movements that “serve basic functional purposes” are unprotectable ideas/processes and not protectable choreography – begs the question. It’s cheating for a court to simply declare that a sequence of physical movements that functions as a means to health and fitness is thereby an uncopyrightable process without explaining why other sequenced movements that have similar fitness benefits are copyrightable choreography (which is surely true of the athletic choreographic routines of Alvin Ailey and Pilobulus).

Is it the functional purpose (or effect) of Choudhury’s sequence of poses – i.e., that despite their grace and beauty, they are particularly conducive to fitness – which makes the Sequence an uncopyrightable process? Why? Rarely does the functionality of a work completely deprive it of copyright. Even the designers of “useful articles” can claim copyright in any “pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects.” If functionality were a copyright killer, architecture and software would have no protection.

Indeed, why not treat physical movements like architecture and software? Just as copyright law provides no protection for “individual standard features” of architectural works, or for standard routines and features of software applications, can’t we conclude that, although individual poses (or short sequences of poses) that are included in the Sequence and that are unoriginal, standard, or highly effective for fitness cannot be monopolized by copyright, the original overall selection and order of the poses can be deemed sufficiently original and aesthetic to qualify as copyrightable choreography?

In short, nothing in the Court’s opinion explains why the entire 28-step Sequence was ruled an unprotectable idea and no aspect or feature of these graceful movements could be deemed choreographic and copyrightable. This is not to say the Court is wrong. Rather, right or wrong, the Court failed to articulate any principles that distinguish movements constituting “a healing art” from movements constituting athletic dance.

Conclusion: Despite its unfortunate failure to provide a principled distinction between copyrightable choreography and uncopyrightable workouts, it remains undeniable that, in the 9th Circuit at least, there is no copyright protection for sequences of yoga poses intended to improve health and fitness, no matter how graceful or beautiful they may be.

Still, given the gaping hole left by this decision, and the popularity of fitness and yoga, it’s hard to imagine that the issue of copyrightable choreography won’t reappear soon. Or, as Arnold Schwarzenegger (as actor, not bodybuilder) might say: “I’ll be back.”

For more information on this topic, please contact Howard Zaharoff.

The Contours of Copyright #1: Can You Copyright Fast Foods? 10/19/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property, Legal Developments, New Resources.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Attorney Howard ZaharoffBy Howard Zaharoff

As broad and creator-centric as copyright is, it doesn’t protect every creative output. For example, as a recent case confirmed – to no one’s surprise (probably not even the plaintiff’s) – copyright does not protect chicken sandwiches, nor even chicken sandwich recipes, nor even chicken sandwich names, no matter how original.

The conflict began after Noberto Colón Lorenzana, while employed by a Puerto Rican fried chicken chain, invented the “Pechu” chicken sandwich. Ultimately his employer greatly benefited from sales of the sandwich and various derivative items, but never compensated Mr. Colon for these remunerative products. Feeling he’d been cheated, Mr. Colón filed an amorphous set of trademark, fraud and (the district court generously found) copyright claims.

After ruling against Mr. Colón’s trademark claim – having never used the mark, he had no trademark rights to infringe – the court considered his assertion of copyrights in his sandwich. After quoting Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act, to the effect that copyright does not protect ideas or inventions, but only works of authorship, and remarking that the Register of Copyright specifically denies copyright to “mere listings of ingredients,” the court stated: “Neither plaintiff’s idea for the chicken sandwich recipe or the name ‘Pechu Sandwich’ is subject to copyright protection.”

To drive home its message, the court proceeded to note that neither the idea for the sandwich, nor its recipe, nor the concept of serving a chicken sandwich at a fast food restaurant, nor even the term “Pechu Sandwich,” were subject to protection by copyright (regarding the last, the court quotes several cases to the effect that copyright does not protect fragmentary words or short phrases).  In short, to the extent the plaintiff was raising a copyright claim – not clear from the proceedings – it was “dismissed with prejudice.”

The case was appealed to the First Circuit, which upheld the district court’s holdings. Regarding the copyright claim, the appeals court noted that neither the recipe nor the name fits any of the categories of eligible works and endorsed the district court’s finding that “a chicken sandwich is not eligible for copyright protection.”

So eat your hearts out, designers of designer-sandwiches and other food products … and be happy that, if you do, you’re not infringing anyone’s copyrights.

Stay tuned for more examples of what copyright does not – and does – protect.

For more information on this topic, please contact Howard Zaharoff.

MBBP Attorney to Host Office Hours at TechSandBox on October 20, 2015 10/08/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, Events, Intellectual Property.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

IP and Technology Licensing Attorney Howard ZaharoffOn Tuesday, October 20th MBBP Attorney Howard Zharoff will host Office Hours at TechSandBox, providing legal guidance on topics that include licensing, partnering, and copyright, as well as on general business matters. These pro bono sessions give you access to experts in topics such as intellectual property, business formation, benefits, taxes, marketing, sales funding, IT and technology commercialization. Access is offered to Members and Non-members as space allows.

Sign up today to reserve your time slot by visiting TechSandBox!

Infringement v. Homage: Pharrell Williams, et al. v. Bridgeport Music Inc., et. al. 03/30/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property, Legal Developments, Licensing & Strategic Alliances, Publishing & Media.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

By: Callie L. Pioli

Callie L. PioliThe music industry did not get far into 2015 before delivering a blockbuster copyright case. Pharrell Williams’ and Robin Thicke’s 2013 hit Blurred Lines was in fact only 50% their hit, according to a jury verdict in mid-March that found in favor of Marvin Gaye’s children.  As co-owners of his original 1977 hit, Got to Give it Up, Gaye’s children successfully argued that Williams and Thicke had copied numerous aspects of their father’s song and had infringed the copyright in the 1977 hit. The jury accepted the Gaye family’s contention that if Got to Give It Up had been properly licensed, the family would have received royalties of 50% of the $8 million in Blurred Lines revenue. Additionally, Williams and Thicke were forced to surrender $3.4 million of their earned profits from Blurred Lines sales.

Ironically, the lawsuit was commenced by Williams and Thicke themselves, who originally sought a preemptive ruling that Blurred Lines “shared no similarities”[1] with Got to Give It Up after receiving complaints from members of the Gaye family. The Gayes, as defendants, successfully litigated a counter-claim, arguing that the songs were substantially similar and that they were owed $25 million in royalties, profits, and statutory damages. Williams and Thicke lived up to their reputations as performers while on the stand, doing their best to persuade the jury to re-interpret copyright law as excluding the “feel” or “sound”[2] of music, and taking the opportunity to sing to the jury.

While much has been made of the spotlight on Thicke’s admitted drug use in the studio, the blatantly inconsistent statements regarding exactly how much influence Gaye had on Williams and Thicke during the writing process, and the whopping total award of $7.3 million to the Gaye family, the suit also illustrated the importance of both copyright compliance and honoring fiduciary duties. Continue reading…

Any interested “ordinary observers” can listen to a direct comparison of Blurred Lines and Got to Give it Up online.

For more information on copyright law and intellectual property licensing, please contact Callie Pioli or any member of our copyright group.

[1] Complaint for Declaratory Relief at ¶ 1, Pharrell Williams, et al. v. Bridgeport Music Inc., et. al., No. 13-06004 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013).

[2] Id. at ¶ 2.

MBBP Client OtoSense Earns Top Award at GSMA Global Mobile Awards 03/12/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Clean Tech, Client News, Computer Software & Hardware, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Retail & Service, New Resources, Public Companies.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
add a comment

2015-03-12_9-40-31MBBP client OtoSense, a Cambridge-based start-up, has recently been recognized for its sound recognition technology. The company has developed an app that enables hearing impaired end users to select various traditional sounds such as bells, alarms, timers, etc. that occur within an everyday environment and then identify such sounds as they occur and alert the end user via non-acoustic means such as flashes, vibrations or text messages. Selected out of more than 800 entries and judged by a panel of international experts, the start-up won the “Best Mobile App of the Year” Global Mobile Award, in the category of Accessibility & Inclusion, at the 20th annual GSMA Global Mobile Awards.

Well done, OtoSense!

You can view a full list of 2015 Global Mobile Award winners here.

United States Completes Hague Agreement Deposit For Industrial Designs   03/10/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property, Legal Developments, New Resources, Public Companies.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

chalvireBy: Stan Chalvire 

Currently, design patent applicants that wish to pursue international protection for their industrial designs must file a design patent application in each country, and such applications must generally be filed within six months of the date of the earliest filed design patent application.  That is about to change with the United States having recently deposited its instrument of ratification to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs (the “Hague Agreement”), marking the final step in the process of the United States becoming a member of the Hague Union.  The Hague Agreement establishes an international registration system which facilitates the protection of industrial designs in member countries by way of a single international design patent application that can be filed either directly with the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or indirectly though the applicant’s member country.

When the Hague Agreement enters into effect for the United States on May 13, 2015, applicants will have the opportunity to register up to 100 industrial designs in over 64 territories with the filing of a single standardized international design patent application, thus providing applicants the opportunity for increased filing efficiencies and potential costs savings as they pursue international protecting of their industrial designs.


Additional information on this topic can be found on our blog, or feel free contact Stan Chalvire directly.

Tips for Caring for Your Patent Garden During Economic Winter 02/20/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property, New Resources.
Tags: , ,
add a comment

Illustration - SLV058H (M0003309)There’s snow on the ground, snow on the MBTA tracks, snow on the roofs….it feels like winter will never end!  But inevitably it will, and we’ll once again have warm spring breezes, singing birds and blooming tulips to refresh our spirits.  In the meantime, while your real garden sleeps beneath the snow, this is the perfect opportunity to consider tending your patent garden to ensure that it flourishes for years to come.

Here are 5 tips from Patent Attorney Lisa Warren. Feel free to contact Lisa with questions about your patent portfolio.

MBBP Client Demiurge Studios Acquired by SEGA Networks 02/20/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Client News, Computer Software & Hardware, Games & Interactive Entertainment, Intellectual Property, Legal Developments, Licensing & Strategic Alliances, New Resources, Public Companies, Publishing & Media.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

2015-02-19_10-29-40MBBP Client Demiurge Studios, an independent game developer out of Cambridge, Massachusetts, has been acquired by SEGA Networks, a multinational video game developer, publisher, and hardware development company. Founded in 2002, Demiurge Studios made the transition into mobile gaming in 2008 and found success with Marvel® Puzzle Quest™, a top 100 grossing app on the App Store and top 50 grossing apps on Google Play. Previously, they worked with world-class developers like BioWare™ and Irrational Games™ on AAA console and PC games, contributing to titles such as BioshockBorderlands, and Mass Effect. Demiurge Studios will continue to make games under the Demiurge Studios name.

Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton serves as counsel to Demiurge Studios, and advised it in connection with the structuring, negotiation and documentation of this transaction.

Joe Martinez was the lead corporate attorney on MBBP’s team, which also included attorneys Mike Cavaretta, Diana Española and Hillary Peterson.

To learn more, read the full press release.

USPTO Reduces Certain Trademark Filing Fees 01/29/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Intellectual Property, Legal Developments.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

By: Tom Dunn

Trademark Attorney Thomas DunnOn January 17, 2015, the USPTO reduced certain trademark filing fees and introduced a new electronic application filing option.

The fee for both the TEAS Plus application and the TEAS Regular application are reduced by $50. The TEAS Reduced Fee (TEAS RF) application is a new filing option, and one may still submit a paper filing, as well:

Application for registration, per international class
(paper filing)
Application for registration, per international class
(electronic filing, TEAS application)
Application for registration, per international class
(electronic filing, TEAS RF application)
Application for registration, per international class
(electronic filing, TEAS Plus application)

Each of the three TEAS options comes with a set of requirements; the lower the fee, the higher the number of requirements. (TEAS is an acronym for Trademark Electronic Application System.)

For example, to take advantage of the $225 fee per class of goods/services in the TEAS Plus application, one must meet the following requirements: include an e-mail address and authorization for the USPTO to send application-related e-mail correspondence; agree to file related submissions, such as responses to Office actions, electronically via TEAS; select an identification of goods/services from the USPTO Trademark ID Manual; pay all fees at the time of filing; and provide certain statements regarding the mark in the application as-filed, if applicable (e.g., translation statement, claim of ownership, color claim and description).

Only a subset of the foregoing requirements pertains to the TEAS RF application, while none pertain to the TEAS application.

If one files a TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application but does not satisfy the relevant requirements the applicant will be required to submit an additional processing fee of $50 per class of goods or services, and the application will then be handled as a TEAS application.

The fee to electronically renew a trademark registration has been reduced by $100, to $300 per class of goods/services, as well.

Please see the Reduced Fee FAQs page for more information about the new filing fees and the Trademark Fee Information page for information on payment options and a listing of other trademark fees.

To discuss trademark filing options and related matters, please contact Tom Dunn by email at tdunn@mbbp.com or by phone at (781) 697-2248.

Our Greatest Hits of 2014! 01/21/2015

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Corporate, Employment, Immigration, Intellectual Property, Licensing & Strategic Alliances, M&A, MBBP news, Privacy and Data Security, Public Companies, Taxation.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

From the Top Ten Issues in M&A Transactions to the Life Cycle of an IRS Audit we’re recapping the most popular articles and blogs in 2014!

Other popular articles include:

Most popular posts from our 4 blogs:

These articles, along with our newsletters and other blogs can found here.

MBBP Supports MA Colleges and Universities in MITEF ‘Beantown Throwdown’ 10/23/2014

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Events, Intellectual Property, MBBP news, New Resources, Telecommunications & Networking.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

2014-10-23_13-28-36MBBP joins MIT Enterprise Forum of Cambridge and CHEN PR in hosting the upcoming Beantown Throwdown in November.  Students from top colleges and universities in Massachusetts will pitch off their innovative ideas for start-up companies.  Students representing Babson, Berklee, Boston University, Boston College, Harvard, MIT, UMass Lowell, Northeastern and Wentworth will have 3 minutes to present their ideas to attendees who will then invest in their favorite companies with fake cash. The top three start-up companies with the most “money” invested will win various prizes and take part in a discussion panel the following evening.


To learn more about the Beantown Throwndown

MBBP Client OYO Sports Acquires New Investors 10/20/2014

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Client News, Games & Interactive Entertainment, Industries, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Retail & Service, MBBP news.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

OYO Sportstoys, Inc.MBBP client OYO Sports is getting noticed by investors and making strides towards innovative toys for kids. OYO, based in Acton, makes plastic “minifigure” toys that resemble star athletes, similar to the popular Lego toys. The local toy start-up company has raised $14 million in funding in the last year and has recently acquired a new investor. OYO’s newest investor is Mandalay Sports Media, a company chaired by Hollywood executive Peter Guber, who is also an owner of the Los Angeles Dodgers and the NBA’s Golden State Warriors. Local OYO investors include Atlas Venture and Boston Seed.

Learn more about where OYO came from and where they’re going in these recent articles by the Boston Globe and The Boston Business Journal.

Way to go, OYO!


MBBP’s Sean Detweiler Presents at WIT Accelerate Bootcamp 10/14/2014

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, Events, Intellectual Property, Licensing & Strategic Alliances, MBBP news.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

Patent Attorney Sean DetweilerLast week, MBBP patent attorney Sean Detweiler spoke at an even hosted by the Wentworth Institute of Technology Accelerate program.  The event is called Bootcamp, and it allows students to get insights about innovation and entrepreneurship, while also getting inspiration for new ideas and and how to make them real. Sean gave a presentation on intellectual property with specifics about patents, including provisional applications, what they should cover and when to think about them in the context of a start-up scenario.  The audience was very involved, and there were some great questions as well as more specific discussions on patent law issues.

For more info on patents and intellectual property, please contact Sean Detweiler


MBBP Attorney Stanley Chalvire to Speak at MDG Boston Forum 09/05/2014

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, Events, Intellectual Property, Internet and E-Commerce, Licensing & Strategic Alliances, MBBP news, Medical Devices.
add a comment

chalvireMedical Development Group (MDG), an organization for professionals in the medical device industry, is hosting an upcoming forum event entitled “Intellectual Property Approaches to Safeguard Value”. MBBP IP and Licensing Attorney Stanley F. Chalvire will serve as one of the speakers of this forum event, which will generally be directed to intellectual property strategies for creating and preserving value of medical devices.

 During the forum, some topics that Stan will address include:

  • Trade Secrets and the protections they can provide
  • Distinguish Trade Secrets and Patents
  • Discuss Strategic Considerations to Maintain Trade Secrets

The event takes place at Constant Contact headquarters in Waltham, MA on Wednesday October 1st.

 To register, please visit MDG Boston 


MBBP Client Hastings Equity Partners Completes Sale of Advanced Precision Products, Inc. 09/04/2014

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Client News, Intellectual Property, Manufacturing, Retail & Service, MBBP news, Public Companies.
Tags: , , ,
add a comment

Hastings Equity Partners, LLCMBBP client Hastings Equity Partners recently announced the sale of Advanced Precision Products, Inc. (APP) to Precision Engineered Products, LLC (PEP). Advanced Precision Products is a leading manufacturer of highly engineered components and products for oil & gas, medical, aerospace, automotive, military and commercial OEMs.  Morse, Barnes-Brown & Pendleton serves as counsel to Hastings Equity Partners, and advised it in connection with the structuring, negotiation and documentation of this transaction. Shannon Zollo was the lead corporate attorney on MBBP’s team, which also included attorneys Mark Tarallo and Jonathan Calla.

Hastings Equity Partners is a Waltham, MA-based, private investment firm that acquires and grows small to mid-sized enterprises.

Please visit Hastings Equity Partners for more information.

MBBP’s Joanna Brougher 2014 National Law Journal Rising Star 09/02/2014

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Attorney News, Intellectual Property, Life Sciences, MBBP news, Medical Devices.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

9-2-2014 10-08-43 AM MBBP’s Joanna Brougher was selected for the 2014 National Law Journal’s list of Boston’s Rising Stars. The National Law Journal Rising Stars program recognizes the region’s 40 most promising lawyers age 40 and under.  Joanna graduated from the University of Rochester with a B.S. in Microbiology, a B.A. in German, and a masters in public health. Joanna received her J.D. from Boston College Law School in 2008.  She is a biotech, pharma, medical device and intellectual property consultant, and is also a adjunct lecturer at Harvard School of Public Health where she teaches a course on intellectual property and health technologies.

Congrats, Joanna!

More info on Boston’s Rising Stars

MBBP Client Implant Sciences Corporation Achieves Milestone With QS-B220 09/02/2014

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Client News, Computer Software & Hardware, Industries, Intellectual Property, MBBP news.
Tags: , , , , , ,
add a comment

9-2-2014 12-36-18 PMMBBP client Implant Sciences Corporation, a company that develops and manufactures explosive trace detection sensors and systems, announced that its QS-B220 desktop explosives trace detector has successfully completed the certification process for the United States Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) qualification requirements for aviation checkpoint and checked baggage screening.

This announcement marks a major milestone for the company; having the QS-B220 added to the TSA’s Qualified Product List is one of the highest levels of recognition in the security industry and one of the most difficult to achieve,” according to Todd Silvestri, Implant Sciences’ Vice President of Technology.

President and CEO, Glenn D. Bolduc, stated    “We’re very proud to be able to deliver this innovative product for the protection of travelers in our country. Every member of the Implant Sciences team has done a phenomenal job of getting us to this point.”


 You can read Implant Sciences’ complete announcement here.

 Well done, Implant Science Corporation!



Want To Stay Employed as a CIO? Better Get Privacy Right 08/25/2014

Posted by Morse, Barnes-Brown Pendleton in Computer Software & Hardware, Intellectual Property, Internet and E-Commerce, Legal Developments, Privacy and Data Security.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

Consumer privacy is emerging into a big headache for companies — and the CIO is bearing the brunt. Most companies analyze customer data in some way, and there are increasing amounts of legislation around how such data handling should be performed. Breaking the rules can land a company in hot water — and leave the CIO out of a job. Sensitive information is often copied from system to system by staff with little understanding of  privacy issues and risks surrounding sensitive data. As a result, it falls to the CIO to make sure that a customer privacy strategy is in place. To properly ensure consumer privacy, the CIO should make sure their company is complying with existing regulations, but also be prepared for possible data breaches.

To read the full article

Understanding the rapidly changing landscape of privacy and data security laws is critical for any business. For more information on how MBBP counsels clients in this area, visit our Privacy & Data Security practice or check out our related resources.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 65 other followers

%d bloggers like this: