Massachusetts Patents Legal Questions

It is not clear from the statement of your question whether you are selling an iPhone back cover housing that you make and sell on your own or whether you are reselling someone else's back cover. The infringement analysis is essentially the same for both cases, but you may have contractual indemnification or other remedies in the case of infringement if it is "someone else's" back cover. Additionally, it is not clear what you mean by "an iPhone back cover housing". If it is a replacement back cover housing which physically replaces the one with the Apple logo, you will likely have significant infringement issues and you will want to consult an intellectual property attorney before proceeding, if at all. For example, if you are replacing the back cover of an Apple iPhone with a new back cover housing bearing a "pear logo", the consuming public will likely be confused as to whether such a "rebranded iPhone" is a genuine iPhone or some competing look-alike Pear phone. If there is a likelihood of confusion, there is infringement. In that case, you could be relatively certain that Apple's attorneys would file a trademark infringement lawsuit to prevent you from selling your housings. Apple may also have patent rights in the back cover housing to its iPhone, so your replacement may infringe those patent rights as well. If instead your housing is just a protective cover for the iPhone, like those commonly sold by third parties, then the rest of this analysis may apply. So for a complete answer, more information is needed. Assuming your "iPhone back cover housing" is just a protective cover for the iPhone, please read on. With regard to infringement analysis, you are free to sell replacement parts ONLY if: (1) you are not violating any patent covering the part or have a license under the relevant patent(s), and (2) you are not infringing any trademark that may be associated with the replacement part. Regarding the patent analysis, from the facts given it is unclear whether a patent applies or not. You should seek an opinion of a registered patent attorney regarding your freedom to operate or right-to-use the back cover housing you are selling. Regarding the trademark analysis, it would appear from your statement of the question and supporting facts that the back cover housing has either: (1) no logo or trademark whatsoever, or (2) another logo, *i.e.*, a pear logo, but not an Apple logo. Under the first scenario, if there is no logo or trademark, then clearly there can be no trademark infringement. Under the second scenario, you have some other logo or trademark (a pear) that is presumably associated with the owner, manufacturer or source of the back cover housing you are selling on eBay. The question becomes, does that logo or trademark infringe the rights of a prior trademark owner and additionally, is your "pear logo" registrable? The answer to these questions depends on a lot of factors that have not been mentioned in the statement of the question. For example, when did you start using the "pear logo" trademark? When did the senior user start using his mark? Does your use of that "pear" mark for "back cover housings" raise a likelihood of confusion with the senior user's trademark? Are the marks distinctive? And would the senior user be inclined to allow you to use your similar mark and therefore allow the two of you to coexist in the marketplace? Obviously, this is a very fact specific inquiry and there are many other questions your trademark counsel will want to ask you before rendering an opinion whether it is safe for you to use the mark you want to use and whether it might be registrable. As always, you will want to consult with competent intellectual property counsel before proceeding with most any venture where intellectual property rights may be involved.... Read More

It depends on your marketing or financing strategy. If you are confident that your invention is patentable and you have the money, a one year action is a good idea. However, if your invention is in a crowded field that may take a while for prosecution, it may make more sense to rely on patent pending status during the normal 2 to 3 years it is taking to prosecute most applications and using the money for answering office actions.... Read More

From what you have told me I would say yes. Provisional patent applications are useful when you want to be able to lock down the starting date of your patent application without spending all of the expense of filing a utility patent until you know if you will be able to make any money from your invention.... Read More

If they bear a trademark from a company that did not make the product itself, then it does not matter who or where you got them from - you can't sell them. (Trademark) Logi is - if the goods are inferior then by selling them under the name of a company that did not make them just tarnishes their reputation and steals a sale from them.... Read More

I think the first thing to do in answering this question is to phrase the question correctly. It is not breaking a company ownership of intellectual property law that is the issue. It is whether the employer for whom you work has a claim of ownership of the invention you would like to patent. That you came up with the invention on your own and did not use any company resources or company time to develop it bodes well for you. So long as the invention is outside the scope of your employer's business, your employer should have no claim of ownership of your invention. If your invention is something within the scope of your employer's business, then it becomes a very factual issue. Without knowing more about what your employer's business is and the scope of your role as an auto technician, it is not possible to determine definitively whether or not your employer's ownership rights would be triggered. Even if your employer's ownership rights are triggered, you can negotiate an arrangement with your employer if your invention is not within their strategic objectives to develop through a license or even a transfer of ownership from the company to you. That would settle the issue definitively in an amicable way even if there are conflicting claims.... Read More

You have one year in the United States to file a patent application on something that you sell, counting from the first sale or public disclosure, before you lost the chance to try and patent it. Outside the United States you do not have any time at all and must file the application before the first sale or public disclosure otherwise you immediately lose the chance to try and patent it.... Read More

The defense of Fair Use may apply if the company can show that its unauthorized use of the photo was truly "news" related, important for the education of the audience about a particular issue, and the company is at least partly in business to provide a news service. However, if the photo can damage the reputation of a person or company, is misleading, is part of a story that doesn't qualify as "news", or the photograph violates law or custom, it is unlikely that Fair Use will protect the company. More importantly, the company that uses unauthorized photos can ruin its reputation and lose the trust of its providers of stories and images, as well as the audience. No reputable news organization will risk that.... Read More

The answer will depend upon the country of which you are a citizen. In the US, copyright only protects the expression of an idea and not the idea itself. But without examining both games, it's not possible here to determine if you would be violating copyright laws by releasing your game as it is.... Read More