A famous line from a movie had a grizzled old cowboy raising his finger and giving advice to a young tenderfoot. The advice was “Just one thing.” Although the grizzled cowboy never told the tenderfoot exactly what the “just one thing” was, we believe that it is doing what you enjoy doing and what you know.
The firm’s practice engages creative people and helps them protect what they have created. We enjoy the client interaction and we know how to help protect what you have.
Our clients are creative. They are artists, musicians, inventors, web designers or business people in any type endeavor. They have new ideas in the arts and sciences or just a new way to sell a widget. Our goal is to counsel them creatively as well, blending their ideas and passion into a legal framework that gives them the best chance not only to be creative but to thrive and prosper as creative contributors to society.
Since 1993, attorney Robert J. (Jeff) Veal has been listed among the preeminent lawyers in America by Martindale Hubbell, a national peer review based listing of attorneys.
This ranking is in addition to the coveted AV rating bestowed on attorney Veal by Martindale Hubbell. In addition, Mr. Veal has been listed in the Woodward White publication The Best Lawyers in America in numerous years.
Collaboration is give and take. We listen and we expect clients to listen also, knowing that we are listening and adjusting our thinking as clients lay our their creative concepts.
The essence of the advisor/counselor role we take with our clients is providing them the information and knowledge we’ve gained by serving thousands of other clients facing the same challenges and watching the client apply the information in their creative context to grow their enterprise.
We have also learned that listening and expecting creative collaboration needs to be applied to the mediation context also in the effort to resolve disputes with finality and efficiency.Learn More
a smart approach to legal service
Insight. Knowledge. Wisdom.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) provides a statutory scheme for copyright holders to notify internet service providers of the existence of allegedly copyrighted material on their servers. A “safe harbor” is provided to service providers who remove or disable access to allegedly infringing material following receipt of a DMCA notice. The copyright holder may wish to pursue the parties who placed the material with the service provider so the DMCA also provides that a copyright owner or a person authorized to act on the owner’s behalf may request the clerk of any United States district court to issue a subpoena to a service provider for identification of an alleged infringer. Barry Rosen obtained a subpoena based on approximately 92 such notifications emailed to eBay regarding allegedly infringing content posted by 61 eBay usernames for dates ranging from January 5, 2012, to March 9, 2015. The subpoena sought information regarding the persons using the 61 identified eBay usernames. eBay challenged the subpoena using a motion to quash filed with the court. According to eBay, upon receipt of each notification, eBay investigated the identified listings and disabled access to them. By the time the subpoena was received by eBay on March 27, 2015, eBay asserts that no relevant infringing material pertaining to those notifications was available. Thus, eBay asserted that the subpoena was invalid because at the time it was obtained and served, access to the allegedly infringing materials had been removed. Relying on Section 512(h)(5 ) of the DMCA the court found that a DMCA subpoena is valid whether served simultaneously with a satisfactory DMCA notification or after a satisfactory DMCA notification...Learn More
After a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found that Samsung infringed Apple’s design and utility patents and awarded Apple $$290,456,793 in damages, Samsung appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The original damages award had been $639,403,248, but a retrial at the district court level reduced the award. A design patent is infringed if an ordinary observer would have been deceived: “if, in the eye of an ordinary observer, giving such attention as a purchaser usually gives, two designs are substantially the same, if the resemblance is such as to deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other, the first one patented is infringed by the other.” An infringement analysis must include a comparison of the asserted design against the prior art: “[i]f the accused design has copied a particular feature of the claimed design that departs conspicuously from the prior art, the accused design is naturally more likely to be regarded as deceptively similar to the claimed design, and thus infringing.” However, for design patent infringement actual deception is not required. The design patents on appeal at the Federal Circuit claim certain design elements embodied in the iPhone. The D′677 patent focuses on design elements on the front face of the iPhone. The D′087 patent claims another set of design features that extend to the bezel of the iPhone. The D′305 patent claims “the ornamental design for a graphical user interface for a display screen or portion thereof”. In its appeal Samsung argued that the district court legally erred in...Learn More
What will be impact of the July 8, 2015 affirmation of the cancellation of the “Redskins” trademark registration ? The “ Redskins” mark was first used by the “Washington Redskins” National Football League (“NFL”) franchise in 1933 when then owner George Preston Marshall selected the name while the team was located in Boston, Massachusetts.Learn More