SAM Encourages You to Attend: CalTech Entrepreneur’s Forum- “Personalized Education 150,000 Students at a Time: Opportunities in Online Learning” – April 12, 2014

Caltech-Entforum-banner

Personalized Education 150,000
Students at a Time:
Opportunities in Online Learning

This Saturday, April 12

Online Registration closes this
FRIDAY at 2:00 PM

Sign in / Continental Breakfast: 8:00 a.m.
Program: 9:00 – 11:15 a.m.

Coffee & Networking with Speakers:
11:15 – 12:00p.m.

REGISTER HERE

$40 Advance* / $50 Door; $10 Full-time students w/ ID

(Caltech Students – Free)

Education has, in many ways, changed very little for 1,000 years. However, suddenly new delivery formats are springing up: from on-demand video education for individuals, to 150,000 person at a time “MOOC” classes. This month the Caltech forum will explore how education is changing rapidly, both in startups and in traditional institutions. Where are the lines between “formal” education and “informal education” and “entertainment” now? What will be the role of the traditional universities in this market? Will they be customers for new content? Competitors? What are the technology gaps and content pain points now? What is working well? Where are the entrepreneurial opportunities? Come to the Forum to hear a wide spectrum of experiences in this rapidly-growing space. (Click on speaker name for bio and / or company name for redirection to website).

Review Presentations

S. George Djorgovski
Professor of Astronomy, Caltech
The Obsolescence of Academia and How to Reinvent It

 

Artia Moghbel
Founder, Glean.co
The Entrepreneur’s View

 

Panelists

Hope Kandel
Director, Business Development
Client Events, LearningTimes, LLC|
Learning in Virtual Worlds
Joan Horvath
VP Business Development
Deezmaker 3D Printers
Core Adjunct Faculty
National University
Salomón Dávila,
Dean, Career Technical Education |Pasadena City College
When is Online Alone Not Enough?

“The Inventors – Tools & Tips on IP Strategy Development in the Sustainable Industry”

Intellectual Property Strategy

SAM Partner Kevin DeBré moderated a Sustainability Council event panel entitled “The Inventors – Tools & Tips on IP Strategy Development in the Sustainable Industry.”

Other panelists include:

Wally Rippel – Co-Founder & CTO, AC Propulsion
Spencer Brown – Founder, Rent-A-Green Box
Elizabeth Gibson, Managing Counsel, Toyota Legal One c/o Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A. Inc.

Kevin DeBré has also authored a U.S. Intellectual Property Protection handout that outlines each form of IP Protection and its advantages and disadvantages. To view the handout, click US IP Summary Handout.

For more information on our Intellectual Property practice, contact Kevin DeBré at kdebre@stubbsalderton.com or (818) 444-4521.

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles Featured in LA Business Journal Article Regarding Tech Growth in the Legal Industry

LABJ

The Los Angeles Business Journal featured the recent expansion of Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ Business Litigation practice in its March 31 edition regarding tech growth in the Los Angeles legal market. To view the full article, click here.

For more information about our Business Ligitation practice, contact SAM Partner Michael Sherman, at masherman@stubbsalderton.com or 818-444-4528.

Unfair Competition – Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.

Unfair CompetitionWashington, D.C. – This dispute between printer ink cartridge suppliers has encountered a blotchy area of the law. Lexmark, a laser printer manufacturer, encrypts the ink cartridges it manufactures for use in its printers with a microchip. Static Control Components engineered a microchip that allowed competing ink cartridge manufacturers to have access to Lexmark printers. Lexmark sued Static Control for copyright infringement, among other things, and Static Control countered with a false advertising claim against Lexmark. Lexmark sought summary judgment on the false advertising claim, alleging that Static Control did not have standing to sue under the Lanham Act. On Tuesday, March 25, 2014, a unanimous Supreme Court resolved a split of authority amongst the Circuit Courts over the issue of standing in false advertising claims brought under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Who has standing to bring a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act? Justice Scalia’s opinion answers this question by establishing a two-prong test for interpreting the Act to determine whether a particular plaintiff “falls within the class of plaintiffs whom Congress has authorized to sue under §1125(a).” Lexmark at 9. First, a plaintiff’s interests must “fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Id at 10. The Court explains that this “Zone of Interest” requirement “applies to all statutorily created causes of action… unless it is expressly negated” by Congress. Id at 10. However, “the breadth of the zone of interests varies according to the provisions of law at issue” for any particular statute. Id at 11. Second, “a statutory cause of action is limited to plaintiffs whose injuries are proximately caused by violations of the statute.” Id at 13. This “Proximate Cause” requirement asks “whether the harm alleged has a sufficiently close connection to the conduct the statute prohibits.” Id at 14. The Court explains that this second requirement “generally bars suits for alleged harm that is ‘too remote’ from the defendant’s unlawful conduct.” Id.

Applying the first prong to a false advertising claim under the Lanham Act, the Court identified the “interests protected by the Lanham Act” by referring to the “’unusual, and extraordinarily helpful,’ detailed statement of the statute’s purposes.”

Section 45 of the Act, codified at 15 U. S. C. §1127, provides:

“The intent of this chapter is to regulate commerce within the control of Congress by making actionable the deceptive and misleading use of marks in such commerce; to protect registered marks used in such commerce from interference by State, or territorial legislation; to protect persons engaged in such commerce against unfair competition; to prevent fraud and deception in such commerce by the use of reproductions, copies, counterfeits, or colorable imitations of registered marks; and to provide rights and remedies stipulated by treaties and conventions respecting trademarks, trade names, and unfair competition entered into between the United States and foreign nations.” Id at 12.

Although “[m]ost of the enumerated purposes are relevant to false association cases,” the Court explains that “a typical false-advertising case will implicate only the Act’s goal of ‘protect[ing] persons engaged in [commerce within the control of Congress] against unfair competition.’” Id. Justice Scalia looks to the common law for the definition of “unfair competition,” stating that it was “understood to be concerned with injuries to business reputation and present and future sales.” Id. Thus, a plaintiff comes within the zone of interests in a suit for false advertising under §1125(a) when that plaintiff “allege[s] an injury to a commercial interest in reputation or sales.” Id at 13.

Applying the second prong, the Court explained that the “[p]roximate cause analysis is controlled by the nature of the statutory cause of action,” and asks “whether the harm alleged has a sufficiently close connection to the conduct [that] the statute prohibits.” Id at 14. The Court held that, when suing for false advertising, a plaintiff “ordinarily must show economic or reputational injury flowing directly from the deception wrought by the defendant’s advertising.” Id at 15. This occurs when a defendant’s deception causes “consumers… to withhold trade from the plaintiff.” Id. Several examples include “afford[ing] relief under §1125(a) not only where a defendant denigrates a plaintiff ’s product by name… but also where the defendant damages the product’s reputation by, for example, equating it with an inferior product.” Id at 19. Further, a defendant who “‘seeks to promote his own interests by telling a known falsehood to or about the plaintiff or his product’” may be said to have proximately caused the plaintiff ’s harm. Id at 20.

The Lexmark decision is important in two aspects. Narrowly, in order to have standing under the Lanham Act for a false advertising claim, “a plaintiff must plead (and ultimately prove) an injury to a commercial interest in sales or business reputation proximately caused by the defendant’s misrepresentations.” Id at 25. Broadly, the decision adopts a two-prong test for evaluating standing under any statutorily created cause of action, and provides a rubric for analyzing each prong. It will be interesting to watch the development of the jurisprudence of standing as lower courts apply Zone of Interest and Proximate Causation to false association claims under the Lanham Act and extend this analysis to other federal statutes.

_________________

For more information about our Brand Development & Content Protection Practice, contact Konrad Gatien (kgatien@stubbsalderton.com) or Tony Keats (akeats@stubbsalderton.com)

SAM Client Alert – New Domain Names and the Trademark Clearinghouse

Important Business News From

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP

New Domain Names and
the Trademark Clearinghouse

 

The new generic top level domains (gTLDs) are continuing to launch in 2014. While there were previously only 22 top level domain names (e.g., .com, .net) and the various country code registries (e.g., .co.uk, .de), within the next year there may be as many as 1,500 active top level domains, each with their own registries.

To assist you in protecting your trademark rights as much as possible, The Trademark Clearinghouse will allow trademark holders to submit their trademark information to a one-stop shop centralized repository. After verification, the trademark holder will be able to register its corresponding domain name(s) during the pre-registration period of multiple TLDs – also known as the “Sunrise period”. Trademark holders will also have the option to be notified when someone registers a domain name that matches their record in the TMCH.

An application to the Trademark Clearinghouse serves two main purposes:

1) Participation in the Trademark Clearinghouse is the only way to pre-register brands in the sunrise-phase which precedes all new gTLD launches. This process will greatly reduce the administrative burden and associated costs for trademark holders.

2) During the Trademark Claims period 60 days after the Sunrise period, trademark holders may choose to be notified immediately when someone registers a domain name, in any of the new gTLDs, that match the registered trademark.

For more information about how to register your marks with the Trademark Clearinghouse, or if you would like more information about our Brand Development & Content Protection practice, contact Konrad Gatien at kgatien@stubbsalderton.com or (310) 746-9810.

SAM Preccelerator Program Presents: “Working with Developers” with Tony Karrer, CEO/CTO TechEmpower

Join Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP

for this exclusive event!

 

Working with Developers Logo

 

“Working with Developers”

Tuesday, April 22, 2014
5:30-8:00 PM

Register

Are you a non-technical startup founder who’s challenged by working with technical people? Having trouble recruiting them? Aren’t sure if your team is executing very well? Not sure if they are building things the right way? Can’t understand how you can be relatively clear about what you want only to find they’ve built something different from what you said, and it took longer and even that doesn’t work quite right? Find that talking with them often seems like more work than it should?

Many non-technical founders find this to be their experience. Dr. Tony Karrer has been bridging the gap between non-technical founders and technical resources for the past 20+ years.

His presentation looks at:

Basics of recruiting and working with technical people. Communications, motivators/demotivators.

  • Founder Developer Gap. Recognizing it and how to close it.
  • Symptoms of a Poor Development Team and what to do about it.
  • Product and Project Management. Documenting for developers.

You will walk away with a better understanding of how to effectively work with your CTO and developers.

 

 

Featuring

Tony Karrer

Dr. Tony Karrer,
CEO/CTO TechEmpower
Founder & CTO Aggregage

 

Tony has worked with more than 30 early-stage companies as a part-time CTO including as the part-time CTO of eHarmony for its first four years. Tony is the CEO/CTO of TechEmpower, a web/mobile/software development firm based in El Segundo that is known for its high performance practice and framework benchmarks. Tony is also the Founder and CTO of Aggregage, an online B2B Media Company. In addition to working with startups, Tony has consulted on technology implementations for large companies including Credit Suisse, Citibank, Lexus, Universal Music, IBM and HP.

Dr. Karrer was valedictorian at Loyola Marymount University, attended the University of Southern California as a Tau Beta Pi fellow, one of the top 30 engineers in the nation, and received a M.S. and Ph.D. in Computer Science. Tony taught Computer Science for 11 years. He is a frequent speaker at industry and academic events. He is well-known for his SoCal CTO blog and his StartupRoar topic hub. Tony is the lead organizer of the LA CTO Forum, a group of 300+ CTOs in Los Angeles, and Mentor Night, a founder mentoring group.

sam-logo-sm

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
1453 3rd Street Promenade, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401

Parking
4th Street/Broadway ramp or in the Santa Monica Place Mall

We hope to see you there!

The American Lawyer Front Page Column “The Churn” Features Business Litigator Michael Sherman’s Move to Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP

The American Lawyer

In its March 25th edition, Am Law Daily’s front page column The Churn features Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ litigator Michael Sherman, as it discusses his move from Bingham McCutchen.

When asked why he moved to Stubbs Alderton, Sherman tells Am Law Daily “that the draw of Stubbs Alderton is that it is the preeminent emerging companies firm in Southern California.”

To view the full article, click here.

For more information about Michael Sherman and our Business Litigation Practice, contact Michael at (818) 444-4528 or masherman@stubbsalderton.com.

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP Expands Firm with Business Litigation Practice Group

sam-logo-sm

Leading Business Litigation Group Headed by Michael Sherman Joins Firm

Los Angeles, CA (March 11, 2014) – Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP, Southern California’s leading business law firm, has announced that nationally recognized litigator Michael Sherman has joined the firm as a partner in its Sherman Oaks office. Mr. Sherman will lead the firm’s newly-created Business Litigation practice group.

Michael Sherman is an accomplished trial lawyer in high-stakes, “bet-the-company” litigation, and has represented both large and early-stage companies as well as entrepreneurs in all facets of business and complex commercial litigation.    He has evenly split his litigation practice on both the plaintiff and defense side of cases, has first-chaired numerous trials in complex matters in industries as varied as securities, healthcare, environmental, consumer products, technology, project development/finance, advertising, real estate and apparel, and is highly skilled in class actions and unfair competition law.  Michael’s trial skills and courtroom success resulted in his having been named to the “Top 100 Lawyers” in California list, published by the Daily Journal newspaper chain.

“Stubbs Alderton & Markiles has been planning to expand our capabilities by creating a vibrant business litigation practice, and we could not be more excited about having someone of Michael’s stature joining us to do so.  We have worked closely with Michael for many years, often referring our most important litigation matters to him at Bingham McCutchen.  Michael is one of the best litigation attorneys in Los Angeles, and together we are going to build a general litigation practice that is as dynamic, efficient and effective as the transactional practice we have built over the last 12 years.”

The addition of the Business Litigation practice group continues the firm’s strategic expansion in the Southern California market, following the opening of their Santa Monica office and addition of a Brand Development and Content Protection practice in 2012 and 2013, respectively.

“Southern California is one the world’s largest economies.  Its business life-blood is entrepreneurs and start-ups that have grown to become many of the world’s leading businesses.  The partners of Stubbs Alderton & Markiles know that as well as any lawyers.  Managing disputes efficiently and strategically is on occasion the key to success, and that’s what I bring to the Firm.  I’m very excited to participate in the Firm’s continued success.”

Michael has been recognized as a leading trial lawyer by his peers and featured in the press for some of his significant victories on behalf of clients. He is a recent past president of the Los Angeles Chapter of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. He is a frequent speaker and writer on business litigation and trial advocacy, and has consistently been named to “Best Lawyers in America” in the field of commercial litigation.

Also joining the firm is David Gubman, a seasoned business litigation attorney.  David will join the firm as of counsel in its Sherman Oaks office.  David has big-firm experience and he and Michael have successfully tried cases together.

Please visit www.stubbsalderton.com for complete attorney bios.

About the Stubbs Alderton & Markiles Business Litigation Practice

The Firm’s litigators have significant depth and breadth of resources and a detailed knowledge of clients’ industries and business concerns.  In providing the best possible representation, our litigators appreciate that on occasion disputes may need to be tried to a judge, jury or arbitrator, and that in other instances the client is best served with an early resolution that is designed to preserve business relationships and minimize expense and litigation distraction.

Our litigators have a proven track record for analyzing complex legal and business challenges.  Our attorneys are experienced, innovative and aggressive in their pursuit of strategic outcomes.

Our litigation clients include household name Fortune 500 companies along with middle market, and emerging growth companies.  We seek to make long term relationships with our clients throughout their evolutionary path.  We deliver efficiency and value to every client we serve through a well-defined budget and clear communication about their case.

About Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP is a business law firm with robust corporate, public securities, mergers and acquisitions, intellectual property and business litigation practice groups focusing on the representation of venture backed emerging growth companies, middle market public companies, large technology and Internet companies, entertainment, video games and digital media companies, investors, venture capital funds, investment bankers and underwriters. The firm’s clients represent the full spectrum of Southern California business with a concentration in the technology, entertainment, video games, apparel, consumer electronics and medical device sectors. The firm’s mission is to provide technically excellent legal services in a consistent, highly-responsive and service-oriented manner with an entrepreneurial and practical business perspective. These principles are the hallmarks of the firm.  For more information, please visit www.stubbsalderton.com

Contact:

Heidi Hubbeling
Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
(310) 746-9803
hhubbeling@stubbsalderton.com