Last week, a major cannabis firebrand was indicted for patent violation by Geographic Location Innovations( “GLI”) in the District Court of Colorado. The Complaint alleges GLI is the owner of the’ 285 Patent, designation “Device, System and Method for Remotely Entering, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Information Device, ” which among other things, accepts a user to request an address, such as the address for a accumulation, from a server. The server determines the requested address and gives it to the user. The organisation can also determine route guidance to the store address located at least in part on the spot of the user.
The defendant’s website has a similar collect locator arrangement that GLI claims conflicts the’ 285 Patent. A consumer is able to input an address and the website will provide a register of the nearest retail locatings. The website will also laden sailing if the subscribers applications counselings. If you’re reading this and thinking “wow, most retail websites I’ve retrieved lately have this peculiarity, ” you’re absolutely right. GLI has been busy- our research of the federal tribunals pointed out that GLI has entered 49 disputes since 2016, with 11 of them currently being carried out. And of course, it bears mentioning that this trend of patent infringement case will only become more and more prevalent in service industries as players focus on their online presence.
The real takeaway I have from reviewing this lawsuit is this: do you have intellectual property protections in place? Most of our buyers are idealists that are building and implementing their business means, establishing business relationships, etc. They’re also establishing their online proximities, but the actual work of creating a website is being outsourced to web developers more frequently than not. In such status, it’s important to not gloss over the indemnification provisions of the agreement.
Some developers, who are aware that intellectual property trolls is on the increase, flat out refuse to agree to any indemnification. These makes feel they’re really building what the client is requesting, and the client should therefore bear the burden of potential patent infringement. However, if the developer is suggesting facets, or abusing “home grown” templates or implements, full intellectual property indemnification is probably proper and should be fought for( or at least, paid a payment for ). Given every situation is different, your arguings for partial to full indemnification may be modified, but in utterly every case, the risks and benefits that may result from this typically “boilerplate” provision need to be weighed.
As you can see from the cautionary falsehood above, it may serve you very well to have proper indemnification riders in place. Otherwise, if you find yourself in litigation over something you had very little to no verify over, you might be left propping the bag for someone else’s mistake. Don’t rely on your entanglement developer for legal advice. Our intellectual property team has learnt everything there is and is here to help.
For past poles on the importance of indemnification provisions in other situations, appreciate 😛 TAGEND
Top Four Concerns for Tri-Party Cannabis Supply Chain Agreements Watching Your Backside in California Cannabis: Indemnification Controversy California Cannabis Leases: Remediation Indemnification is Key
The post Patent Infringement Indemnification: Do You Have It ? performed first on Harris Bricken.
Read more: harrisbricken.com