Blizzard Entertainment is on the move to merge its PC properties with cellular phone market.

The trademark filed by “World of Watercraft” developer Blizzard Entertainment, is an indication of the company’s desire to integrate their gaming properties within the parameters of mobile phone convenience.

The new trademark was filed for a system called “Battlechat”, and will provide an interface for the electronic transmission of data and messages including: voice, text, and messages transmission.

At present, there’s no express guarantee that the user will be able to slay Dragons from their cell phone.  However, in this industry, where you find smoke—fire is never far behind.

SecureLogix Corp. has been issued its 12th patent from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

The patent covers the technology that forms the basis of communications appliances and bundled applications that provide voice network management and security capabilities.

SecureLogix’s Virtual Private Switched Telecommunications Network can presently encrypt voice, fax, modem, and video calls across the traditional public telephone network.

SecureLogix is a forward-thinking company that secures telecom network resources from abuse and attack.

The General Patent Corp. International announced a licensing agreement on January 15, 2008 between Digitial Technology Licensing (DTL) and Nokia.

The patented technology is an audio data compression algorithm used for speech coding, which is used in GSM cell phone communications. This technology also provides backward compatibility, which allows cell phones to communicate with older technology in cellular towers.

DTL is also pursuing litigation with Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Spring/Nextel and Motorola for infringement of the DTL patent, which is called Digital Output Transducer.

In the recently decided case of Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP, the California Court of Appeal may have dealt a death blow to the “narrow restraint” exception to California non-compete agreements, or noncompetition agreements.

In California, the general rule is that covenants not to compete are void under California Business and Professions Code Section 16600. However, the narrow restraint exception to non-compete agreements was developed primarily by the Ninth Circuit to allow certain noncompetition agreements to exist. In particular, noncompetition agreements which included a limited restriction and left a substantial portion of the market available to the employee were deemed to be valid in California. In very general terms, as long as the restriction was minimal on an employee’s ability to find work, a non-compete agreement would be valid under this “narrow restraint” exception.

The new holding from California’s Court of Appeal eliminates this “narrow restraint.”

Of course, Edwards does not remove the statutory exceptions to non-compete agreements: namely, where a person sells the goodwill of a business and where a partner agrees not to compete in anticipation of dissolution of a partnership. In these situations, the general concept is to prevent the business owner/seller/partner from reducing the value of the business sold by subsequently carrying on a new similar business.

So, what does IP have to do with all of this? Certain restrictive agreements always come into play between an employer and employee when IP is involved. For California employers and employees, it’s important to recognize that the Edwards case still leaves intact the trade secret exception to non-compete agreements. Therefore, in addition to the statutory exceptions discussed above, non-compete agreements in California may also be valid to the extent that protectable trade secrets are involved.

Whether a company has protectable trade secrets is a whole another issue, and various defenses are commonly used to argue that the alleged trade secret is really no secret at all.

For an expert on California labor and employment law, contact David Hagopian, one of the founding partners of Holdsworth & Hagopian.

Intellectual property (IP) is a critical component of every successful business. Though IP is certainly not the only factor in building a business, how you choose to use it, or not, can often make the difference between excellence and mediocrity. Entrepreneurs need to understand the value of IP, and put this knowledge into practical use as early as possible.

Know the Different Types of IP

You can obtain federal protection for 3 types of IP: patents, trademarks and copyrights. For a more extensive discussion of these categories, check out www.patentwiki.jot.com.

Generally speaking:
Patents cover inventions;
Trademarks cover names, logos and sometimes three-dimensional product configurations (also known as trade dress); and
Copyrights cover original expressions (e.g., songs, videos, visual arts, text, software code, advertising materials, etc.).

It’s possible that multiple categories of IP may be embodied in a single product. For example, you may be holding an electronic device that bears a particular brand (i.e., a trademark). One or more patents might cover the functionality of the device, while copyright protection might extend to the content that you’re receiving.

One of the smartest things you can do in starting a business is to take inventory of all the possible IP assets you own or would like to own. Never mind if you’re not sure they qualify for protection - just jot them down on paper. If you’re already several years into your business and you’ve never done this, stop reading and start writing. Then, meet with your patent attorney to discuss an appropriate IP strategy that makes sense and ties in with your business objectives.

Timing Is Critical - Be First in Line

Like almost everything else in business, timing is critical. Do not assume that you can hold off on seeking patent protection for your inventions. Most foreign countries require that you file a patent application prior to any public disclosure. So if your inventions potentially have commercial value in foreign countries, you must obtain a patent filing date first before making any public disclosures. In the US, you have one year from the earliest date of a public disclosure or offer for sale to file a US patent application.

Just remembering the 2 rules above regarding international and domestic patent deadlines can mean the difference between some patent protection or no protection at all.

Timing is also highly significant for trademark and copyright filings. Certain procedural and substantive advantages are given to those who file first, so there is really no good excuse to delay.

Budget Wisely

If you’ve met with a patent attorney recently or spoken to someone who has, you’ll know that IP is flat out expensive. As a patent attorney, I must admit that IP is an expensive game to play, but one that you cannot afford to merely observe as a spectator. You might not think that you have anything valuable to protect until one day you receive a cease-and-desist letter or, even worse, a summons and complaint accusing you of infringing someone else’s IP rights.

It can be especially aggravating when you believe that you originated the IP on your products or services that are being accused of infringement. Though obtaining your own IP will not necessary guarantee that you will steer clear of infringement, it might reduce the probability of those occurrences, and/or possibly give you some leverage if those times come.

Avoid the “penny wise, pound foolish” approach - not investing in your IP now, only to find yourself spending much more money later to correct it. With your patent attorney’s help, prioritize your IP projects, figure out how much they’ll cost, and budget accordingly. Then, just do it.