Hart | King Legal Blog

In the past month, Hart | King has received rulings in 3 separate rent control applications/hearings.

First, we received a ruling arising out of an application in the city of Lancaster. The city of Lancaster has a fairly expedited process for submitting discretionary rent increase applications. This park had exceptionally low rent and was literally losing money after all park operations were paid. The city hired its own independent expert to review the application and the economic basis of the application. After a half day hearing where oral testimony was presented by the park owner and the residents, the city issued its ruling. The park owner received a substantial rent increase to be implemented over 3 years. The rent increase will bring the park's rents to the average rent of comparable rent controlled parks in the city of Lancaster. The city's ruling was fairly prompt and, as noted, the entire hearing process was completed in one day of hearing. Chalk one up for rational decision making.

In May, President Obama signed into law new legislation known as the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (or "DTSA") which is intended to provide enhanced means of protecting the confidential information that many companies rely upon as the basis for their competitive advantage. More specifically, the DTSA amends the Economic Espionage Act of 1996 to provide a federal cause of action to private companies for trade secret misappropriation. The DTSA became effective immediately, but only applies to misappropriation occurring on or after the law's effective date and only protects trade secrets that are "related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce." 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b).

Those of us who have been to law school know (or should know) that the three main types of intellectual property (or "IP") are patents, trademarks, and copyrights. But, we also know that trade secrets are often considered as IP, too. Generally speaking, trade secrets include lists of suppliers and clients, sales and distribution practices, advertising strategies, manufacturing methods, and even product formulas or recipes. So, when it comes to intellectual property, why are trade secrets so often looked upon as an afterthought?

Throughout his many incarnations, Batman, the fictional crime fighter and protector of the peace in Gotham City, has faced a wide range of very odd foes. Names like The Joker, Catwoman, Mr. Freeze and Penguin are familiar to fans of the Batman comic books, television series, and, of course, movies. But, any true fan of the Caped Crusader will have a hard time recalling any episode or story arc that pitted him against a small group of highly intelligent men and women clad in imposing black robes and wielding the power to decide the fate of something as important to Batman as his beloved Batmobile. That is, until now.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court (aka "SCOTUS") denied certiorari to a lower court ruling in favor of DC Comics and Warner Bros. and declined to hear the appeal of that ruling by Mark Towle, an Orange County, California auto mechanic who had been making custom builds of iconic Batmobiles for paying customers. By denying cert (as lawyers like to say), the Supreme Court left in place the lower court ruling against Towle.

LITIGATION UPDATE. As we originally reported way back in 2012, Chicago inventor Scott White has been waging an ongoing war with Kraft Heinz Co. over rights to an innovative design for ketchup and other condiments that White had dubbed the "CondiCup." White, a former risk manager for the Chicago Housing Authority, had claimed that Heinz stole his idea for the flexible condiment package after he had applied for registration of a patent for the design and had entered into negotiations with Heinz for a license to use the design for its ketchup and other dippable condiments. White filed suit against Heinz for patent infringement and Heinz contested the efficacy of the underlying patent on file with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the "P.T.O."). Unfortunately, for White, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal District Circuit recently ruled in favor of Heinz and affirmed an earlier 2013 P.T.O. decision finding that many of White's claims were too obvious to be patentable and therefore canceling the patent.

In our earlier article entitled "Dip & Squeeze" vs. "CondiCup" - Who Owns the New Ketchup Packet Design?", we reported that: