Blog Post

Ashley Menard

According to a national report released on September 20, 2016, dangerous levels of chromium-6 are contaminating tap water consumed by millions of Americans. Chromium-6 is the carcinogenic chemical that was brought to the national forefront by the popular movie “Erin Brockovich,” starring Julia Roberts.

Chromium is a naturally occurring element found in rocks, animals, plants, soil, and volcanic dust and gases. A chromium compound known as “Chromium-6” is generally produced by industrial processes. The compound is widely used in electroplating, stainless steel production, leather tanning, textile manufacturing, and wood preservation. The U.S. is one of the world’s leading producers of chromium compounds.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has never specified a specific limit for chromium-6 in drinking water, despite the fact that the chemical is carcinogenic. The National Toxicology Program has conducted studies showing that sodium dichromate dehydrate, a compound containing chromium-6, causes cancer in laboratory animals following oral ingestion.

The national report released in September 2016 reveals that throughout the nation, the tap water of 218 million Americans contains levels of chromium-6 that the group considers dangerous. The report revealed that levels of chromium-6 are at or above 0.03 parts per billion (ppb) in 75% of the samples tested in local water utilities between 2013 and 2015. Further, seven million Americans receive tap water with levels of chromium-6 that are higher than 10 ppb.

Despite it being well known that chromium-6 has contaminated drinking water in the past, the contaminant in our drinking water is still unregulated. Perhaps now that the problem ranges on a larger scale than originally believed, action will finally be taken.

Xiang Qi

In wake of a decade of sluggish growth and to provide European customers with better access to digital and online service, European Union is set to unveil a series of new rules governing its digital market on Wednesday. [1]  American tech companies are likely to suffer the bigger hit under these new rules as they will be forced to abide by stringent competition, privacy and copyright rules.

The rules to be announced by the European Commission include potentially giving publishers the right to charge Google and other internet companies when they use online content from newspapers or magazines on websites like Google News or Facebook; placing greater scrutiny on internet phones and messaging services like WhatsApp; giving European consumers the right to watch and buy some premium streaming content from different platforms; and providing financial incentives to regional telecom operators like Deutsche Telekom to invest in the region’s mobile and broadband networks. [2]

While the European policy makers claim that they are trying to protect people’s rights in an increasingly digital world by requiring all the market players to follow the region’s stringent laws, some of the US tech companies worry that they will suffer more from the new regime in the digital market. Europe has a history of doubling down stringent regulation regarding Apple’s tax evasion or Google’s antitrust charge. As some of the US companies encroached upon more market shares in Europe than it does on US domestic market, the E.U. has been struggling to strike a balance between encouraging local competition while containing U.S. influences. For example, Spotify, a homegrown success from Sweden, became a worldwide hit through its expansion in the U.S. market. [3]

Whether the new set of rules works to regulate the E.U. market or it is helping regional forces to fight against tech giants from the other side of the ocean remains to be seen.

[1] Mark Scott, E.U. Rules Look to Unify Digital Market, but U.S. see protectionism, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/14/technology/eu-us-tech-google-facebook-apple.html?ref=technology&_=0

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

Thomas Carlon

The sky’s the limit when it comes to the imagination of people; their creative ideas, interests, how they see the world. But, when does it become apparent that one company is blatantly copying the creative idea of another? Such is the case with China’s newest sportswear brand, Uncle Martian.

Under Armour is one America’s most well-known sportswear brands, it is worn by your everyday American, as well as New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady.[1] Under Armour has built its reputation on quality products that hold up during even the most rigorous exercises. But, the true question is whether Under Armour has any recourse against Uncle Martian.

According to United States law, trademarks are governed primarily by the Lanham Act of 1946.[2] Under this statute, infringement will be found under the “likelihood of confusion test,” which is laid out in Polariod v. Polarad.[3] Where the defendant would be found liable if the new trademark infringes on the existing trademark, where a consumer is likely to confuse the companies and mistakenly purchase the wrong product. There are several factors to consider when applying the confusion test: strength of the plaintiff’s trademark; degree of similarity between the two marks at issue; similarity of the goods and services at issue,[4] along with a few other factors too. If, Uncle Martian were to begin sales within the states or attempt to register the logo with United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), then Under Armour could file suit for infringement in the federal circuit. But, as it currently stands Uncle Martian has not yet begun sales in the states.

Under Armour began its operation in 2010, and since that time has opened over 75 stores.[5] Premium sportswear in China has become a fashion trend and is regarded highly within the country.[6] It is evident that a local corporation would be interested in participating in this market. Since Uncle Martian has only recently launched in China, it is unlikely that Under Armour could sue for trademark infringement within the United States jurisdiction, therefore the only recourse currently for Under Armour is within China’s jurisdiction.

According to Entrepreneur, China has similar copyright laws to that of Western countries like the United States.[7] “China has been a part of the World Trade Organization since 2001, which requires it to establish significant intellectual property law.”[8] For Under Armour this should sound like wonderful news, unfortunately for our well-known sportswear provider, they may encounter some difficulties. Within China, their intellectual property rights laws are difficult to enforce.[9] For Under Armour it would be in their best interest to seek a court injunction against Uncle Martian for infringement, as opposed to seeking statutory damages too. Because, within in China there is no discovery procedure, like there is in the United States.[10]

Did Uncle Martian copy Under Armour’s logo? The largest difference between the two is that Uncle Martian’s upward facing arc and the downward facing arc do not intersect. How likely will it be for someone to confuse the two logos and purchase the wrong product – pretty likely. As a consumer, the two logos are strikingly similar and I believe Uncle Martian is attempting to copy rival sportswear company Under Armour.

 

[1] Michael Forsythe, Chinese Appear Underwhelmed by Under Armour Knockoff, The New York Times (Apr. 29, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/30/world/asia/china-uncle-martian-under-armour.html.

[2] Lanham Act 15 U.S.C.A § 1051 (1946).

[3] Polaroid v. Polarad, 287 F.2d 492 (2nd Cir. 1961)

[4] Id.

[5] Victoria Ho, Chinese brand Uncle Martian is blatant rip-off of Under Armour, Mashable (Apr. 29, 2016), http://mashable.com/2016/04/29/uncle-martian-under-armour/#NA59lF1aXuq3.

[6] Id.

[7] Will Heilpern, A Chinese Sportswear Brand Called Uncle Martian Just Launched, and it Appears to Be Openly Ripping Off Under Armour, Entrepreneur (Apr. 29, 2016), https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/274920.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Christina Nelson, Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights in China, China Business Review (Oct. 1, 2012), http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/enforcing-intellectual-property-rights-in-china/.

Samuel Miller

Earlier this September, litigation services and software company Opus 2 International announced the United States’ “first integrated pop-up electronic courtroom built for paperless trials” occurred in Miami.  Brenda Mahedy, head of global marketing for Opus 2 International, discussed the impact of these services on court cases, while addressing the history of these services in the courtroom context.

Although Opus 2 was unable to discuss the specifics of the case, Mahedy and the company disclosed that “the parties were two multinational companies with branches in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe engaged in international litigation. Both parties came to the trial with an extensive array of technology and witness services, including evidence and trial presentation technologies.”  Mahedy stated, “while various disparate hearing room services already exist in the U.S., such as trial presentation tools, third-party interpretation services, and video conferencing, it is rare that these services are fully integrated with one another, yielding a much more seamless and efficient process during trial.”
Currently, these services are also utilized in some capacity in state courts in Texas and Utah dealing with electronic filing.  Furthermore, District Courts in the District of Columbia, Michigan, California, and Kentucky also provide technology-based evidence presentation capabilities though the addition of audio and video hardware in their courtrooms.  While these changes may improve efficiency and streamline paperless trials, these technologies may be slow to develop across the justice system, due to the structure and nature of changing policies and procedures related to the operation of the courtroom. Drawing from other court systems such as the UK, which have already begun to implement these technologies, however, may provide some model by which the courts could begin to make these changes.

Brittany Charles

The Terminator will be real during our lifetime. Perhaps not the Terminator, but due to low cost sensors and artificial intelligence the concept of autonomous weapons that act without human intervention is becoming a reality[1]. Weaponry capable of targeting and killing completely free of human intervention, while not available in the US, are appearing in military arsenals throughout the world[2].

According to the N.Y. Times, such operations are controversial. This is because although initially a human operator selects a target, some of these systems are designed to operate (at times over hundreds of miles) out of the control of the operator, identify and then attack a target[3]. The technology can be utilized in various weaponry systems including: robots, missiles, stationary weaponry systems and drones[4].

So why is a pentagon official reporting that low cost weaponry capable of completing military actions without human intervention dangerous? These weaponry systems are completely autonomous. According to Paul Scharre, one of the authors for the 2012 Defense Department directive report, “Having a person in the loop is not enough…the human has to be actively engaged.”[5] Furthermore, these systems are capable of being hacked, spoofed or manipulated by adversaries. Kind of like the Terminator. Perhaps a weapon that can decide how to complete military objectives and is additionally capable of being influenced by others is a weapon we might want a little more control of?

[1] John Markoff, Report Cites Dangers of Autonomous Weapons, N.Y. Times (Feb. 28, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/29/technology/report-cites-dangers-of-autonomous-weapons.html?_r=0.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

Samantha Dente

The next great frontier in medical advancements is the use of 3D printing. Although the use of 3D printing in medicine is still in its beginning stages, there are already huge implications from its use.

Most recently in September, a cancer patient received a 3D printed titanium sternum and partial rib cage to replace the bones he had lost during cancer treatment.[1] Compared to traditional flat plate implants, which tend to loosen over time and thus require follow up invasive procedures for maintenance or replacement, the success of the surgery marks a breakthrough in the medical community.[2] In addition to the more durable material, another benefit of 3D printed implants is that the implant can be made to resemble the patient’s actual anatomy with the aid of CT scans.[3]

In August, another breakthrough occurred when the FDA approved a 3D printed prescription pill for consumer use to treat epilepsy.[4]  The 3D technology allows pills to be made more porous which allows them to dissolve faster and thus act quicker.[5] Before that, in 2013, a two-year-old girl born without a trachea received a 3D printed windpipe built with her own stem cells. [6]

One of the biggest areas of concern is how the use of 3D printing will change research and development (R&D) for medical device manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies.[7] One of the foreseeable functions 3D printing is the ability to print tissues and organs for drug testing, which would in turn eliminate the need for animal testing or synthetic models which are less accurate.[8] Currently, the average R&D cost for a new drug is approximately $4 billion and the failure rate of drugs in clinical trials is 90% due to differing animal and human responses to testing.[9] By lowering the risk of trial failure, this would lead to a reduction of cost and clinical trial failures.

In 2013, the U.S. funded the “Body on a Chip” project, and just this year the first organ chips are coming to market.[10] In an effort to curb the issues with R&D described above, the project encouraged universities to essentially 3D print organs through the following process: prints of sample tissue meant to mimic human organs are placed on a microchip and connected with a blood substitute to keep cells alive. [11] This allows doctors to more accurately test specific treatments and monitor their effectiveness.[12] The military has shown interest in this project in the hopes of one day developing treatments for nuclear and biological incidents and has funded about $39 million into projects at Harvard and MIT.[13]

Although there was concern over FDA roadblocks, it has surprisingly expressed openness to the use 3D printing in R&D.[14]

It has been about thirty years since 3D printing technology was first introduced, and the biotechnology community is finally harnessing its true power and potential.[15] It has been predicted that patients eventually may be able to print their own medicines at home, which would in turn lead to a transition in how medications are prescribed.[16] It may seem like science fiction, but it is a possibility that could become a reality sooner than we think.

 

[1] Kelly Hodgkins, Cancer Patient Undergoes World’s First 3D Printed Sternum Replacement Surgery, Digital Trends (Sep. 11, 2015), http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/sternum-ribs-3d-print-implant/.

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Dominic Basulto, Why It Matters That the FDA Just Approved The First 3D Printed Drug, The Washington Post (Aug. 11, 2015),  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/08/11/why-it-matters-that-the-fda-just-approved-the-first-3d-printed-drug/.

[5] Id.

[6] Zuzanna Fiminska, 3D Printing Set To Revolutionize Pharma, Eye For Pharma (July 15, 2014), http://social.eyeforpharma.com/clinical/3d-printing-set-revolutionize-pharma.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Id.

[10] Towards a Body-On-A-Chip, The Economist (Jun 13, 2015), http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21654013-first-organ-chips-are-coming-market-and-regulators-permitting-will-speed.

[11] Fiminski, supra note 6.

[12] Id.

[13] Towards a Body-On-A-Chip, supra note 10.

[14] Basulto, supra note 4.

[15] Bethany Gross, Evaluation of 3D Printing and Its Potential Impact on Biotechnology and Chemical Sciences, Analytical Chemistry (Jan. 16, 2014), http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ac403397r.

[16] Basulto, supra note 4.

Cecilia Santostefano

Samsung’s reputation has found itself in a bit of a blazing controversy. Back in early September, Florida resident Nathan Dornacher found his Jeep Grand Cherokee in flames after leaving his Note 7 charging on the center console.[1] After thirty-five smartphone-exploding incidents were reported and confirmed, Samsung initially recalled its smartphone in ten countries.[2] As a result, customers could obtain a refund for their device or ask for a different device.[3]

It wasn’t until September 15 that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission came out and told its customers to “immediately stop using and power down the [Note 7] device.”[4] This warning, however, seems to be ineffective, as data analysis shows “the usage rate of the phone among existing users has been almost the exact same since the day of the [initial] recall [by Samsung].”[5]

The recall is quite the costly setback for Samsung, as the Galaxy Note 7 was a means to compete with large competitors like Apple.[6] New Note 7 devices are, however, scheduled to hit stores no later than September 21.[7]

 

[1] Josh Cascio, Jeep totaled by exploding Note 7, FOX 13 News, (September 7, 2016, 10:51 PM), http://www.fox13news.com/news/local-news/203295058-story.

[2] Cascio, supra note 1.

[3] Jill Disis, U.S. formally recalls Samsung Galaxy Note 7, CNN, (September 15, 2016, 5:33 PM), http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/15/technology/samsung-galaxy-note-7-cpsc/.

[4] Disis, supra note 3.

[5] Alex Johnson, Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Owners Keep Using Their Fire-Prone Phones, NBC, (September 16, 2016, 8:07 AM), http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/mobile/samsung-galaxy-note-7-owners-keep-using-fire-prone-phones-n649251.

[6] Ankur Banerjee, Samsung Galaxy Note 7 Recalled Over Battery Fires, Huffington Post, (September 15, 2016, 4:05 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/us-consumer-product-safety-commission-reportedly-plans-recall-of-samsung-galaxy-note-7_us_57dafcffe4b08cb1409476ec?section=us_technology.

[7] Banerjee, supra note 6.

Aiden Scott

As a result of the booming craft beer market, both microbreweries as well as large multinational brewing companies are encountering atypical difficulties in trademarking their products.  Due to the market crowding that “has been exacerbated by immense growth in microbreweries in recent years” some brewers have turned to other markets. In order “to appeal to a broader market” micro, and macro-brewers both have begun to add non-alcoholic drinks to their portfolio, in addition to “numerous spiked versions of traditionally virgin drinks.” This cross-marketing has caused attorneys who work for alcoholic producers to “do a lot more leg work than they did a decade ago to make sure their products don’t infringe anyone else’s trademarks.” Because consumers could be easily mistake an adult beverage for one that “looks remarkably like a non-alcoholic beverage” intellectual property attorneys who work in the alcohol industry have “a new layer of possible confusion” to work around.

See Joseph Marks, Blurring Lines Between Beer and Soda Cause Trademark Confusion, Attorneys Say, 92 BNA’s Pat., Trademark, & Copyright J. 1353, 1354 (2016).