by Kathleen Lynch | Apr 14, 2026 | Copying, Copyright, Infringement, Intellectual Property, Internet, Litigation, Small Business
In a major blow to copyright holders, a recent high stakes battle between Cox Communications and Sony Music Entertainment has redefined the boundaries of internet service provider (ISP) liability.
The Background: 163,000 Red Flags
As an ISP, Cox provides the “pipes” for the internet. Sony, representing various music copyright owners, employed the firm MarkMonitor to track illegal downloads. Over a two-year period, Sony sent Cox approximately 163,000 notices identifying specific IP addresses associated with copyright infringement.
Despite these thousands of notices, the infringing activity continued. Sony sued Cox in federal district court on two counts:
- Contributory Infringement: Claiming Cox contributed to the users’ illegal activity.
- Vicarious Liability: Claiming Cox was responsible for the infringement occurring on its network.
The initial jury found Cox liable on both counts. However, upon appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a split decision: it affirmed the contributory infringement but reversed the vicarious liability.
The Ruling: Intent is Everything
The Supreme Court ultimately held that Cox was not liable for contributory infringement. The reasoning? Cox did not intend for its service to be used for illegal downloading.
The court found that:
- Cox did not actively induce users to infringe.
- The service was not “tailored” specifically for copyright
- Providing a general-purpose tool (internet access) that can be used for infringement is not the same as intending for it to happen.
The Takeaway: Knowledge vs. Intent
The court’s decision essentially looked past the fact that Cox received 163,000 notices and did nothing. The takeaway for IP owners is clear: To prevail on contributory infringement, you must prove intent. Simply knowing that a service can be used for infringing activity—or even being told it is being used that way—may no longer be enough to hold a service provider liable if the service has substantial non-infringing uses. In this case, the court decided that “knowing” wasn’t “doing.”
Protect Your Innovation
Protecting your intellectual property is critical to the survival of any organization. In a changing legal landscape, having the right counsel to help you navigate these decisions is more important than ever.
The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help your business stay ahead of the game.
Your first consultation is free. Email us: kl****@*****aw.com
by Kathleen Lynch | Apr 7, 2026 | Entrepreneurship, Infringement, Innovation, Intellectual Property, Invention, Inventor, Patent, Start Up, Start Up Considerations, US Patent Office
In patent law, making sure that all the correct inventors are named in a patent application is critical to the validity of the patent. If an inventor is incorrectly included, or if an inventor is omitted from the list of named inventors, it can result in a patent being found invalid and thus unenforceable.
This happened recently to Fortress Iron, LP (“Fortress”). This week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled against Fortress in Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc.,. The case involved a couple of issued patents directed to a vertical railing panel that could be purchased as a pre-assembled panel. The idea was initially developed in 2013 by two Fortress employees in the U.S. However, the initial design had issues relating to rotation of the panel during tensioning of the cables. Fortress works with two Chinese companies, a manufacturing company and a quality control company to produce its products. An employee from the manufacturing company and an employee for the quality control company worked with Fortress to revise the railing panel design to alleviate the rotation during tensioning.
After a final design was completed, Fortress applied and obtained two patents for its vertical railing panel. Both Fortress employees were named as inventors but neither the manufacturing company employee nor the quality control company employee were named as inventors. In 2016, the quality control employee involved in the design of the railing panel left his employment and did not provide a forwarding address.
In 2021, Fortress sued Digger Specialties Inc. (“Digger”) for patent infringement of the two patents directed to the vertical railing panel. During the lawsuit, it was discovered that the two Chinese employees were omitted from the patents when they should have been included. Moreover, Fortress could not amend the patent to include the quality control employee because he left no forwarding address after his employment and could not be found.
The appeals court ruled that because Fortress was not able to name him as an inventor, the patents were invalid. Fortress was unable to assert its infringement claim against Digger because the patents were no longer valid and thus unenforceable.
What’s the takeaway here? Patent inventorship is an important consideration when filing for a patent. Inventorship is defined as a person who has contributed to the conception of the invention. Conception has been described as someone who has a definite idea of the complete invention. Because the claims of a patent define the invention, an inventor is anyone who has contributed to the conception of at least one claim in the patent. Failure to include an inventor or including a non-inventor can jeopardize the validity of your issued patent.
Protecting your innovative developments is critical to any organization. Having the right person to help you make that decision is important. The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game. The first consultation is free. Email us at kl****@*****aw.com.
by Kathleen Lynch | Feb 12, 2016 | Intellectual Property
A recent Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision highlights the need to ensure that contracts with third parties ensure that any intellectual property developed is owned by the company. In TriReme Med., LLC v. AngioScore, Inc., TriReme sued to correct inventorship on some AngioScore patents directed to angioplasty balloon catheters. AngioScore had hired a consultant, Dr. Lotan. Dr. Lotan was not named as an inventor in any of the AngioScore patents at issue. TriReme, motivated by a concern that AngioScore may sue for patent infringement, acquired from Dr. Lotan, all of his interest in the subject AngioScore patents.
AngioScore offered up the consulting agreement executed with Dr. Lotan in defense. AngioScore asserted that it obtained all rights in all inventive works by Dr. Lotan.
The Federal Circuit disagreed. The court found that the agreement did not give AngioScore rights to Dr. Lotan’s inventions developed or made prior to the agreement and remanded the case back to district court to determine whether the language in the agreement grants AngioScore rights in any inventive developments made by Dr. Lotan after that execution of the agreement.
What’s the take away here? When contracting with any third party, be sure to cover all aspects of ownership of any intellectual property developed during the term of the agreement. Also ensure that all parties to the agreement have a clear understanding as to who is entitled to what when dealing with IP developed by the third party either before or after the term of the agreement.
Protecting your innovative developments is critical to any organization. Having the right person to help you make that decision is important. The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game. The first telephone consultation is free. Email us at kl****@*****aw.com.
by Kathleen Lynch | Feb 25, 2015 | Copying, Copyright, Infringement, Intellectual Property
If anyone caught the halftime show at the Super Bowl this year, you may remember the dancing sharks that were a part of Katy Perry’s halftime show. The sharks were an instant sensation, particularly the left shark who was seen dancing awkwardly behind Ms. Perry. Now one businessman has tried to capitalize on that.
Fernando Sosa is in the 3D printing business. Mr. Sosa makes and sells 3D printed sculptures typically of political figures. After the Super Bowl, Mr. Sosa developed and offered for sale a replica “Left Shark” figure. Attorneys for Katy Perry quickly fired off a cease and desist letter to Mr. Sosa claiming that the figure infringed Katy Perry’s intellectual property. In particular, the letter alleged that Mr. Sosa’s selling of the shark figurine violated Ms. Perry’s copyrights in the shark. Mr. Sosa has agreed to stop selling the shark.
According to CNN, Mr. Sosa remarked “ it looks like dictators and world leaders like Putin and Kim Jong Un or Chris Christie are much easier to deal with,” and “all this lawyer crap is stressful.”
Take away: before considering copying something in a public domain, think about whether any third party may have rights to the subject matter. This applies to sharks as well as digital images and content on the internet. Even though a digitized item can be downloaded, doesn’t mean it should be. One way to err on the side of caution is to check the ownership of the item. If a copyright notice accompanies the material that indicates the owner. Most owners can be contacted and some may grant a license to you to use their image or content (or shark) as you would like. However, it is the owner’s right to grant and not yours to take.
Protecting your innovative developments and respecting the intellectual property rights of third parties is critical to any organization. Having the right person to help you make those decisions is important. The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game. The first telephone consultation is free. Email us at kl****@*****aw.com.
by Kathleen Lynch | Nov 13, 2014 | Copyright, Intellectual Property
This is one in a series of posts covering some basic aspects of intellectual property law. Previous posts touch on patents (parts 1 and 2) and trademarks (parts 3 and 4). This post will cover the general elements of copyright law.
Copyright law protects the expression of an idea fixed in a tangible medium. Thus, the protection is more limited than other aspects of intellectual property law. However, if copyright infringement is found, relief to the copyright owner can include an order against further infringement as well as money damages which can range from between $200 and $300,000 per act of infringement. Damages may also include attorneys’ fees and costs. Infringers may also be subject to criminal prosecution and may be imprisoned if found guilty.
Types of works covered by copyright law include:
- literary;
- musical;
- dramatic;
- pantomimes and choreographic works;
- pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
- audiovisual works;
- sound recordings;
- derivative works;
- compilations; and
- architectural works.
In order to proceed with a copyright infringement action, you must register your work with the United States Copyright Office. This can be done online on their website.
Copyright notice is given by using “©” followed by the year or years in which the work was published and the owner. In addition, a statement such as “all rights reserved” or “no unauthorized use permitted” may follow the notice. This puts the public on notice of your intent to enforce your rights via copyright law.
Protecting your innovative developments is critical to any organization. Having the right person to help you make that decision is important. The Law Office of Kathleen Lynch PLLC is designed to help businesses such as yours keep ahead of the game. The first telephone consultation is free. Email us at kl****@*****aw.com.
by Kathleen Lynch | Sep 2, 2014 | Intellectual Property
This week I am highlighting a recent article written by Mark Schultz and Adam Mossoff on the connection between intellectual property rights and economic prosperity. In sum, the article makes an excellent connection between the strength of a country’s IP system to that of its economy.
One could argue that a country like China that has not historically enforced intellectual property still has a strong economy. But China has made progress in their IP system and the enforcement of intellectual property rights under that system.
In general, the evidence seems to indicate that where intellectual property rights are protected, and where innovation is encouraged, the economy will grow.
