Blog

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notice is one of the most effective tools available to copyright owners to remove infringing material from online platforms. But what many creators and rights holders don’t realize is that sending a complaint through a company’s website—without carefully meeting the DMCA’s technical requirements—can render the notice invalid. As a result, infringing content may stay online, and the platform may continue to claim “safe harbor” immunity under the law.Passed in 1998, the DMCA created a balance between protecting copyright owners and shielding online service providers from liability for user-posted content. This so-called “Safe Harbor Provision” allows platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and Amazon to avoid liability for infringing material—provided they respond promptly to valid DMCA takedown notices. Crucially, the law lays out specific requirements for what qualifies as a valid notice. Without meeting these, the platform has no legal obligation to act, and the content often remains online.Many copyright owners assume that filing a complaint through a company’s online form or portal is enough. However, investigations have shown that some companies provide reporting systems that fall short of the statutory requirements, potentially misleading rights holders into filing defective notices. For example, Alibaba and AliExpress require copyright owners to “register” their intellectual property through an Intellectual Property Portal before submitting a complaint. Yet under the DMCA, there is no requirement that a platform first “approve” the copyright or the work. Moreover, the portal does not reference the company’s registered DMCA agent—a critical detail, as notices must be sent to the designated agent listed with the U.S. Copyright Office to be valid.Zazzle, another major platform, posts a copyright policy on its website with a Reno, Nevada mailing address, as well as email, fax, and phone contact details. However, Zazzle’s official DMCA agent, registered with the Copyright Office, is located in Menlo Park, California, with different contact information. Sending a notice only to the address listed on Zazzle’s website, rather than to the registered agent, likely results in a noncompliant notice.Apple presents a similar challenge. On its “Claims of Infringement” page, Apple lists the email address copyrightnotices@apple.com, but its registered DMCA agent on file uses the address copyrightagent@apple.com. Further complicating matters, Apple directs copyright owners to different online forms depending on whether they are reporting issues related to Apple Music, the App Store, or Apple Books. However, those forms do not clearly indicate whether they satisfy the DMCA’s statutory requirements—or whether they reach the registered agent.Other major service providers, such as Google and Instagram, also provide online forms that may appear user-friendly but raise similar concerns about statutory compliance. While they may seem convenient, rights holders should not assume these forms are legally sufficient or that they route the notice to the proper designated agent.The takeaway is clear: a DMCA takedown notice can be an incredibly effective tool—but only when executed correctly. Copyright owners must ensure their notices meet all legal requirements and are submitted to the designated agent listed in the U.S. Copyright Office directory. Relying solely on a platform’s online forms or help center guidance risks submitting a noncompliant notice, allowing the platform to maintain its DMCA safe harbor protections and leaving the infringing content online.For rights holders, understanding the nuances of the DMCA process is essential to protecting your creative work. Consulting an experienced attorney can help ensure your takedown notices are fully compliant, maximizing the chance of prompt and effective enforcement.

Your DMCA Takedowns Are Failing—Here's How to Get Them Right

Intellectual property (IP) protection is not just a legal formality—it is a critical foundation for fostering innovation, safeguarding business assets, and supporting sustainable growth for startups and small businesses. Entrepreneurs across industries face a rapidly evolving landscape, where the ability to secure and enforce IP rights can be the difference between long-term success and lost opportunities. But what does it truly mean to protect intellectual property, and how can business owners ensure their creative work is adequately shielded?Why Intellectual Property Protection Matters for Innovation At its core, IP protection empowers business owners to prevent third parties from copying or unfairly profiting from their ideas. This protection can take many forms: patents for new inventions, trademarks for distinctive brand names or logos, copyrights for original works of authorship, and trade secrets for confidential business information. These legal tools form a barrier against imitation and provide entrepreneurs with the confidence to bring their innovations to market.However, robust IP protection extends beyond the mere act of filing. Effective protection ensures that no competitor can modify your idea just enough to avoid direct copying while retaining its core value. A well-crafted IP strategy, designed with the help of skilled legal counsel, seeks to secure broad, enforceable coverage. This deters would-be infringers from capitalizing on the hard work and ingenuity of others.Just as important as securing IP rights is the ability to enforce them. An entrepreneur with a portfolio of patents or trademarks that are costly or difficult to enforce gains little practical benefit. Similarly, weak enforcement mechanisms—such as slow or ineffective takedown procedures on online marketplaces—can dilute the value of IP rights. The right balance between strong legal protections and accessible enforcement is what truly encourages innovation. When competitors know that infringement carries real legal consequences, they are more likely to invest in their own research and development rather than taking shortcuts.Common IP Mistakes and How to Avoid Them One of the most frequent pitfalls among entrepreneurs is treating IP protection as a one-time task. The reality is that IP strategy must evolve alongside the business. As companies expand, launch new products, or pivot their services, they should periodically reassess their IP portfolio to ensure it continues to align with their operations and goals.Another common mistake is relying on do-it-yourself (DIY) IP protection in an effort to minimize legal fees. While this approach may seem cost-effective in the short term, it carries significant risks. Poorly drafted applications or incomplete protections can leave a business vulnerable, sometimes irreparably. For those early in their entrepreneurial journey, consulting with an IP attorney—even briefly—can ensure that DIY efforts align with best practices and legal standards. The cost of early, competent legal advice is often outweighed by the long-term benefits of securing enforceable rights that protect the company’s core assets.There are many examples of innovative businesses that faced costly legal battles or were unable to defend their market position due to inadequate IP strategies. Avoiding these outcomes requires proactive, informed decision-making from the start.Emerging IP Challenges in New Technologies As industries evolve, so too do the challenges associated with protecting intellectual property. Emerging sectors such as generative artificial intelligence (AI), biotechnology, and green technology introduce complex questions that traditional IP frameworks are still adapting to address.For example, with generative AI, questions arise over the ownership of works created by machines. If AI generates content based on human prompts, who holds the rights—the individual providing the prompts, the developer of the AI, or the AI itself? While courts and regulatory bodies continue to refine their approaches, these uncertainties create a challenging environment for innovators seeking to protect their AI-generated creations.Similarly, biotechnology and green technology are areas of rapid innovation and regulatory complexity. Navigating patent eligibility for biotech inventions or securing proprietary rights for sustainable technologies requires specialized legal knowledge that keeps pace with both scientific advancements and legal developments.Aligning IP Strategy With Business Growth Successful IP protection is not only about securing rights but also about aligning those rights with long-term business goals. An IP strategy should adapt as a business scales, ensuring that its protections evolve alongside its products, services, and markets. This alignment supports sustainable growth, strengthens competitive advantage, and enhances overall business value.At Campo Law, we recognize that every entrepreneur’s journey is unique. Whether you prefer a hands-on role in shaping your IP portfolio or would rather delegate the process entirely, we tailor our approach to meet your specific needs. By offering strategic guidance and flexible support, we help ensure that your intellectual property serves as a valuable asset—one that grows and adapts with your business over time.For entrepreneurs and innovators, securing strong IP protection is not just a legal necessity—it is an investment in the future of your business. By taking proactive steps today, you can safeguard your ideas, encourage innovation, and build a resilient foundation for tomorrow.

IP Protection for Entrepreneurs and Innovators: A Helpful Guide

Artificial Intelligence Machine Learning Natural Language Processing Data Technology

The intersection of artificial intelligence and patent law continues to evolve, raising important questions for innovators and patent practitioners alike. In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently provided new guidance on patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for inventions involving machine learning. The decision in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp. underscores the challenges—and opportunities—of securing patent protection for AI-related technologies.In this case, the Federal Circuit confronted, for the first time, the patent eligibility of claims applying generic machine learning methods to specific data environments. The patents at issue described systems for optimizing event schedules and television network maps using machine learning algorithms. Despite recognizing the importance of machine learning as a transformative technology, the Court affirmed the district court’s ruling that the asserted patents were invalid under § 101. This decision provides valuable insights for patent prosecution and litigation strategies in the AI domain.The Patents at Issue: Machine Learning in Scheduling and Broadcasting The dispute arose from two families of patents owned by Recentive Analytics. One set of patents focused on using machine learning to optimize the scheduling of live events—a valuable tool in the entertainment industry. The representative claims involved four key steps: collecting event data, training a machine learning model on that data, generating optimized schedules, and updating the schedules based on new information.The second set of patents targeted the application of machine learning to generate optimized “network maps” for television broadcasting. These maps determine what content is aired on which channels in specific geographic regions and time slots. The claims similarly involved collecting broadcasting schedules, analyzing the data to create a network map, updating the map in real-time, and using the map to determine programming.While these patents applied machine learning in practical contexts, they did not, as the Federal Circuit emphasized, disclose improvements to the underlying machine learning models themselves. This distinction proved critical to the Court’s analysis.The Federal Circuit’s Ruling: Applying the Alice Framework The Federal Circuit applied the familiar two-step analysis established by the Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l to determine patent eligibility. Under step one, the Court concluded that the claims were directed to abstract ideas: namely, producing schedules and network maps using generic machine learning techniques. The Court emphasized that human actors have long performed similar tasks, and that applying conventional machine learning to automate these processes did not, in itself, constitute a patentable invention.Significantly, the patent owner conceded during oral argument that the patents did not disclose any specific improvements to machine learning algorithms. Instead, the patents described the use of standard machine learning techniques to process data and output results faster than human efforts. The Federal Circuit has consistently held that such applications of conventional technology to accelerate human activities remain ineligible for patent protection.At step two of the Alice analysis, the Court examined whether the claims contained an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Recentive argued that using machine learning to dynamically generate and update schedules and maps based on real-time data qualified as such a concept. However, the Court disagreed, characterizing these features as inherent to the abstract idea itself. Without a specific technical improvement or novel mechanism for implementing the machine learning, the claims failed to satisfy the requirements of § 101.The Court also rejected Recentive’s request for leave to amend its claims, noting that the company failed to propose any amendments or identify factual issues that could alter the eligibility analysis. As such, any amendment would have been futile.Key Takeaways for Patent Practitioners and Innovators This decision offers important lessons for those preparing and prosecuting patents in the AI space:<ol style=""><li>Generic Applications of Machine Learning Are Insufficient: Simply applying conventional machine learning algorithms to new data environments or industries does not meet the threshold for patent eligibility under § 101. The invention must disclose a specific improvement to the machine learning technology or demonstrate a novel implementation. </li><li>Focus on Technical Improvements: While the Court invalidated the patents in this case, it explicitly left the door open for AI inventions that enhance machine learning models themselves. Improvements to the algorithms, data processing techniques, or system architectures that enable more efficient or effective machine learning could qualify as patent-eligible subject matter. </li><li>Early Consideration of Litigation Defenses: Given the prevalence of § 101 challenges at the motion-to-dismiss stage in patent litigation, companies developing AI technologies should consider potential eligibility issues early in the patent drafting process. Identifying and articulating specific technical contributions in the claims and specifications can strengthen the likelihood of surviving judicial scrutiny. </li><li>Clarify the Inventive Concept: Claims should not merely recite the use of machine learning in a broad or functional manner. Instead, they should delineate how the machine learning method achieves a technical improvement, whether through enhanced model accuracy, novel training methods, or innovative data structures. </li></ol>Looking Ahead: Opportunities in AI Patent Strategy The Recentive Analytics decision reinforces the need for precision and technical depth in patent applications involving artificial intelligence. While the ruling invalidated patents that applied off-the-shelf machine learning to familiar tasks, it also highlighted a path forward for innovators seeking to protect genuine advancements in AI technology.As machine learning continues to permeate industries ranging from healthcare to finance, the ability to secure meaningful patent protection hinges on demonstrating how these innovations advance the state of the art. For companies and inventors working at the cutting edge of AI, collaborating with experienced patent counsel can help craft robust applications that withstand legal challenges and maximize the value of their intellectual property.At Campo Law, we specialize in navigating the complexities of patent strategy for emerging technologies. If your business is developing AI-driven solutions and you want to safeguard your innovations, contact us today to discuss how we can help you achieve strong, defensible patent protection.

Patent Eligibility for AI Inventions: Lessons from the Federal Circuit

Basketball, multiple basketballs on simple background

Every spring, as the NCAA basketball tournament grips the nation, another kind of championship quietly takes place—one where the titans of invention face off to see which innovation stands above the rest. This year’s "Innovation Madness," a playful but thought-provoking competition among iconic basketball-related patents, crowned a winner that underscores the profound impact intellectual property can have on an entire industry.The finalists? The basketball itself and basketball shoes. While footwear has become synonymous with player identity and performance, it was the humble basketball—the very heart of the sport—that ultimately claimed victory. This outcome offers a valuable lens for understanding the power of a well-executed patent: the ability to set enduring standards, redefine industries, and create foundational tools that withstand the test of time.A Look Back at the Final Four The tournament began with fierce matchups, highlighting some of basketball’s most pivotal innovations. On one side of the bracket, the original basketball (patented in 1929 as US1,718,305) squared off against the orange basketball—an innovation from the mid-20th century that made the game easier to follow, particularly for spectators and television audiences. Despite the orange ball’s visibility revolution, it couldn’t eclipse the significance of the original basketball design itself—the very object that makes the sport possible.Meanwhile, basketball shoes (US1,962,526), patented in 1934, took on the basket suspension system (US1,757,350), a mechanism that introduced retractable hoops and allowed gymnasiums to serve multiple functions. Though the suspension system was transformative for arena design, the evolution of basketball footwear proved more central to the player experience, leading the shoes to advance to the finals.The Championship: The Ball vs. The Shoes The final contest between the basketball and basketball shoes was a reflection of two essential pillars of the sport: the equipment that defines gameplay and the gear that supports athlete performance.On one hand stood John T. Riddell’s basketball shoes, the first to feature rubber soles specifically designed for indoor courts. This innovation marked the beginning of a long lineage of performance-enhancing footwear, spawning a global sneaker industry that extends well beyond the hardwood. From Converse to Air Jordans, basketball shoes have not only optimized player agility and safety but also become cultural touchstones, influencing fashion and music worldwide.On the other hand was George L. Pierce’s basketball, patented in 1929. Pierce’s design introduced key improvements to the construction of the basketball, including balanced panels with rounded polar regions, stronger materials in high-stress zones, and a more symmetrical shape. These enhancements addressed earlier design flaws, offering players better grip, bounce, and consistency—qualities that remain integral to today’s game. Even with advancements in synthetic materials, Pierce’s panel structure and construction methodology endure as the gold standard.Why the Basketball Took the Title While shoes elevate the player’s potential, it is the ball that makes the game itself possible. Every shot, every rebound, and every historic buzzer-beater begins with the basketball. Pierce’s invention standardized the equipment at the center of every play, ensuring fairness, predictability, and a uniform experience across generations of athletes and fans.Basketball shoes, though transformative, exist in service to the player. The ball, by contrast, exists in service to the game. It’s the one piece of equipment that every participant must engage with, regardless of their role or style of play. Without the basketball, there is no sport—no courtside drama, no moments of triumph, no shared cultural experiences.The Broader Lesson: Patents that Shape Industries The victory of the basketball in Innovation Madness serves as a powerful reminder of the role that intellectual property plays in shaping industries. A well-conceived patent doesn’t just protect an idea; it often sets the standard for how entire sectors operate. Pierce’s 1929 patent is a prime example of how innovation, when properly secured and implemented, can endure for nearly a century, defining both the practical and cultural dimensions of a sport.At Campo Law, we recognize the importance of protecting not just ideas, but innovations that define markets. Whether you’re a startup founder with the next big concept or an established company refining your intellectual property strategy, securing the right protections can be the difference between fleeting relevance and lasting impact.For more insights on intellectual property and how it can shape your business, explore our blog or contact us directly. We’re here to help your innovations take center stage—just like the basketball.

How a 1929 Patent Shaped the Game of Basketball

In a significant decision for trademark owners and business stakeholders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reaffirmed the strict standing requirements for pursuing trademark cancellation actions. In Luca McDermott Catena Gift Trust v. Fructuoso-Hobbs SL, 102 F.4th 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2024), the court held that a minority limited partner in a winery lacked the statutory standing necessary to seek cancellation of trademarks owned by two other wineries, despite claiming likelihood of confusion and fraud. This ruling underscores the importance of understanding both constitutional and statutory standing when considering trademark disputes, particularly in the context of ownership structures.The case arose under 15 U.S.C. § 1064, the section of the Lanham Act that governs trademark cancellations. To successfully bring such an action, a petitioner must satisfy not only the constitutional standing requirements under Article III but also meet statutory standing criteria. Specifically, the petitioner must demonstrate both that their interests fall within the “zone of interests” protected by the statute and that the alleged trademark violation proximately caused their injury. These two elements—zone of interests and proximate causation—are derived from the Supreme Court’s standing framework established in Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118 (2014).In Luca McDermott, the petitioner, a minority limited partner in Paul Hobbs Winery, sought to cancel the trademarks ALVAREDOS-HOBBS and HILLICK AND HOBBS, owned by Fructuoso-Hobbs SL and Hillick &amp; Hobbs Estate, LLC, respectively. The petitioner and two other minority partners, together holding a 21.6% stake in the winery, argued that these marks created a likelihood of confusion with the winery’s PAUL HOBBS trademark for wines. They also alleged that the owners of the contested marks committed fraud when they represented to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that their marks would not cause confusion with existing marks. After the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) dismissed the petition, only the Luca McDermott trust appealed to the Federal Circuit.The Federal Circuit examined whether the petitioner qualified under the Lanham Act’s statutory standing framework. First, the court addressed the “zone of interests” requirement, which mandates that a petitioner demonstrate a legitimate commercial interest in the trademark allegedly infringed. Importantly, the petitioner in this case did not individually own or conduct business under the PAUL HOBBS mark; instead, its interest derived solely from its minority ownership in the winery that did. The court concluded that such indirect ownership does not confer standing, as the Lanham Act’s protections primarily extend to parties engaged in commerce, not passive investors or those without a direct commercial stake. The court’s interpretation followed prior rulings, including Empresa Cubana del Tabaco v. General Cigar Co., 753 F.3d 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and Cunningham v. Laser Golf Corp., 222 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2000), which emphasized that a “direct commercial interest” is essential to meet this threshold.Next, the court analyzed the proximate causation requirement, asking whether the alleged harm to the petitioner flowed directly from the challenged trademarks’ existence. Drawing on Lexmark, the court likened the petitioner’s alleged injury to that of third-party business partners—such as landlords or utility companies—who might suffer economic harm indirectly from a trademark dispute affecting their clients. Because any injury the petitioner faced hinged on harm first occurring to the winery itself, the court deemed the injury too remote and derivative to satisfy proximate causation.Ultimately, the Federal Circuit affirmed that neither a minority ownership stake nor indirect financial interest in a trademark owner’s business is sufficient to support a cancellation action under § 1064. This decision reinforces that standing to challenge a trademark requires more than a financial connection—it demands a clear, direct commercial interest and a concrete, non-derivative harm.For business owners, investors, and trademark holders, Luca McDermott serves as a critical reminder: legal rights to enforce or challenge trademarks are closely tied to one’s role in commerce. Passive stakeholders and minority investors must carefully evaluate their legal footing before initiating trademark disputes. At Campo Law, we advise clients on navigating the complexities of trademark enforcement, ownership structures, and dispute resolution, ensuring they meet the necessary legal thresholds before pursuing any action.For more insights on trademark law and intellectual property strategies tailored to your business, contact Campo Law today.&nbsp; Let me know if you’d like adjustments to tone, keyword density, or further SEO refinements.

Minority Ownership Alone = No Standing in TM Cancellation

On April 14, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a cautionary reminder to trademark applicants: when it comes to appealing a refusal, an incomplete evidentiary record can sink your case. In In re: R.S. Lipman Brewing Company, No. 2023-2131, the court upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) refusal to register the mark CHICKEN SCRATCH for beer. The reason? An existing registration for CHICKEN SCRATCH used in connection with restaurant services.At first glance, this outcome might seem surprising. After all, beer and restaurant services are distinct categories. Yet, trademark law often turns on the likelihood of consumer confusion between goods and services that may seem unrelated at first. This case exemplifies how courts evaluate such confusion, especially when the mark itself—here, CHICKEN SCRATCH—is identical.For some historical context, compare this decision to the 2003 ruling involving BLUE MOON for beer. At that time, Coors successfully registered BLUE MOON for its beer despite an existing registration for BLUE MOON &amp; Design for restaurant services. The key difference was the evidence presented. Coors demonstrated that only 1,450 out of approximately 815,000 restaurants nationwide were brewpubs or microbreweries—a fraction the court deemed “de minimis.” This minimized the likelihood of overlap between the beer and restaurant industries for that mark.In contrast, R.S. Lipman Brewing Company’s argument fell short. The applicant provided data showing that there are 7,480 small and independent breweries in the United States but failed to contextualize this figure against the total number of restaurants currently operating. This omission proved critical. The court explicitly declined to rely on the restaurant data from the earlier BLUE MOON case, emphasizing that up-to-date, case-specific evidence is necessary. Furthermore, the court pointed to the existence of 21 active trademark registrations covering both beer and restaurant services, as well as 18 restaurant websites where house-brewed beer shares the same name as the establishment. Together, these facts amounted to what the court called “substantial evidence” supporting the USPTO’s finding that beer and restaurant services are related for trademark purposes.The applicant’s efforts to distinguish the commercial impression of the marks also fell flat. R.S. Lipman argued that its beer label, depicting chickens pecking at grains, played on the ingredients in its pilsner—corn, barley, and other grains—and that this imagery differentiated its mark from the restaurant’s use. However, the court reaffirmed that trademark comparisons focus on the marks themselves—not their associated imagery or marketing context—unless that context directly shapes consumer perception. Similarly, the applicant claimed that the restaurant’s focus on chicken dishes “made from scratch” created a separate impression for the CHICKEN SCRATCH mark. The court dismissed this too, finding no evidence that consumers would independently associate CHICKEN SCRATCH with either concept. As such, the court treated the marks as identical in sight, sound, and commercial impression.Key Takeaways for Trademark Applicants This case underscores the importance of building a robust factual record when responding to a USPTO refusal or appealing a denial. Simply relying on industry trends or anecdotal evidence is rarely sufficient. Instead, applicants must offer concrete, current data that directly supports their position—whether it relates to the market overlap between goods and services or the distinctiveness of their mark’s commercial impression.Additionally, this decision reinforces a longstanding principle in trademark law: identical marks used in related industries—even if not directly competing—can create a likelihood of confusion. The increasing convergence of services, such as restaurants brewing and selling their own beer, only heightens this risk.In trademark registration, as this case shows, the stakes are high and shortcuts are costly. Establishing a clear, persuasive record from the outset remains essential for securing protection. Taking the time to gather and present strong evidence is not just prudent—it is often the decisive factor between registration and refusal.

Insights

Your DMCA Takedowns Are Failing—Here's How to Get Them Right

IP Protection for Entrepreneurs and Innovators: A Helpful...

Patent Eligibility for AI Inventions: Lessons from the Fe...

How a 1929 Patent Shaped the Game of Basketball

Minority Ownership Alone = No Standing in TM Cancellation

Beer and Restaurants Can Be Confused...