Doug Emhoff, IP Attorney

Patent

I’ll mention here that the new Second Gentleman Doug Emhoff is an litigator, and has handled a number of intellectual property cases. These were primarily entertainment related copyright and trademark cases, although he has worked on a few patent cases as well.

Examples:

  • Jukin Media, Inc. v. Viumbe, LLC et al. (2017).  In this case, Emhoff represented the copyright holder Jukin Media.  Jukin media apparently finds popular user-generated content online and then helps the creators license it for money.
  • GMYL, L.P. v. James Martin et al. (2016). Emhoff represented Francis Ford Coppola’s company GMYL in a TM case regarding the COPPOLA mark.  (Disclosure, I did some work for these folks while in practice as well).
  • The Estate of James J Marshall v. Thierry Guetta et al (2012). This is a pretty interesting copyright case. Marshall has a number of iconic photographs of famous musicians. (Coltrane; Sonny Rollins; Thelonious Monk; etc.) Guetta stylized those photos and started making money from them. Emhoff represented Guetta. The parties settled with an unspecified payment from Guetta.

Hide comments

33 thoughts on “Doug Emhoff, IP Attorney”

  3. 3

    OT here, but relevant to a large percentage of new patent suits – from Gene’s blog today:

    “..the Waco [WDTX] Courthouse’s telephonic, audio and video capabilities are now equal to that of any courthouse in the land.”
    [And, the article says, it has more civil cases than anywhere else in WDTX.]

    Gee, I wonder how that huge change, with all its required funding, suddenly happened?

    1. 3.1

      Would that sort of information–about the appropriations for the courthouse–be publicly available? I’m not taking the Mick here, just genuinely curious.

  5. 1

    Ugh,

    Can we reserve “patent attorney” for those with registration numbers?

    There are FAR too many litigators that hold anti-patent views and the use of the label of “patent attorney” for mere litigators gives these folk too much cache for their anti-patent views.

    2. 1.2

      Did Emhoff anywhere personally refer to himself as a patent attorney? I only see “IP Attorney” in this post, but obviously that’s not the same. Moreover, as far as I can tell, it’s just Prof. C.’s characterization of Emhoff.

      While it doesn’t seem germane here, I would tend to agree with the general point that a “mere” patent litigator lacking a reg number shouldn’t hold oneself out as a patent attorney. That said, I haven’t come across anyone doing that in my own travels. And I doubt the general public (quite different from the target audience of this blog, of course) who are just casually reading news articles would know or care much about the distinctions between patent, IP, litigators, and attorneys.

      1. 1.2.1

        Loose use — as is here — only feeds the distortion. We — as actual professionals that CAN call ourselves patent attorneys should care whether or not the public can and does make that distinction.

        That’s kind of the point of my “ugh.”

        1. 1.2.1.1

          Your point is well taken and I agree. Professionals should absolutely hold themselves to a higher standard. And, to my limited knowledge, they have been. For example, as far as I know, Emhoff only holds himself out as an entertainment lawyer, which seems fair. Wikipedia likewise describes him as an “entertainment litigator”.

        1. 1.3.1.1

          -1

          It doesn’t even get an E for effort in trying to formulate a devastating putdown. Back to remedial troll school it is then.

      2. 1.3.2

        Actually AAA JJ it is a very important point.

        People like Lemley try to characterize themselves as patent attorneys to imply that they have training in science and engineering when they don’t.

        This is incredibly important and I think most of the anti-patent movement is based on exploiting the ignorance of judges and legislators regarding science and engineering.

        And it led to Obama not caring if the people he appointed to the CAFC had a science background or not.

        Really sad.

        1. 1.3.2.1

          Lemley does not describe himself as a “patent attorney” on either his firm bio, his Stanford bio, or his Twitter account.

          1. 1.3.2.1.1

            AAA JJ, and does that negate what I said?

            He has been called out for trying pass himself off as a patent attorney before.

            1. 1.3.2.1.1.1

              More directly to your point, Night Writer, he has directly tried to influence patent law (to his personal benefit and to the detriment of innovators) with “Friends of the Court” advocacy.

              It’s plain to see what AAA JJ so feverishly seeks to diminish.

        2. 1.3.2.2

          I’m sure this topic will soon devolve into the same diaper filling exercise that occurred over at Big Gene’s place when the end of western civilization was predicted as a result of letting people with computer science degrees take the patent bar under Category A.

Comments are closed.