Home Marijuana Patent Infringement Indemnification: Do You Have It? – Canna Legislation Weblog™

Patent Infringement Indemnification: Do You Have It? – Canna Legislation Weblog™


Final week, a serious hashish model was sued for patent infringement by Geographic Location Improvements (“GLI”) within the District Court docket of Colorado. The Grievance alleges GLI is the proprietor of the ‘285 Patent, titled “System, System and Methodology for Remotely Getting into, Storing and Sharing Addresses for a Positional Data System,” which amongst different issues, permits a consumer to request an tackle, such because the tackle for a retailer, from a server. The server determines the requested tackle and transmits it to the consumer. The system may decide route steering to the shop tackle primarily based not less than partially on the situation of the consumer.

The defendant’s web site has the same retailer locator system that GLI claims infringes the ‘285 Patent. A consumer is ready to enter an tackle and the web site will present a listing of the closest retail places. The web site may even load navigation if the consumer requests instructions. For those who’re studying this and pondering “wow, most retail web sites I’ve accessed currently have this characteristic,” you’re completely proper. GLI has been busy – our search of the federal courts discovered that GLI has filed 49 lawsuits since 2016, with 11 of them nonetheless ongoing. And naturally, it bears mentioning that this development of patent infringement litigation will solely develop into increasingly prevalent within the trade as gamers concentrate on their on-line presence.

The true takeaway I’ve from reviewing this lawsuit is that this: do you may have mental property protections in place? Most of our shoppers are visionaries which are constructing and implementing their enterprise plans, establishing enterprise relationships, and many others. They’re additionally establishing their on-line presences, however the precise work of making an internet site is being outsourced to net builders most of the time. In such conditions, it’s necessary to not gloss over the indemnification provisions of the settlement.

Some builders, who’re conscious that mental property trolls are on the rise, flat out refuse to conform to any indemnification. These builders really feel they’re simply constructing what the shopper is requesting, and the shopper ought to due to this fact bear the burden of potential patent infringement. Nonetheless, if the developer is suggesting options, or utilizing “dwelling grown” templates or instruments, full mental property indemnification might be correct and ought to be fought for (or not less than, paid a premium for). Given each scenario is totally different, your arguments for keen on full indemnification could change, however in completely each case, the dangers and advantages which will outcome from this sometimes “boilerplate” provision have to be weighed.

As you may see from the cautionary story above, it could serve you very effectively to have correct indemnification clauses in place. In any other case, if you end up in litigation over one thing you had little or no to no management over, you is perhaps left holding the bag for another person’s mistake. Don’t depend on your net developer for authorized recommendation. Our mental property workforce has seen all of it and is right here to assist.

For previous posts on the significance of indemnification provisions in different contexts, see: