Skip to content Intellectual Property Newsletter


Search Publications

February 2012

Intellectual Property Newsletter

Welcome to Gordon & Rees's Intellectual Property Newsletter. On a periodic basis we will provide important information about the latest legal developments in the ever-changing realm of intellectual property. 


  1. Ninth Circuit Interprets DMCA Safe Harbor in Favor of Service Providers Like Veoh

  2. AstraZeneca’s Best Defense is a Good Offense in Recent Infringement Litigation Victory

  3. Getting to Know Our IP Attorneys

  4. IP Partner Laurie Axford Rejoins Gordon & Rees's New Carlsbad Office

  5. About Gordon & Rees's Intellectual Property Practice

I.  Ninth Circuit Interprets DMCA Safe Harbor in Favor of Service Providers Like Veoh

Bron D'Angelo


Yuo-Fong “Benni” Amato

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld summary judgment and a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal in favor of a copyright infringement defendant and online service provider, Veoh Networks Inc. (“Veoh”).  UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Shelter Capital Partners LLC (Case No. 09-55902); UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc. (Case Nos. 09-56777, 10-55732) (9th Cir. Dec. 20, 2011).

Veoh operates a website ( where users upload and share their own digital videos.  Some of Veoh’s users include major entertainment industry companies, but not UMG Recordings, Inc. (“UMG”).  When certain users uploaded without authorization videos that were copyrighted by UMG, UMG sued Veoh and three of its investors.

Veoh’s investors moved for dismissal.  Veoh moved for summary judgment based on its affirmative defense that it is protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), specifically under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c), which provides that “[a] service provider  shall not be liable for monetary relief, or . . . for injunctive or other equitable relief, for infringement of copyright by reason of the storage at the direction of a user of material that resides on a system or network controlled or operated by or for the service provider,” as long as the service provider satisfied certain other conditions.   Both Veoh’s and Veoh’s investors’ motions were granted by the district court. 

To read the complete article, click here.

Back to Top

II.   AstraZeneca’s Best Defense is a Good Offense in Recent Infringement Litigation Victory

Robert Uriarte

Robert Uriarte

Last month, the Federal Circuit affirmed a Pennsylvania District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of AstraZeneca in a patent infringement suit concerning the popular cholesterol drug CRESTOR®.  Teva Pharm. Indus. v. Astrazeneca Pharms. LP, 100 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1852  (Fed. Cir. 2011).  AstraZeneca obtained this victory by conceding infringement for the limited purpose of seeking summary judgment of prior invention pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102(g)(2). 

Plaintiff Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.  ("Teva"), alleged that AstraZeneca's  CRESTOR® prescription drug products infringed certain claims of Teva's U.S. Patent No. RE39,502 ("the '502 patent").  The pharmaceutical composition disclosed in the ‘502 patent is a “statin,” a class of compounds useful for treating persons suffering from high cholesterol.  Statins are an inherently unstable and must be manufactured in stabilized formulations in order to be medically viable.   The ‘502 patent discloses a statin compound stabilized by

a stabilizing effective amount of at least one amido-group containing polymeric compound or at least one amino-group containing polymeric compound, or combination thereof, wherein said stabilized pharmaceutical composition does not contain a stabilizing effective amount of another stabilizer or a combination of other stabilizers.

 To read the complete article, click here.

Back to Top

III. Getting to Know Our IP Attorneys


Hazel Mae Pangan  

Neil F. Martin

Since first starting practice in 1969, many things have changed in patent, trademark, copyright, and in litigation practice and there has been  much to learn along the way.  Neil believes that experience is potentially the most significant characteristic an attorney can offer clients.  There are two types of experienced attorneys, those who learn from their mistakes and those who don’t.  Neil believes he is in the former category.

Pride in the quality of your work is the best motivation to insure that learning never stops and never stops being applied to the work you do for your clients.   

Neil has always been a hands-on attorney.  He started writing patents and filing trademarks and still does.   He became an experienced litigator.  Litigation teaches a patent attorney how to write patent applications that will stand up under a defendant’s attack.  A well-drafted patent makes it less likely that litigation will be necessary, and if litigation is necessary a well-drafted patent makes litigation less expensive and less uncertain.  There is a strong synergy between skill in patent prosecution and skill in litigation.

To read more about IP Attorney Neil Martin, click here.

Back to Top

IV. IP Partner Laurie Axford Rejoins Gordon & Rees's New Carlsbad Office

Laurie Axford, an accomplished intellectual property (“IP”) attorney and well-respected biotech lawyer in the San Diego bar, has rejoined Gordon & Rees LLP as a partner, and will be resident at a newly opened office in Carlsbad in North San Diego County.  Joining her in making the move are associates Brooks Gifford and Brian Sun, IP paralegal Gayle Katzman, administrator Tasha Swahn, and case assistant Kelsey Quist. The North County office brings the total of Gordon & Rees offices across the country to 21.

For more information on the Carlsbad IP attorneys, click here.


Back to Top


The IP Group assists clients in identifying, securing, asserting and defending all aspects of IP rights at home and abroad. Our attorneys can also conduct IP audits and provide advice and counseling for strategies to maximize IP assets. In addition to the traditional IP components of patents, trademark and trade dress, and copyright, Gordon & Rees's Intellectual Property Group is expert in trade secrets, internet-related issues, rights of privacy, and issues of unfair competition and antitrust as well as regulatory compliance. Our attorneys are also highly experienced at negotiating and drafting development agreements, licenses, distribution, joint venture, strategic alliance, and vendor services agreements, and have extensive experience crafting and implementing cost-efficient enforcement programs to protect IP rights including seizures, injunctions, anti-counterfeiting and gray market enforcement. Click here to meet our lawyers.

Back to Top


Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property