Five Best Ways to Protect Your Ideas

Idea

When I first meet a client, I am often asked “How can I protect my ideas?” While it may seem like a simple question, getting the answer right is often tricky. That’s because one can’t actually own an idea, in and of itself. Sounds confusing, I know. The five best ways to protect your ideas are 1) Identify, 2) Organize, 3) Register (or restrict), 4) Monitor, and 5) Enforce. This articles focuses on how to identify the best ways to protect your ideas.

Regardless of industry, Ideas are the keys to any successful business. While one cannot “own” an idea, one can protect one’s Intellectual Property rights that relate to the embodiment or manifestation of that idea. For example, Copyright, Patent, Trademark, Trade Secret and Publicity Rights are all forms of Intellectual Property rights that grant exclusive rights to the owner, both artistic and commercial.

Copyright protects works of creative artistic expression such as books, movies, audio-visual music, paintings, photographs, and importantly, software. Copyright protection requires that a work be “fixed” in tangible format (this includes electronic format) and gives the owner (called the “author”) of such works the exclusive rights to reproduce, distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, and modify a work for a certain period of time.

Patents (utility and design), Trademarks and Trade Secrets protect creative commercial expression sometimes known as “industrial properties,” as they are typically created and used for industrial or commercial purposes.

A Patent protects the invention or discovery of “any new and useful process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” A Patent gives the inventor “the right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling” the invention in the United States or “importing” the invention into the United States for a period of time.

A Trademark is any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination, used, or intended to be used, in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from others, and to indicate the source of the goods. In short, a trademark is a brand name or logo that is a distinctive sign which is used to prevent confusion among products in the marketplace. A Trademark enjoys protection indefinitely, as long as it is being used.

An industrial design right protects the form of appearance, style or design of an industrial object from infringement.

A Trade Secret is an item of non-public information concerning the commercial practices or proprietary knowledge of a business. Public disclosure of trade secrets may sometimes be illegal. A Trade secret enjoys protection indefinitely, as long as it is being kept secret.

Some rights are “statutory” in that they exist because they are granted by the Constitution of the United States, e.g. Copyright and Patent. Other rights arise from “use,” e.g. Trademark and Trade Secret rights. Some arise under State law, e.g., Rights of Publicity. Not all types of intellectual property require registration in order to obtain, maintain or enforce one’s rights. However, registration is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED if available, is required in certain circumstances and, even when not required, registration often confers several benefits that enable enforcement, reduce the risk and costs of enforcement, and provide additional incentives and remedies for enforcement.

The term “Intellectual Property” denotes the specific legal rights described above, and not the intellectual work, concept or idea itself. Oftentimes, the largest value of a businesses can be traced to its intangible assets. Knowing how to identify intangible assets and understanding which Intellectual Property rights apply to these assets is critical to the ability to protect and commercialize one’s ideas. Therefore, great care should be given to maintaining and enhancing their power and value. Value can be increased through a carefully planned and executed strategy. Innovative companies that successfully leverage their Intellectual Property rights will stand to benefit most from the opportunities presented by the current economic marketplace and demand for innovation.

 

Focus | Vision | Perspective | Passion

Executives face a confusing and dynamic set of challenges ensuring their business remains legally compliant. Yet few can afford the highly-qualified and versatile legal staff needed to deal with today’s complex legal & regulatory environment.

Adler Law Group was created to provide clients with a competitive advantage by enabling them to leverage their intangible assets and creative content in a way that drives innovation and increases the overall value of the business.

For a FREE, no-obligation 1 hour consultation to learn the best ways to identify, protect and leverage your ideas, please call: (866) 734-2568, click: http://www.adler-law.com, or write: David @ adler-law.com.

Adler Law Group – Providing innovative legal counsel that elevates aspirations to achievements.™

Why Every Trademark Owner Should Care About B&B Hardware

Does a Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) decision that there is a likelihood of confusion between two trademarks prevent federal district court trademark litigation?

The purpose of a trademark is two-fold: to identify the owner or “source” of goods and services, and to prevent consumer confusion in the marketplace. Therefore, the test for trademark infringement under the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), is whether use of a trademark is “likely to cause confusion” with an existing, registered mark. A person generally may neither use nor register a mark that would be “likely to cause confusion” with an existing trademark. If a person uses a mark that one believes is likely to cause confusion, the owner of the registered mark may sue in federal court for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. § 1114(1). If a person seeks to register a mark that is likely to cause confusion with an existing registered mark, the owner of the existing registered mark may oppose the registration of the new mark before the TTAB. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d); see id. §§ 1063, 1067(a).

In B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2899 (US 2014), the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the TTAB’s determination of a likelihood of confusion precludes a trademark litigant from re-litigating that issue in a federal court infringement action involving a likelihood of confusion element.

Plaintiff B&B Hardware Inc. (“B&B”) produced industrial fasteners for the aerospace industry under the mark SEALTIGHT since 1990. B&B’s SEALTIGHT mark was registered with the PTO in 1993. Subsequently, Hargis Industries, Inc. (“Hargis”) adopted the mark SEALTITE for its self-drilling, self-taping screws for use in the metal-building industry. Hargis applied to register SEALTITE with in 1996, but its application was initially refused due to the existence of B&B’s registration. Hargis then sought to cancel the B&B registration alleging that the B&B mark had been abandoned. However, prior to a final decision by the Board, B&B sued Hargis in U.S. District Court alleging infringement of its registered SEALTIGHT trademark.

A jury in the District Court found in favor of Hargis that there was no likelihood of confusion between the marks. The parties appealed to the Eighth Circuit which affirmed the District Court decision and the issue was ultimately taken by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Reversing the Circuit Court, the Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that a likelihood of confusion determination by the TTAB should have preclusive effect as long as the ordinary elements of issue preclusion are met and the usages of the marks are materially the same.

“Issue preclusion” or “res judicata” is an important concept for both fairness and judicial economy. Essentially, litigants should not get two bites at the same apple. In the past, the TTAB would suspend its proceedings if a case was simultaneously pending in District Court.

The key take away for trademark practitioners is strategic since trademark oppositions and cancellations do not result in a damages award or determination of infringement. Yet, its decisions can now be used as the basis for finding infringement in District Court where an adverse decision may have far-reaching effects.

Copyright Ownership in Software & Other Independent Contactors Agreements: Can Work-For-Hire” Be Retroactive?

Regardless of industry, intangible assets are often the greatest drivers of business opportunity and shareholder value. Companies increasingly recognize intellectual property rights are a critical part of the value of the total assets of the company. Great care should be given to maintaining and enhancing their power and value. Innovative companies that outsource the development of copyrightable works such as computer software, creative or media content and other “tangible” works with the expectation of owning both the resulting product and the underlying copyrights must be mindful of ownership risks.

Successfully leveraging copyright rights and assets is critical to the opportunities presented by the current economic environment. Yet, without clear ownership of copyright rights, a company can not exploit the exclusive rights it believes it owns. Under U.S. Copyright law, only the copyright owner has the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, public display/perform and modify a work. This leads to the inevitable question: who owns the copyright to a work made for hire?

To be effective, agreements that assign ownership of copyrightable works must be in writing. It is not enough that the company or client may have commissioned and paid for the work. Written agreements that vest copyright ownership commonly appear in two forms. In the first, the developer of the work “assigns” his or her rights to the new owner. Under U.S. law, specific language of assignment must evidence the transfer.

Many software companies, in their zeal to create and commercialize their products, fail to consider the need to clearly establish ownership of software copyrights when using developers and programmers. This begs the question, can a company retroactively secure copyright to a work by later designating it as a “work made for hire?”

The Seventh Circuit first addressed the issue in Schiller v. Nordisco Corp., 969 F.2d 410 (7th Cir. 1992). The Court held that a “work made for hire” agreement must precede the creation of the work, because the writing requirement under the “work made for hire” doctrine is not merely a statute of frauds provision “designed to protect people against false claims of oral agreements.”

Under Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 109 S.Ct. 2166, 104 L.Ed.2d 811 (1989), a work is “made for hire” only if it falls in one or more of the categories of intellectual property enumerated in section 101(2), of was specially commissioned and the parties had signed a statement to that effect.

The requirement of a written statement regarding the copyright on a specially commissioned work is not merely a statute of frauds, although that is the purpose emphasized by the cases. It is not only designed to protect people against false claims although there is authority that it must be signed before suit is brought. The signed-statement requirement in section 101(2) makes the ownership of property rights in intellectual property clear and definite, so that such property will be readily marketable.

The creator (author) of the property is the owner, unless he is an employee creating the property within the scope of his employment or the parties have agreed in a writing signed by both that the person who commissioned the creation of the property is the owner. The writing must precede the creation of the property in order to serve its purpose of identifying the (noncreator) owner unequivocally. Assignment under 17 U.S.C. § 201(d), conveys both the copyrights and with them the right to sue for infringement of them. SAPC, Inc. v. Lotus Development Corp., 921 F.2d 360 (1st Cir.1990).

The sale of the physical embodiment of intellectual property does not “of itself” transfer the intellectual property. 17 U.S.C. § 202. Obviously when a software programmer sells a CD-ROM to a customer (or uploads a software program to a Web-based vendor of downloads) it does not mean to transfer the copyright in them so that the distributor could copy the software and sell the copies without paying anything to the programmer. An agreement that divides ownership in this way would be inefficient Penn Central Corp. v. U.S. Railroad Vest Corp., 955 F.2d 1158, 1160 (7th Cir.1992)).

A Company’s ownership of copyright in works created by independent contractors may be a lesser concern than a company’s ability to sue for infringement of that copyright. “[T]he right to claim copyright in a non-infringing derivative work arises by operation of law, not through authority from the copyright owner of the underlying work.” 71 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT § 3.06, at 3-34.34. We have cited Nimmer with approval on this point.

On this point Liu v. Price Waterhouse LLP, 302 F.3d 749, 755 (7th Cir.2002) is instructive. Price Waterhouse owned the copyright to a computer-software program, and Yang, an employee, was asked to help recruit a Chinese computer programmer to increase the speed of the program. Price Waterhouse entered into a series of agreements with Yang that provided Price Waterhouse would own the intellectual-property rights to the improved software. When Yang refused to give Price Waterhouse the source code to the improved software Price Waterhouse sued for infringement (and won) because the owner of a copyrighted work has the exclusive right to control the preparation of derivative works, the owner could limit the derivative-work author’s intellectual-property rights in the contract, license, or agreement that authorized the production of the derivative work.

Although the right to claim copyright in a derivative work arises by operation of law—not by permission of the underlying copyright owner— the parties may alter this general rule by agreement.

Companies must take the necessary steps to protect their intellectual property rights in outsourced development of copyrightable works (whether computer software, entertainment content or other “works of authorship”). First, understand the legal requirement that an agreements addressing ownership of copyrights must be in writing. Second, if a company intends to be the copyright owner, ensure that the company uses a written agreement establishing ownership of the work. Third, ensure that written agreements include appropriate “work made for hire” provisions, so the company will own the copyright in the work and in all derivative works for the full life of the copyright. Lastly, evaluate existing intellectual property to ensure that ownership of intellectual property rights has been effectively transferred to the company.

DATA PRIVACY DAY 

Do You Understand Your Data Privacy Rights?

Data Privacy Day was started in 2007 in response to widespread lack of understanding about how personal data was being protected. Today, 91% of adults “agree” or “strongly agree” that consumers have lost control over how personal information is collected and used by companies, according to a recent Pew Research Center Survey.

Data is one of the natural resources of the 21st century. It should be treated like all other precious resources. Understanding, responsibility, and accountability are key. Ubiquitous Internet connections, unprecedented processing power and speed combined with staggeringly large databases have the ability to help both the private and public sectors. However, there is a growing split between the benefits of data-driven activities and perceptions of decreased privacy rights needs to be addressed. There is a balance that needs to be found between the responsibility of governments and that of businesses in ensuring an adequate level of protection to citizens and consumers, while supporting technological innovation.

The purpose of Data Privacy Day is raise awareness among digital citizens and empower them with understanding how their data is being collected, stored and consumed. Often, that starts with being educated about the privacy policies of online companies and web properties.

The National Cyber Security Alliance (NCSA) officially kicked off today’s Data Privacy Day events with a broadcast from George Washington University Law School featuring Federal Trade Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen and privacy and security experts from industry and government.

Whether you are a consumer, an application developer, a technology platform provider, consultant, or enterprise that relies on the collection, analysis and commercialization of data (who doesn’t these days) Adler Law Group can help you navigate this emerging area by 1) assessing and prioritizing privacy risks, 2) creating a baseline understanding of data assets, data flows and contractual commitments, 3) developing internal Privacy Polciies and processes, and 4) creating and delivering training programs for executives and employees that increases awareness and mitigate risk.

Failure to Mind Corporate Details Leads to Loss of Copyright, Infringement Lawsuit

The case of Clarity Software, LLC v. Financial Independence Group, LLC is a great example the serious, negative consequences to intellectual property ownership when business owners and legal counsel fail to ensure that tasks are completed.

The short version is that the creator of computer software, Vincent Heck, sold the copyright in his software to settle a debt to a creditor, Eric Wallace, who intended to form Clarity Software, LLC to own and distribute the software. The lawsuit was for infringement of the copyright in the software.

As they say, “the devil is in the details.” In this case, the detail that became a devil, and ultimately prevented Wallace from enforcing a copyright in the software, was the fact that Clarity Software, LLC was never properly formed and therefore lacked standing to sue for infringement.

Forgive me for employing yet another trite phrase, but “truth is often stranger than fiction.” The Defendant proved that a veritable comedy of errors had occurred resulting in no record of the formation, including 1) the Department of State of Pennsylvania losing the certificate of organization, along with all records of the submission and filing of the certificate of organization, 2) the Plaintiff’s bank (PNC Bank) losing its copy certificate of organization provided when Wallace opened a bank account (even though PNC Bank still had the signature card completed when the account was opened), and 3) Wallace, himself a former President of the Pennsylvania Institute of Certified Public Accountants, losing his copy of the certificate of organization and all records of his communications with his attorney.

Defendant successfully moved for summary judgment based on its argument that Plaintiff did not own the copyright at issue in the litigation since it was not properly organized as a Pennsylvania limited liability company and never acquired valid ownership of the copyright.

Hat tip to Pamela Chestek and her blog, Property Intangible, where she first wrote about this case October 13, 2014. The opinion and order can be found here: Clarity Software, LLC v. Financial Independence Group, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-1609-MRH (W.D. Pa. Sept. 30, 2014).

To find out more about how the Adler Law Group can help your business identify risk and issues related to intellectual property ownership, corporation or LLC formation, or just assess risk associated with your business, contact us for a free, no-obligation consultation by emailing David @ adler-law.com, visiting out web site www.adler-law.com, or calling toll free to (866) 734-2568..

Drone Filmmaking – It May Be The Next Big Thing, But Is It Legal?

Automated drone filmmaking may represent a huge, new creative opportunity for filmmakers. Filmmakers interested in pursuing this method of filming should research the legal requirements before jumping in with both feet.

From Amazon’s recently-announced plans to deliver everything from paperbacks to pizza via drones, to a NY Times headline about a wedding photographer using a drone to capture an event, the technology is raising more questions than answers. Like most other advances in technology, adoption seems to out-pace the law and the use of drones in filmmaking is no different. As a technophile and entertainment lawyer, I am starting to get questions from my filmmaking clients asking about the legalities of filming using drones. After doing some research, one thing is certain: there is no clear answer.

To get a better handle on the situation, I decided to get an expert opinion. I recently sat down with friend and colleague Alan Farkas, a partner at SmithAmundsen in Chicago who heads the firm’s aerospace law practice group and asked him to enlighten me. What follows is a interview-style version of our conversation, focused on providing clear answers to many of the questions that filmmakers are asking.

A group of Hollywood movie studios recently applied to get a waiver for drone filmmaking. Who has the authority to regulate this?

The FAA claims authority to regulate anything in the National Airspace. Until drones came along, the National Airspace was understood to start 500 feet above the ground, in addition to the space around airports. Now, FAA is claiming jurisdiction over airspace well below 500 feet too, and that’s highly controversial.

Is it just the FAA or are there state or local agencies involved?

State and local governments have some role here too. State and local governments certainly can adopt privacy and security laws to safeguard personal rights, but they can’t go so far as to intrude on FAA’s territory. Clearly, these boundaries are very hazy and need to be sorted out.

What is the current state of the law? Is the FAA looking at this issue?

The FAA is in the midst of formal rulemaking procedures. They have developed a committee of professionals to study the regulatory issues, and the FAA has set-up several test sites across the country to address integration of drones into our national airspace.

Why do filmmakers need to care?

The FAA has asserted jurisdiction over the rules for operating drones commercially and shooting a film using a drone would be considered a commercial activity. More importantly, as far as the FAA is concerned, any commercial use of drones is currently prohibited. Many in the commercial aviation industry are watching an important case awaiting a ruling where the FAA is seeking a $10,000 fine against a drone operator. In addition, several others have received cease and desist letters from the FAA.

How will the FAA’s actions affect filmmakers?

It’s not hard to imagine the FAA shutting down production or halting distribution on a film that includes illegal footage, and then there’s the potential horror that could arise if an illegal drone causes an injury or interferes with a traditional aircraft. In an unusual example of foresight, some Hollywood production companies are trying to get ahead of this issue by applying for formal exemptions from the current FAA rules. The FAA is seeking comments on these proposals.

We hear stories about lots of small drones flying around town, are these all illegal?

Unfortunately, anyone who is shooting video for events, or to showcase real estate, or similar uses is doing so illegally because these are commercial uses. Oddly, someone flying a small drone in the same exact pattern solely for fun, is allowed to do so, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone or threatening regular aircraft. A lot of these folks will get away with their illegal uses. However, if you have a legitimate business, you may be risking a lot. Also, anyone who is caught violating the FAA prohibition is going to have a hard time getting a permit when they do become available.

Where can a filmmaker get more information?

Because this area is developing so quickly, it’s hard to find reliable information. The FAA has some basic information on its website (www.FAA.gov). Anyone intending to start using drone s for filmmaking is strongly advised to consult competent attorney. Farkas is glad to answer any preliminary questions without running the meter.

The take-away for filmmakers is clear: while drones will likely play an increasing role in innovative filmmaking, there are still legal risks that need to be addressed. Like all creative endeavors, it is important to seek legal advice early in the project to ensure that risks are addressed and, if possible, permits or waivers obtained. The consequences could range from minor, such as a monetary fine, to devastating, such as having one’s production shut down or distribution blocked.

Contract Drafting: Limitations of Liability & Exceptions

One of the most important functions of a contract is to reduce uncertainties and mitigate risks. That is why almost all professional or personal services contracts contain “limitations of liability” provisions. Although they may seem like densely-worded, “boilerplate” provisions, and often overlooked, these provisions broadly affect a party’s ability to bring a claim, show liability, and prove damages that can be recovered.

A limitation of liability clause is a provision in a contract that limits the amount of exposure a company faces in the event a lawsuit is filed or another claim is made. As a preliminary observation, it is important to note that enforcement of limitation of liability provisions vary from state to state. The general rule in contract law is that in the commercial context, many states have found these clauses to be a mere shifting of the risk and enforce them as written.

Limitations of Liability generally address two areas of concern. First, the types of claims that may be barred. Second, the amount or scope of liability for claims that are not barred.

Limiting The Type Of Claim

A typical limitation of liability clause may look something like this:

“IN NO EVENT SHALL A PARTY OR ITS DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, OR AGENTS, BE LIABLE FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY, OR INDIRECT DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF A PARTY EXCEED THE AMOUNTS PAID BY CLIENT, IF ANY, FOR THE SERVICES.”

This clause limits the types of damages that may be claimed, prohibiting claims for:

  • Consequential damages (damages resulting naturally, but not necessarily, from the defendant’s wrongful conduct, BUT they must be foreseeable and directly traceable to the breach)
  • Incidental damages (includes costs incurred in a reasonable effort, whether successful or not, to avoid loss, or in arranging or attempting to arrange a substitute transaction)
  • Special damages (often treated the same as “consequential” by courts, “special” damages have been defined as those that arise from special circumstances known by the parties at the time the contract was made)
  • Punitive damages (damages that may be awarded which compensate a party for the exceptional losses suffered due to egregious conduct; a way of punishing the wrongful conduct and/or preventing future, similar conduct)
  • Exemplary damages (See “Punitive damages”)
  • Indirect damages (See “Consequential damages”)
  • Lost Profits (Cases in New York (and elsewhere) have a held that a clause excluding “consequential damages” may no longer be enough to bar “lost profits” claims; therefore, consider including more specific provisions in contracts- if parties want to exclude lost profits for breach of contract, a clause specifically excluding “lost profits” should be included.)

Lost profits that do not directly flow from a breach are consequential damages, and thus typically excluded by a limitation of liability clause like that above. But lost profits can be considered general damages (and thus recoverable) where the non-breaching party bargained for those profits, and where the profits are a direct and probable result of the breach.

Limiting The Amount Of The Claim

If found to be enforceable, a limitation of liability clause can “cap” the amount of potential damages to which a party is exposed. The limit may apply to all claims arising during the course of the contract, or it may apply only to certain types of claims. Limitation of liability clauses typically limit the liability to one of the following amounts: (i) the compensation and fees paid under the contract; (ii) an sum of money agreed in advance; (iii) available insurance coverage; or (iv) a combination of the above.

Parties can and typically do agree in their contract that liability is capped at some dollar amount. If liability exists and if damages can be proved, then the aggrieved party recovers those damages, but only up to the agreed cap. Sometimes these are mutual; other times they are one-sided. Sometimes the cap is a fixed sum (e.g., “the amounts paid for the services” or “$100,000”). Other times, the parties may choose to tie the cap to the type of harm, (e.g. personal injury, property damage, violations of confidentiality obligations).

However, sometimes that parties may agree that certain types of harm should not be limited. These “exceptions” put the parties in the same position they would have occupied if there was no limitation of liability provision in effect. For example:

  • exposure for violations of intellectual property (copyright, trademark, trade secret, patent) or proprietary rights (right of publicity, right of privacy, contractually-defined proprietary information)
  • in the event of an obligation to indemnity and defend for 1) breach of intellectual property representations, and/or 2) third party intellectual property or proprietary rights
  • in the event of an obligation to indemnify because a party didn’t have the right to provide data or information
  • in the event of an obligation to indemnify and defend for non-compliance with data security standards
  • exposure for violations of confidentiality obligations
  • personal injury or property damage due to negligent acts or omissions

Best Practices

Businesses that rely upon limitation of liability clauses should periodically reexamine those clauses. Questions that you should be asking include: “what’s my maximum recovery if the other party breaches,” and “what’s my maximum liability if I breach?”

These are only effective if enforceable, that’s why drafting is key. According to many courts, following certain drafting guidelines will help reduce the likelihood that a limitation of liability clause will not be enforced. Such guidelines include:

  • Make the clause conspicuous: set the clause in bold face print or underline or otherwise place the clause apart from the rest of the text on the page on which it appears so that the other party is aware of its existence.
  • Make the language clear and concise: make sure that the clause is concise and unambiguous as it relates to the contract as a whole.
  • Identify specific risks: be specific in identifying the types of damages you think should be excluded.
  • Negotiate the clause: discuss the clause with the party that is signing the agreement and negotiate if there is a discrepancy.
  • Retain drafts of revisions: keep drafts of any revisions made to the limitation of liability clause so that you have proof that the clause was negotiated.
  • Add language stating that these damages are not recoverable even if they were, or should have been, foreseeable or known by the breaching party.
  • Recite that the limitation of liability clause is an agreed benefit of the bargain, and that it remains in effect even if any remedy under the contract fails of its essential purpose.
  • Consider including a liquidated damages clause for specific breaches, which would replace a damages claim.

DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Please consult  qualified attorney to discuss your specific situation.

If you are concerned about how to tighten your contracts, we may be able to help. We can review your contracts, your business practices, and advise on whether there is room for improvement.

Please contact us for a no-fee, no-obligation consultation. (866) 734-2568 David [at] adler-law.com