Manufacturing

On October 23, 2015, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the federal register its highly anticipated final rules implementing the Clean Power Plan’s goal of significantly limiting carbon dioxide emissions from existing, new, modified, and reconstructed fossil fuel-fired electric generating units (EGUs). EPA also published its proposed model state trading rules and federal plans for implementation of the required emission reductions from existing EGUs. The rules were finalized on August 3, 2015 and published on EPA’s website at that time.

These rules, which will significantly impact the electric power sector, also have the potential to impact manufacturing operations. Businesses with high energy demands may see the effects of the rules in their electricity bills. However, the rules could also present an opportunity for manufacturers of control equipment for coal-fired steam EGUs as well as natural gas combined cycle units and zero-emitting renewable energy generating units.

3D printing continues to transform the medical field. Recently, doctors in Spain produced the world’s first 3D-printed rib cage and sternum, which is made entirely of titanium. The doctors surgically implanted the metal rib cage and sternum in a cancer patient. Last month, the FDA approved the first 3D-printed drug. The drug, which Aprecia Pharmaceuticals has named Spritam, is for treating patients with epilepsy. Aprecia Pharmaceuticals’ ZipDose® Technology utilizes 3D printing that overlays multiple layers of powdered medication on top of one another until the correct dosage is reached. This type of technology can lead to easier-to-take medication that is individualized in nature with precise dosages based on a patient’s needs.

2015 Manufacturing & Distribution Summit

In conjunction with U.S. Bank, Husch Blackwell is proud to sponsor RubinBrown’s 2015 Manufacturing & Distribution Summit. We invite you to attend the program, which will be hosted in both St. Louis and Kansas City. A fantastic lineup of industry experts will discuss the following topics:

  • Domestic and International Economics: An Overview
  • How Leaders Build Cultures of Excellence
  • Driving Innovation and Growth

The Miscellaneous Tariff Bill (MTB) process provides importers relief from duties on an item-by-item basis, up to $500,000 annually. On April 16, 2015, Senators Rob Portman (R-OH), Claire McCaskill (D-MO) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) introduced bipartisan legislation proposing to reform the MTB process. Many companies consider the new legislation a much overdue step that assists…

On April 16, several pieces of key legislation were introduced that set the stage for a Bipartisan, Bicameral International Trade Package.  Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) along with Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) introduced long-awaited trade legislation to reauthorize Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) and renew several trade preference and liberalization programs.  TPA expired in 2007 and is necessary for the Obama Administration to move forward and conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations.

In Part 1, we addressed the pros and cons of molding your mark directly into your goods in the context of 3D printing. In Part 2 of this series, we evaluated potential benefits and pitfalls that businesses may encounter when applying a mark to products at a later stage in manufacturing (e.g., via sticker or ink-printing). Here, we will look at two counterfeiting scenarios: Case 1, in which your mark has been molded or 3D printed into your product, and Case 2, in which your mark is ink-printed on your product.

In both scenarios, you have no utility patents, design patents, trade dress, or copyrights with which to protect your product. Of course, this addresses a particularly limited situation. However, a great number of businesses find themselves in a similar position. Not all products can be patented. Not all products are proper subjects for trade dress or copyright protection.

In both cases, along comes a so-called “counterfeiter” who obtains a specimen of your product, scans it with a 3D scanner, and starts making copies. In Case 1, the 3D scanner acquires a scan of your mark on your product. The copies made by the counterfeiter in Case 1 therefore also include your mark, leading to clear-cut trademark infringement. However, in Case2, the mark is not detected by the 3D scanner, and is therefore not included on the copies.

In Part 1 of this series, we addressed the impact of 3D printing on companies that mold their marks directly into their goods. Now, in Part 2, we will evaluate potential benefits and pitfalls that businesses may encounter when applying a mark to products at a later stage in manufacturing (e.g., via sticker or ink-printing).

Many companies decide not to mold or 3D print their marks directly into their product. Such a decision may be based on a cost analysis, or on the desire to remain agile in the marketplace. As discussed previously, such costs may fall drastically while agility will greatly improve as 3D printing becomes more widespread. Even so, many companies are simply unable to mold or 3D print their marks directly into their products. The product may be too small to directly bear a trademark at all, or may not have an externally visible surface to serve as a suitable location to display a mark.