Update!

Top 10 Takeaways from “Little Town, Layered Ecosystem: A Case Study of Chattanooga”

Posted by on Apr 14, 2016 in Update!

Our Chambliss Startup Group thrives on supporting entrepreneurs and not just with legal counsel. Our team believes in the entrepreneurial movement happening in Chattanooga, and we’re making a point to be a part of it, whether it’s by offering networking opportunities, developing a sense of community, or being a resource. But we’re not the only ones. There are a handful of solid supporters that have played a key role in this movement, and people are noticing. For example, this billion-dollar private, nonpartisan foundation recently put us on their map. The Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation recently released the report “Little Town, Layered Ecosystem: A Case Study of Chattanooga,” which details the entrepreneurial support system in our hometown. The Kauffman Foundation is based in Kansas City, Missouri. The report is just one part of the Kauffman Foundation Research Series on City, Metro, and Regional Entrepreneurship. Other cities featured include Kansas City, St. Louis, and Indianapolis. If you haven’t read the report, it’s definitely worth taking a look. For those of you crunched for time, here are our top 10 takeaways: TOP 10 TAKEAWAYS FROM “LITTLE TOWN, LAYERED ECOSYSTEM: A CASE STUDY OF CHATTANOOGA”   1. The Chattanooga entrepreneurial ecosystem has 3 layers: philanthropic foundations direct entrepreneurship support organizations organizations in the public sector, including Mayor Berke’s office 2. Gig – the big spark. The Gig – Chattanooga’s (first in the nation) one-gigabit fiber internet service provided by EPB – got things moving and shaking among city leaders, entrepreneurs, and support organizations.   “Now everybody says, ‘We have to stay first, we have to do something’…”   3. Two local foundations are major players in not just the entrepreneurial ecosystem, but also in Chattanooga’s general development: Lyndhurst Foundation and Benwood Foundation.   4. The 5 main entrepreneurial support organizations are: The CO.LAB Us! Chambliss Startup Group Lamp Post Group LAUNCH Launch Tennessee 5. Let’s not forget EPB.   “Since the launch of the Gig, EPB estimates that ninety-one companies have been founded in Chattanooga, with approximately $50 million in venture capital provided from six firms.”   6. Where’s the best place in the ecosystem? The Innovation District. Shout out to the Enterprise Center located in the Edney Building at the heart of the district.  7. Mayor Berke played a huge role in bringing the right people together.    He not only exercises “his support through his official powers,” but he is also one of the biggest “cheerleaders” for the entrepreneurial community.   8. It doesn’t hurt that Chattanooga is an “attractive and affordable place to live.” Entrepreneurs migrating to our town enjoy it! 9. Chattanooga is just one example of how local assets can be utilized for the “betterment of a city ecosystem.”   “There are untapped and perhaps unexpected sources of entrepreneurship in every place.”   10. If you’re still not getting the ecosystem concept, a picture’s worth a thousand words.   This is just a tiny snapshot of the report, and we encourage you to take a look. It’s inspiring to see all the different organizations, firms, entities, individuals, and believers involved in making our hometown entrepreneurial ecosystem work for the betterment of the...

Read More

Update!—New TN Law Concerning Patent Infringement Allegations

Posted by on Jun 23, 2014 in Intellectual Property, Update!

In recent years, state legislatures have attempted to pass legislation regarding patent law – an area that the U.S. Constitution states is exclusively governed by federal law. The stated goal behind many of these laws is to protect businesses from costs associated with defending “bad faith” patent infringement allegations (i.e. to protect from alleged “patent trolls”). Some argue that these laws are constitutional because they are more akin to consumer protection act legislation and do not necessarily overlap or interfere with federal law. In Tennessee, the legislature recently passed such a bill to protect small businesses from costs associated with defending “bad faith” assertions of patent infringement. Public Chapter 879 went into effect May 1 of this year, and states that a person or company cannot send a written or electronic demand letter stating that another person or company is infringing upon their patent when: (i) the threat is made in conjunction with continual past threats where no litigation was filed; (ii) the letter falsely claims that litigation was filed; or (iii) the claims in the letter “lack a reasonable basis in fact or law.” Certain organizations and claims are exempted from the statute; but ultimately, if you are seeking to enforce a patent or are receiving letters claiming that you are infringing upon a patent, you may want to consult with an attorney about this new law (codified at T.C.A. § 29-40-101 through 104). The consequences of ignoring the new law – which include the possibility of attorneys’ fee and punitive damage awards – could be...

Read More

Update! — Fee Changes at Patent and Trademark Office

Posted by on Feb 5, 2014 in Intellectual Property, Update!

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently implemented a number of fee changes that will affect patent applicants and patent owners. Filing fees for patent applications have significantly increased, as have certain other patent prosecution fees. Issue fees, on the other hand, have been slightly decreased. Another change was eliminating the separate fee paid for publication of certain patent applications. U.S. patent applications for which a corresponding application is filed in another country are always published, but applications for which there is no corresponding foreign application are published at the option of the applicant. Publication does provide a limited benefit to applicants whose patents are subsequently issued with claims substantially the same as those published; however, until recently, there was a significant fee charged for publication. Patent owners whose applications have been published with issued claims substantially the same as those published, are entitled to recover a reasonable royalty from infringers who begin infringing prior to the issue of the patent, for the period from commencement of the infringement after publication until the patent issues. Such patent owners are also entitled to recover at least a reasonable royalty from infringers for infringement occurring after the patent issues. Some courts have held, however, that in order to recover a reasonable royalty from an infringer whose infringement began after publication but before issue of the patent, the patent owner had to prove that the infringer possessed a copy of the published application. Because this requirement, along with the requirement that the issued claims substantially mirror the published claims, limits the availability of the remedy for pre-issue infringement, some patent owners have elected to avoid publication of their U.S. application when no foreign application was filed, in order to avoid paying the publication fee. Now, with the publication fee having been eliminated, the only reason to choose not to publish your U.S. patent application is if you believe that the invention can be maintained as a trade secret if the patent application is not allowed. Because inventions directed to machines and other devices cannot be kept secret once the invention is placed on the market, there is no longer any downside to publishing U.S. patent applications directed to such inventions. Please contact any attorney should you have any further questions or if you are wondering how or whether to patent your...

Read More

Update! New JOBS Act Regulations

Posted by on Aug 28, 2013 in Update!

Several of our discussions have mentioned the SEC’s delay in adopting final implementing regulations under the JOBS Act of 2012, however, on September 23, 2013 a few new JOBS Act regulations will become effective to implement a lift on the ban on general solicitations or general advertising for certain private offerings. 1) The final rules adopt amendment to Rule 506 of Regulation D and Rule 144A under the Securities Act of 1933 and implement Section 201(a) of the JOBS Act, which permits an issuer to engage in general solicitation or general advertising in offering and selling securities under Rules 506–as long all purchasers of the securities are accredited investors and the issuer takes reasonable steps to verify that the purchasers are accredited investors. 2) The amendment to Rule 506 also includes a non-exclusive list of the measures which issuers may take to verify the accredited investor status of purchasers who are natural persons. 3) The amendment to Rule 144A provides that securities may be offered under Rule 144A to persons other than qualified institutional buyers as long as the securities are sold only to persons that the seller (and any person acting on behalf of the seller) reasonably believes are qualified institutional buyers. 4) In addition to these amendments, the SEC revised Form D to require issuers to indicate whether they are relying on the provisions permitting general solicitations or general advertising in a Rule 506 offering. 5) The SEC also adopted rules under the Dodd-Frank Act to disqualify felons and other “bad actors” from participating in certain securities offerings. If you have any questions concerning the JOBS Act or are considering a private offering, please contact an...

Read More

UPDATE!

Posted by on Jun 7, 2013 in Uncategorized, Update!

The Revised Tennessee Business Corporation Act (“TCBA”): NOTICES IN ENGLISH The TCBA sets forth laws governing for-profit corporations in the State of Tennessee.  In order to ensure that the TCBA was up-to-date in terms of its applicability to modern business conduct and operations, revisions to the TCBA went into effect on January 1, 2013.  One change that may affect how corporations in Tennessee conduct business pertains to general notices which, according to the TCBA, corporations and shareholders must provide under certain circumstances.  As of January 1, 2013, all notices and other communications must be in English unless agreed upon by the sender and the recipient.  (TCA 48-11-202). Given the influx of non-native English speakers into the State of Tennessee, as well as the increasing presence of foreign-owned and affiliated corporations, this language requirement could end up affecting more businesses than one would otherwise suspect—especially those closely held corporations which are owned or managed by individuals for whom English is a second language. Therefore, when drafting corporate documents or when communicating in writing, it is important for corporations (including their shareholders, managers and directors) to communicate in English if they have not clearly established in writing, whether in the communication itself or in the corporation’s bylaws, that another language is...

Read More