by MirgepowerCopyrightRegitzMauck Attorneys Named to 2022 Super Lawyers List
Mike Regitz and Dustin Mauck of RegitzMauck have been selected to the 2022 Texas Super Lawyers list in the practice areas of Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property Litigation, respectively. The Super Lawyers list is an honor reserved for those lawyers who exhibit excellence in practice. Only 5% of attorneys in Texas receive this distinction.
This is Mike’s sixth consecutive year and Dustin’s fourth consecutive year to be selected to the Texas Super Lawyers list.
Both Mike and Dustin are registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and are Certified Information Privacy Professionals (CIPP/US).
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. For more information about Super Lawyers and RegitzMauck, visit SuperLawyers.com.
RegitzMauck PLLC is an intellectual property boutique based in Dallas, Texas. The firm focuses on providing value-based legal services to cost-conscious clients seeking high quality legal representation in intellectual property, cybersecurity, and data privacy matters and disputes.
by MirgepowerCopyrightRegitzMauck Attorneys Named to 2021 Super Lawyers List
Mike Regitz and Dustin Mauck of RegitzMauck have been selected to the 2021 Texas Super Lawyers list in the practice areas of Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property Litigation, respectively. The Super Lawyers list is an honor reserved for those lawyers who exhibit excellence in practice. Only 5% of attorneys in Texas receive this distinction.
This is Mike’s fifth consecutive year and Dustin’s third consecutive year to be selected to the Texas Super Lawyers list.
Both Mike and Dustin are registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and are Certified Information Privacy Professionals (CIPP/US).
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. For more information about Super Lawyers and RegitzMauck, visit SuperLawyers.com.
RegitzMauck PLLC is an intellectual property boutique based in Dallas, Texas. The firm focuses on providing value-based legal services to cost-conscious clients seeking high quality legal representation in intellectual property, cybersecurity, and data privacy matters and disputes.
by MirgepowerCopyrightCourt Rejects “Embedded Link” Copyright Infringement Loophole
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has rejected the argument that embedding a link to a video does not “display” that video within the meaning of the Copyright Act. Nicklen v. Sinclair Broad. Grp., Inc., No. 20-CV-10300 (JSR), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142768 (S.D.N.Y. July 30, 2021). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court held that the exclusive right of the copyright owner to “display” his work should be interpreted broadly so that the display right is not rendered “merely a subset of the reproduction right.” Id. at *13.
Under the auspices of the legal theory that one must make a “copy” to be liable for copyright infringement, the phenomenon of “hotlinking” has grown exponentially as websites have relied on this “legal loophole” that ostensibly relieves them of responsibility for what would otherwise constitute copyright infringement. “Hotlinking” is the process by which a website links to an image (for example) that is hosted elsewhere on an external server. The image is embedding into the website, but since the hotlink is not “displaying” an actual image file, but rather is directing to a separate file on a separate server, the website never actually makes a copy of the image file. Therefore, hotlinking has been seen by some as a technical loophole that allowed for copyright infringement without the liability.
Those relying on this defense have pointed to the “server rule” promulgated by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Id. at *12 (“Because the image remains on a third-party’s server and is not fixed in the memory of the infringer’s computer, therefore, under the ‘server rule,’ embedding is not display.”). The Nicklen court rejected the “server rule” by holding that the exclusive right to display a work “is concerned not with how a work is shown, but that a work is shown.” Id. at *11 (emphasis in original).
This hotlinking/embedded link defense always seemed at to be at odds with the intent of the Copyright Act, but was yet another example of copyright law not keeping pace with technological advances that allowed infringers to ostensibly escape liability for what would certainly seem to be a violation of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner.
RegitzMauck agrees with the reasoning of the Nicklen court. If you are the victim of hotlinking, do not hesitate to contact us.
Mike Regitz focuses his practice on intellectual property and technology disputes, counseling, and licensing.
RegitzMauck PLLC is an intellectual property boutique based in Dallas, Texas. The firm focuses on providing value-based legal services to cost-conscious clients seeking high quality legal representation in intellectual property, cybersecurity, and data privacy matters and disputes.
by MirgepowerCopyrightInside Out Characters Beat Copyright Infringement Claims
In an interesting case about a children’s movie that my children have watched countless times, Disney came under fire for its use of anthropomorphized characters that represent human emotions in Inside Out. See Daniels v. Walt Disney Co., 958 F.3d 767 (9th Cir. 2020). If you haven’t seen the movie, five cartoon characters represent the emotions (Joy, Sadness, Disgust, Fear, Anger) of an 11-year-old girl named Riley. However, an expert on children’s emotional intelligence alleged that Disney stole the idea and characters from her creation of The Moodsters, which were brought to life through a pitchbook, a pilot episode, and a line of toys and books. The Moodsters included five color-coded characters that also represented emotions, including love, happiness, sadness, anger, and fear. While there are similarities between the characters of Inside Out and The Moodsters, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court and ruled that the use of anthropomorphized characters representing human emotions did not qualify for copyright protection under the facts of this case. Id. More specifically, The Moodsters did not display consistent, identifiable character traits and were not sufficiently distinctive to trigger copyright protection. See id. at 772-773.
Plaintiff, Denise Daniels, designed and developed initiatives to assist children with handling their emotions. In 2005, she developed The Moodsters Bible (“Bible”), which was a pitchbook for presenting her ideas to media executives and collaborators. The Bible included five color-coded characters that represented different emotions: pink (love); yellow (happiness); blue (sadness); red (anger); and green (fear). Daniels then released a 30-minute pilot episode for a television series featuring The Moodsters in 2007. Daniels and her team later developed a line of Moodsters products, including toys and books, that were sold at Target and other retailers beginning in 2015. Throughout this time, Daniels pitched The Moodsters to numerous media and entertainment companies, including numerous pitches to and contacts with Disney and Pixar from 2005 to 2009. The names, physical characteristics, attributes, and behaviors of The Moodsters went through significant changes through the years.
Disney began development of Inside Out in 2010 and released the movie in 2015. The story line centers around five anthropomorphized emotions that live inside of an 11-year-old girl, and the director and co-writer of the movie stated that the emotions of his 11-year-old daughter provided the inspiration for the movie.
Daniels filed suit against Disney for breach of an implied-in-fact contract and later added copyright infringement claims. See id. at 770. This article will not address the implied-in-fact contract claims. Disney responded with a Motion to Dismiss the copyright claims, which the district court granted on the grounds that The Moodsters were not protectable by copyright. See id. at 771.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit evaluated whether The Moodsters were entitled to copyright protection. “A character is entitled to copyright protection if (1) the character has ‘physical as well as conceptual qualities,’ (2) the character is ‘sufficiently delineated to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears’ and ‘display[s] consistent, identifiable character traits and attributes,’ and (3) the character is ‘especially distinctive’ and ‘contain[s] some unique elements of expression.’” See id. at 771 (citing DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012, 1019 (9th Cir. 2015)). Disney did not dispute that The Moodsters met the first prong of this test but argued that analysis under the second and third prong required dismissal of the copyright claims.
Initially, the Ninth Circuit agreed with the District Court that simply using a color to represent a mood or emotion is an idea that is not protectable under copyright law. See id. at 772. And when determining whether the characters were “sufficiently delineated” and maintained “consistent, identifiable character traits and attributes,” the Court focused on the fact that the physical appearances and most of the character traits changed significantly over time. See id. The Moodsters transitioned from insect-like characters to lovable bears, and from characters defined by their emotions to “mood detectives.” See id. at 772-773. Further, in each iteration of The Moodsters, the names of the characters changed. See id. at 773. The Moodsters failed under the second prong because each character lacked “identifiable and consistent character traits across iterations” of the characters. See id.
The Moodsters also fell short under the third prong because they were not “especially distinctive” and lacked “unique elements of expression.” See id. The Moodsters had generic attributes and traits, and each character changed names three times. The fact that each anthropomorphized character represented a specific emotion was insufficient to satisfy this prong as well. See id.
The Ninth Circuit further analyzed whether The Moodsters could obtain copyright protection under the “story being told” doctrine. See id. at 774. Under this legal test, a character may obtain copyright protection if that character constitutes “the story being told” or dominates the story so much that it becomes “essentially a character study.” See id. (citing Warner Bros. Pictures v. Columbia Broad. Sys., 216 F.2d 945, 950 (9th Cir. 1954)). The Court ruled that neither the Bible nor the pilot episode sufficiently developed the characters to meet this threshold of copyright protection.
Despite clear knowledge of Daniels and her creation of The Moodsters, Disney was able to escape copyright infringement because The Moodsters failed to qualify for copyright protection. The significant changes of the characters throughout time proved detrimental to her copyright claims, and the general idea of using a color to represent a mood is unprotectable as an idea. Thus, even if Disney developed the story for Inside Out with assistance from the disclosures by Daniels, her copyright infringement claims were unable to survive.
The Opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit can be found here: OPINION
Dustin Mauck focuses his practice on intellectual property and technology disputes, counseling, and licensing.
RegitzMauck PLLC is an intellectual property boutique based in Dallas, Texas. The firm focuses on providing value-based legal services to cost-conscious clients seeking high quality legal representation in intellectual property, cybersecurity, and data privacy matters and disputes.
by MirgepowerCopyrightCriminal Penalties Toughened for Illegal Streaming of Copyrighted Content
Hidden in the December 2020 COVID-19 relief bill was legislation designed to increase the criminal penalties for unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content. The Protecting Lawful Streaming Act amends federal law related to stolen property by adding Section 2319C, which levies heavy penalties for illicit digital transmission services or streaming. Under the new act, “[i]t shall be unlawful for a person to willfully, and for purposes of commercial advantage or financial gain, offer or provide to the public a digital transmission service that:
- is primarily designed or provided for the purpose of publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law;
- has no commercially significant purpose or use other than to publicly perform works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law; or
- is intentionally marketed by or at the direction of that person to promote its use in publicly performing works protected under title 17 by means of a digital transmission without the authority of the copyright owner or the law.”
18 U.S.C. § 2319C (2020). The new act provides penalties of up to 10 years in prison if the criminal infringement is a second or subsequent offense. Because the act is silent on copyright law, the copyright holder may also bring a civil suit for the same unlawful actions. Id. § 2319C(d).
Since copyright holders already have the exclusive right to reproduce, distribute, and control public performance of their copyrighted work, this act was designed to close a criminal penalty loophole. See 17 U.S.C. § 106 (1976). Illegal streaming becomes a criminal infringement primarily through the right of public performance, but the corresponding penalty was limited to a misdemeanor. See id. Thus, illegal streaming was treated as a lesser crime than downloading or reproducing the same copyrighted content, which was treated as a felony. This legislation was designed to close this loophole by assessing the same penalty for this type of public performance (i.e., streaming).
Copyright enforcement continues to evolve in the digital age. The streaming of copyrighted music, videos, and public performances has become so widespread that the laws and the courts are struggling to keep up. Hopefully, the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act is a step in the right direction for our copyright owners out there.
The text of the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act can be found at – TEXT
Dustin Mauck focuses his practice on intellectual property and technology disputes, counseling, and licensing.
RegitzMauck PLLC is an intellectual property boutique based in Dallas, Texas. The firm focuses on providing value-based legal services to cost-conscious clients seeking high quality legal representation in intellectual property, cybersecurity, and data privacy matters and disputes.
by MirgepowerCopyrightRussian Copyright Pirate May Be Forced To Answer Infringement Claims in Virginia
Does a Virginia federal court have specific personal jurisdiction over a Russian copyright pirate who operates numerous websites from Russia and has never been to the United States?
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit says maybe so. While you can hide in Russia, if your commercial activities and websites reach Virginia residents, then the federal courts may hold you accountable.
The alleged pirate websites are operated almost entirely from Russia and have no employees in the United States. The owner has never been the United States, never held a bank account in the United States, never paid taxes in the United States, and also argues that it would be difficult to even get a visa to visit the United States. The district court ruled that personal jurisdiction did not exist under these facts, but the Fourth Circuit reversed this decision and ruled that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction was appropriate if it was deemed constitutionally reasonable. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Kurbanov, 963 F.3d 344, 355 (4th Cir. 2020).
Twelve record companies that produce, distribute, and license 85% of the sound recordings in the United States filed suit against Tofig Kurbanov for mass copyright infringement. See id. at 348. Through numerous websites, Kurbanov offers “stream-ripping” services that extract audio recordings from videos available through online platforms. See id. The majority of the ripped streams are derived from YouTube videos. See id. The websites are free to use and require limited interaction from the visitors. Kurbanov derives virtually all of his revenues from selling space on the websites to advertising brokers in the Ukraine, and at least two in the United States, which then resell those spaces to advertisers. See id. Geolocation and geo-targeting capabilities are offered to the advertisers for displaying geographic-specific advertisements to website visitors. See id. While it’s fairly easy to see why the record companies are upset, Kurbanov argued that a Virginia federal court does not have personal jurisdiction over him or his companies.
The Fourth Circuit has developed a three-prong test for the specific personal jurisdiction requirements: “(1) the extent to which the defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in the State; (2) whether plaintiffs’ claims arise out of those activities directed at the State; and (3) whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction would be constitutionally reasonable.” See id. at 351-52.
Under the first prong, the court found that there were more than half a million unique Virginia visitors to Kurbanov’s websites in a single year and that these visitor’s acts of accessing the websites are commercial relationships, even though the website visitors are not charged a fee. See id. at 353. Kurbanov also registered a DMCA agent with the U.S. Copyright Office to qualify for certain copyright safe harbor defenses, contracted with U.S-based advertising agencies, used U.S. domain registrars, and relied upon U.S.-based servers. See id. at 354. Therefore, Kurbanov’s activities with Virginia residents were sufficient to meet the requirements of the first factor.
The Fourth Circuit then analyzed the second factor and ruled that the record companies’ claims did arise out of Kurbanov’s activities in Virginia. See id. at 355. The websites were accessible around the world and Virginia residents pirated music through them. Further, the geo-location features of the website enabled Kurbanov to sell Virginia visitors’ data to advertising brokers. Through his network, “Kurbanov directly profited from a substantial audience of Virginia visitors and cannot now disentangle himself from a web woven by him and forms the basis of [these copyright infringement] claims.” Id.
This case was ultimately remanded to the district court to determine whether the exercise of personal jurisdiction is constitutionally reasonable under the third prong. The Fourth Circuit is clearly bending over backwards to force Kurvanov to defend these copyright infringement claims in federal court. In this digital age where you can reach customers from the other side of the world, a website that interacts with customers in the United States may be sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction, even if you never step on U.S. soil.
The Opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit can be found here: Opinion
Dustin Mauck focuses his practice on intellectual property and technology disputes, counseling, and licensing.
RegitzMauck PLLC is an intellectual property boutique based in Dallas, Texas. The firm focuses on providing value-based legal services to cost-conscious clients seeking high quality legal representation in intellectual property, cybersecurity, and data privacy matters and disputes.
by MirgepowerCopyrightSixth Circuit Affirms That Portions Of Company’s Training Guides Are Protected by Copyright
Many of our clients and potential clients have questions about the intellectual property rights that may be available for training guides or instruction manuals that are developed by their company. Any potential rights primarily come from copyright law, where copyright protection is available for “original works of authorship.” 17 U.S.C. § 102. A recent jury trial in Tennessee that later went up to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit provides an in-depth analysis of the copyright issues involved with training manuals that may have been reproduced and/or used by a third party. Hiller, LLC v. Success Grp. Int’l Learning All., LLC., 979 F.3d 620 (6th Cir. 2020).
The plaintiff, Hiller, LLC, provides plumbing, heating, cooling, and electrical services in Tennessee and employs around 400 service technicians. See id. at 623. Hiller joined Success Group International, an organization that offers management advice and conducts training courses for its members using manuals (“Manuals”) that were copyrighted by Clockwork (owner of Success Group). See id. In 2015, Hiller hired a third party to create a new training guide (“Guide”) to be used at Hiller. See id. at 623-24. To create this Guide, a workshop was scheduled to generate ideas and comments from participants, including executives and employees from Hiller and a representative from Success Group. See id. The participants referred to at least one of the Manuals for ideas during the workshop. Not long after completion of the Guide, Success Group conducted a class called “Service Essentials” using a workbook that closely resembled the Guide. See id. at 625. Hiller then ended its membership in Success Group, demanded that Success Group stop using the “Service Essentials” workbook, registered its copyright in the Guide, and sued Success Group for copyright infringement. See id. Clockwork then intervened in the case as the copyright owner of the Manuals.
After a seven-day trial, the jury concluded that Hiller had a valid copyright in the Guide and that the “Service Essentials” workbook copied protected elements from the Guide. See id. at 625. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit initially examined Success Group’s argument that the Guide did not contain enough originality to meet the copyright threshold due to the use of ideas and materials from the Manuals. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, “[o]riginal, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity.” See Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 345 (1991). The Sixth Circuit agreed with the jury that the Guide’s choices regarding selection and organization of material met the originality threshold for copyright protection. Hiller, 979 F.3d at 626. Thus, Hiller owns a valid copyright in any original portions of the Guide that do not incorporate copyright protected elements from the Manuals.
As the copyright owner of the Manuals, Clockwork then argued that Hiller should lose copyright protection for the entire Guide because Hiller incorporated copyrighted materials and underlying ideas from the Manuals. However, the Court ruled that many of the similarities between the Guide and Manuals related to short phrases or underlying ideas merged with expressions that are not protectable under copyright law (e.g., advising technicians to “park on the street,” establish “eye contact,” wear “shoe covers”). See id. at 628. The alleged incorporation of these underlying ideas from the Manuals did not prevent Hiller from obtaining copyright protection in the original portions of the Guide. The Sixth Circuit ultimately affirmed the jury’s conclusion of copyright infringement in favor of Hiller.
Copyright law does not prevent others from using short phrases or underlying ideas that may be found in training guides or instruction manuals, including procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, and concepts. However, original content and materials may be protected, so if you can prove originality, then you may have a viable copyright claim against an unauthorized infringer.
The Opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit can be found here: Opinion
Dustin Mauck focuses his practice on intellectual property and technology disputes, counseling, and licensing.
RegitzMauck PLLC is an intellectual property boutique based in Dallas, Texas. The firm focuses on providing value-based legal services to cost-conscious clients seeking high quality legal representation in intellectual property, cybersecurity, and data privacy matters and disputes.
by MirgepowerCopyrightHuffington Post’s Reproduction of Jon Hamm Photograph Considered Fair Use
In a lawsuit based upon on a photograph of Jon Hamm walking down the streets of New York wearing trousers without any underwear, a photographer sued the owners of www.HuffPost.com for copyright infringement. Schwartzwald v. Oath Inc., No. 1:19-cv-09938, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165641, at *1-3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2020). The photographer, Lawrence Schwartzwald, filed this lawsuit against Oath, Inc., which owns and operates www.HuffPost.com, for reproducing the Hamm photograph without authorization or paying him a license. The evidence showed that Schwartzwald licensed the photograph numerous times to various media outlets, but that www.HuffPost.com posted an altered version of the Hamm photograph, as one of many photographs, in an article entitled 25 Things You Wish You Hadn’t Learned in 2013 and Must Forget in 2014. See id. at *3. As you can imagine, the apparent outline of Hamm’s “package” is what led to the popularity of the photograph. The altered Hamm photograph had been cropped and a black box with the words “Image Loading” was covering Hamm’s “package.” See id. at *4-5.
Early in the case, defendant filed a motion to dismiss Schwartzwald’s copyright claims and argued that its use of the photograph constituted fair use under copyright law. Under the fair use defense, unauthorized use or reproduction of a copyrighted work is permissible “for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching…, scholarship, or research.” 17 U.S.C. § 107. The statute provides a framework of four factors to analyze to determine if the fair use defense is available: “(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for the value of the copyrighted work.” Id.
With respect to the first factor, courts have established three sub-factors for evaluating the “purpose and charter of the use.” See Schwartzwald, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 165641, at *8-9. These sub-factors include “determining whether the use is: (1) transformative; (2) for commercial purposes; or (3) in bad faith.” Id. In many cases where the court finds fair use, the initial factor is determinative.
In this case, the Judge predictably relied upon this initial factor to rule that defendant’s use of the altered Hamm photograph was transformative, and therefore, fair use. The Opinion reasoned that defendant’s use of the Hamm photograph was not to illustrate Hamm’s “package,” but to mock Hamm, the public’s fixation on his “package,” and the viral nature of the photograph. See id. at *10-20. Further, the modification of the “valuable or unique” portion of the Hamm photograph with a black box and the treatment of the photograph in a comedic article were crucial to the court’s finding of transformative use. See id. at 12-15. The “Image Loading” black box over Hamm’s “package” clearly convinced the Judge that Schwartzwald’s copyright infringement claims should be dismissed, as the Judge quickly rejected the importance of and evidence supporting the remaining factors and sub-factors.
The applicability of the fair use defense is an unpredictable area of copyright law. While the copyright owner must evaluate a potential fair use defense before asserting copyright infringement, it can be difficult to determine which unauthorized reproductions of copyrighted materials may be considered transformative by a court, and these types of cases can assist in that evaluation.
The Opinion from the U.S. District Court Southern District of New York can be found here: Opinion
Dustin Mauck focuses his practice on intellectual property and technology disputes, counseling, and licensing.
RegitzMauck PLLC is an intellectual property boutique based in Dallas, Texas. The firm focuses on providing value-based legal services to cost-conscious clients seeking high quality legal representation in intellectual property, cybersecurity, and data privacy matters and disputes.
by MirgepowerCopyrightDustin Mauck Recognized as the 2020 Outstanding Clinic Attorney Volunteer at the Dallas Veterans Legal Clinic
Dustin Mauck of RegitzMauck has been recognized as the 2020 Outstanding Clinic Attorney Volunteer for the Veterans Legal Clinic by the Dallas Volunteer Attorney Program. Dustin was virtually presented the award at the 38th Annual Pro Bono Awards Celebration that took place on October 30, 2020.
Dustin, who also won this award in 2017, has represented veterans and their families in a variety of matters over the years, including impending foreclosures, divorces, child support cases, business disputes, and consumer cases.
Dustin believes that providing pro bono services is a great way to give back to those who have sacrificed so much for our freedom and the judicial system that we practice within. The attorneys at RegitzMauck regularly provide legal counseling and representation on a pro bono basis to those that have served our country.
Over the years, Dustin and Mike have given numerous presentations to various companies, law firms, and organizations on the Dallas Veterans Legal Clinic and the Texas Lawyers for Texas Veterans program. Since the first Veterans Legal Clinic was held in 2009, Dustin and Mike have regularly counseled veterans at the monthly clinics and provided veterans with post-clinic representation in a variety of legal matters.
RegitzMauck PLLC is an intellectual property boutique based in Dallas, Texas. The firm focuses on providing value-based legal services to cost-conscious clients seeking high quality legal representation in intellectual property, cybersecurity, and data privacy matters and disputes.
by MirgepowerCopyrightRegitzMauck Attorneys Named to 2020 Super Lawyers List
October 19, 2020
Mike Regitz and Dustin Mauck of RegitzMauck have been selected to the 2020 Texas Super Lawyers list in the practice areas of Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property Litigation, respectively. The Super Lawyers list is an honor reserved for those lawyers who exhibit excellence in practice. Only 5% of attorneys in Texas receive this distinction.
Both Mike and Dustin are registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and are Certified Information Privacy Professionals (CIPP/US).
Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The annual selections are made using a patented multiphase process that includes a statewide survey of lawyers, an independent research evaluation of candidates and peer reviews by practice area. The result is a credible, comprehensive, and diverse listing of exceptional attorneys.
The Super Lawyers lists are published nationwide in Super Lawyers Magazines and in leading city and regional magazines and newspapers across the country. For more information about Super Lawyers and RegitzMauck, visit SuperLawyers.com.
RegitzMauck PLLC is an intellectual property boutique based in Dallas, Texas. The firm focuses on providing value-based legal services to cost-conscious clients seeking high quality legal representation in intellectual property, cybersecurity, and data privacy matters and disputes.