TechLaw LLP is a new economy law firm rooted in the business needs of today's American businesses.
As experienced intellectual property attorneys with advanced degrees in a variety of scientific and engineering disciplines, our uncommon skill set enables us to work with virtually any technology.
In addition to our deep, technical knowledge, our attorneys' hands on entrepreneurial experience offers a unique perspective to our clients when providing legal advice.
With recent globalization and the nature of intellectual property, we recognize the magnitude of our clients' needs. Our firm has far reaching capabilities with the ability to manage clients' matters worldwide through a network of foreign associates. At the same time, our unique business model allows us to offer an unmatched agile, individualized and affordable attorney service.
Ross Epstein of TechLaw LLP gives an interview on IP and Entrepreneurship. Listen here: http://calcapradio.podbean.com/
On January 25, 2014, the San Diego Business Journal published an article about a possible merger between Sullivan International and Ohio Co. The article quotes TechLaw Partner and Sullivan board member Ross Epstein, and can be viewed on the San Diego Business Journal’s website (http://www.sdbj.com/accounts/login/?next=/news/2014/jan/25/sullivan-international-merge-ohio-co/).
The law of privacy/publicity rights often leaves people confused because of all the terms left open to interpretation. In a recent California Appeals court, it was clarified that the right of publicity is assignable during one’s lifetime under California law. In a previous 1979 California Supreme Court case, Lugosi v. Universal Pictures, the court held that “the right of publicity [is] personal in nature and therefore non-assignable.” This past September, a California Supreme Court case, Timed Out, LLC v. Youabian, Inc. held that the right of publicity is assignable during one’s lifetime under California law. In this case, the Defendants’ allegedly displayed 2 models’ images in connection with advertising their cosmetic medical services. The plaintiff was a company that “specialize[s] in the protection of personal image rights.” The Models discovered Defendants had been using their images on a website without … Continue reading