David Brezina Authors Two Articles for ISBA IP Newsletter
In a publication the editor humorously described as a “double feature” two of Dave Brezina’s articles were published in the Vol. 66, No. 1 of the Illinois State Bar Association Intellectual Property Section newsletter, September 2026. The humor of the announcement aside, “Social Media Use and Abuse” and “Copy Editing Is Not a Remedy Available in Court”, discuss some serious topics, but in a newsletter friendly fashion.
What Quasi-Governmental Officials Should Not Do
“Social Media Use and Abuse” discusses a former member of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary to post on LinkedIn content found offensive and causing at least one public complaint. The posts were made by plaintiff listing his position as a Flotilla officer with a picture in uniform. The content plus his making the official connection resulted in his separation from the Auxiliary. He sued for violation of the administrative procedure act – in the separation proceeding – and retaliation for the content. The decisions do not even hint at any justification for the content such as expressing a political position, although the specific words are not mentioned, either. The District Court found in favor of the Coast Guard and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Conclusion – don’t make offensive publications when it appears you are speaking as an official. Read the full article.
What Government Officials May Say
“Copy Editing Is Not a Remedy Available in Court”, in a sense was the opposite – the official was the Commissioner of Patents, whose signature appears on patent certificates with language that paraphrases the Constitutional power of Congress to grant the exclusive rights to inventors, in order to promote progress of the useful arts. The basis for the plaintiff’s case was that the general language did not specifically explain (on the cover sheet for a patent) nuances like the scope of patent claims. Not discussed – in this false statement case in the District of Columbia – was that the same language has been used for decades. The Court found there was an insufficient basis for an injunction compelling a change in the language – the title of the article styling it as “copy editing.” Read the full article.