A broker from Morgan Stanley and a law firm employee have been charged with insider trading wherein the banker was allegedly passing tips on notes and napkins to the latter, his middleman.

The man in question is one Vladimir Eydelman, while his accomplice Steven Metro, who is a managing clerk at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in New York, was accused of thieving highly confidential data of 13 corporate transactions and tipping a friend who sent the information to Eydelman, according to the reports made for the arrest.


Metro reportedly stole data from Simpson Thacher’s computers and gave him to his accomplice in bars and coffee shops in New York. Eydelman traded from February 2009 to February 2013 that got him earning more than $5.6 million in illegitimate profit.


Image Source: thenextweb.com

During his meetings with his middleman, Metro would provide inside information through his mobile phone by indicating the involved companies in the transactions. He would then point out which companies are being bought or sold. Eydelman would then meet the middleman near the large clock at Grand Central to get either the Post-It notes or napkins containing the information, and then the middleman would chew up or eat the notes to destroy any evidence.


Eydelman started his illegal trading at Oppenheimer & Co. (OPY) and stayed there from March 2001 to September 2012, then joined Morgan Stanley to continue his illegal transactions.

Brad Lyerla specializes in law and litigation, and is well known for his works in patent dispute and pro bono cases. For more information, visit the Jenner & Block official website .



In many cases, business owners may need to use common words or phrases to name their company or brand. One of the disadvantages of this is that they may be unable to get a trademark registration for their brand or company name. The reality, however, is that there are many instances wherein companies have been awarded trademarks for their use of common phrases or words in their branding.

Even by simple examination of the most popular brands today, it is easy to see that many names are not unique to a particular company, brand, or industry. Many companies have names or brands which are actually common words but they did not run into much inconvenience in applying for a trademark. Furthermore, many of those companies have a pretty strong trademark as they applied a completely arbitrary term for the promotion of their products and services.


Image Source: shopify.com


But some may question why these banal trademarks were allowed in the first place. The factor that differentiates whether a common term may be tradermarked by a specific entity is the relation of the term to the company or brand’s purposes.

To illustrate, this article states that it is ludicrous to file for a trademark on the word “APPLE” if the company primarily dealt with the sale and distribution of apples as it would simply be a generic term for the goods provided. Meanwhile, companies could apply to trademark the term “APPLE” if they used word in connection with the manufacturing and sale of digital devices, for example.



Atty. Brad Lyerla is a counselor and trusted advisor to his clients concerning competition and intellectual property disputes. For more information on intellectual property and litigation, visit the Jenner & Block official website.

Tesla definitely has been making headlines.

Last year, the company garnered the highest ever Consumer Report score. Its Model S was adjudged as one of the best cars of the year by critics and enthusiasts.

Image Source: istockanalyst.com

Tesla CEO Elon Musk was also all over the media not only for releasing statements for the company but also for dishing out some controversial statements over a media article.

What could be filed under odd news, though, is Tesla’s battle with Ford for a patent on the “Model E” name.

Image Source: wikipedia.org

Tesla filed for the patent last year, in line with an earlier announcement of the model’s planned market release sometime in 2016 or 2017. It’s speculated that the 200-mile, third generation electric car model will be pitted against a BMW line.

However, Ford also filed a patent for the same name late last year. It is rather interesting to find the reason behind this, since Ford never manufactured a Model E. What it did release was a Model F in the early 1900s, later known as the “Delivery Car” and unofficially called Model E.

Image Source: gigaom.com

Since then, Ford never claimed a patent for the name, and it has also not sold a “Model E” in over a century. It is believed that the name is being claimed for a concept car that will be unveiled in the future.

Who will get ownership of the name? Will this involve a big legal battle? Experts and enthusiasts will just have to wait and find out in the next few months.

Go to this Brad Lyerla LinkedIn account to get more updates on patent-related news.

The advent of three-dimensional (3D) printing comes with the obvious question: what happens to intellectual property (IP) rights?

Image Source: forbes.com

Just about anyone who owns a 3D printer and has access to a 3D “blueprint” of an object can print it at home. There are already a lot of things that can be printed –hand guns, hand bags, even medicines and pizza. A wide range of materials can in fact be used like polymers, metals, and organic compounds.

Based on the International Chamber of Commerce’s current estimates, counterfeit products compose about five to seven percent of total world trade. This equates to around $600 billion lost every year to fake products.

Image Source: mashable.com

With the 3D printer in the picture, those figures can drastically change. Taking cues from the lot of digital music, vanguards of intellectual property are on their toes for the digitization of objects.

With times changing and such an onslaught of multiple product replication inevitable, it is always best for creators to secure their rights. Therefore, all forms of IP protection should be availed. It is advisable to register patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Licensing the design will also ensure that anyone who may want to print will have to seek authorization or pay for the “blueprint.”

Image Source: gigaom.com

So in the event that counterfeiters get a hold of your design illegally, you can then expect protection from the law.

Brad Lyerla is a partner at Jenner & Block and an expert in IP litigation. Learn more IP-related issues in this Facebook page.