Emojis in the Land of the Law
Many of us use emojis in our personal texts and other electronic communications with family and friends, but some of us may also use them in professional or commercial communications. This could take the form of a “thumbs up” to give the go-ahead for a contractor to start performing services or for a purchaser to accept an offer of sale from a seller. It is this latter area that has thrust the seemingly innocuous emoji into the legal sphere and in some cases directly into the center of an increasing number of lawsuits involving emojis.
There is little question that the emoji is intended to communicate information from the sender to the recipient. This information is being increasingly scrutinized and is forming part of the body of evidence that may be introduced into legal proceedings. The increasing number of lawsuits involving emojis signal the courts’ willingness to view emojis as legitimate forms of communication, differing little from e-mail or other forms of electronic communications between the relevant parties that for decades have been acceptable forms of legitimate legal evidence.
The tension that arises in these cases typically centers on the intended meaning and information being communicated through the particular emoji, both from the perspective of the sender and the recipient. Compounding the complexity is that the same emoji may appear quite differently depending upon the electronic platform being used.
In a recent case, a U.S. court found that an exchange of text messages between two parties created a material dispute of fact as to whether one party had waived a breach of contract claim. In that case, a tenant had an option to purchase the house they lived in from the landlord. When the landlord asked the tenant through a text whether the tenant was prepared to buy the house, the tenant responded, “Yes and yessir!”, and the landlord sent back a “thumbs up” emoji. The landlord then asked the tenant to send over a purchase and sale agreement, which the tenant did. No reply from the landlord was ever received by the tenant, who then filed suit against the landlord. The court hearing the case refused to dismiss it, as the landlord wanted, citing the landlord’s ‘thumbs up’ emoji and the landlord’s request for the proposed purchase and sale agreement.
In a recent Canadian case, the court there held that a farmer had accepted a buyer’s offer to purchase certain crops by texting back to the buyer the simple “thumbs up” emoji. The farmer argued, unsuccessfully, that his emoji was intended to simply communicate to the buyer that the farmer had received the buyer’s offer, was considering it, but had not accepted it.
If you tend to use emojis in the text communications of your business, you should carefully consider the potential negative consequences of doing so. At Parsons Behle & Latimer, we have expertise dealing with legal issues in the corporate and litigation landscape. Please let us know how we can help your business in this regard.
Yes, You Can Patent Your Cybersecurity Process
Patenting cybersecurity innovations is crucial for protecting intellectual property and maintaining a competitive edge in a rapidly evolving digital landscape. As cyber threats become increasingly sophisticated, especially with cybercriminals now utilizing AI, business and organizations are continually developing new technologies and processes to safeguard sensitive information. Securing a patent not only provides legal protection against unauthorized use or reproduction of an innovation, but also facilitates potential licensing agreements and partnerships, thus increasing business development opportunities. However, to receive patent protection, inventors must ensure their innovations meet specific requirements set by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): novelty, non-obviousness, and utility.
One of the unique challenges of patenting cybersecurity processes lies in the nature of the technology involved, which often centers around abstract concepts and algorithms rather than tangible inventions. The USPTO has stringent rules for process patents, requiring that the innovation demonstrates a practical application and adheres to well-defined criteria. This can be challenging within the cybersecurity field, where many innovations are abstract. To successfully patent these processes, inventors must carefully craft their applications to emphasize the practical utility of their solutions while addressing the patentability of algorithms and processes.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l further complicates the patenting landscape for cybersecurity innovations. This landmark case established a two-step test to determine whether a claimed invention is directed at a patent-eligible concept. Cybersecurity related patents therefore face heightened scrutiny regarding their eligibility, particularly if they are not crafted using well-defined claims that demonstrate both the innovative nature of the cybersecurity solution and its practical application in protecting intellectual property and other digital assets. Consequently, navigating the patenting process for cybersecurity innovations requires a thorough understanding of legal requirements and strategic planning to ensure successful protection of proprietary information.
Cybersecurity is unique in that it touches nearly every aspect of a business, from machinery operations to confidential company data. Patenting a cybersecurity process ensures an extra layer of legal protection for these processes and provides businesses with a competitive advantage in the marketplace. Parsons’ intellectual property team is well versed in cybersecurity and ready to help counsel you on best practices.
Chambers Ranks Parsons Behle & Latimer’s Intellectual Property Practice and Attorneys in 2025 USA Guide
Congratulations to Parsons’ Intellectual Property practice for again achieving ranking in Chamber & Partners in 2025. Additionally, Chambers ranked IP attorneys Juliette White and Margaret Niver McGann as top practitioners!
