Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

On March 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in Pfizer Inc. v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc. affirming lower rulings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated Pfizer’s patent claims and denied motions to amend (MTA). Although the Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s MTA denials with respect to two patent claims, the ruling adds new contours to the appellate court’s case law on obviousness in ways that could affect companies that are patenting chemical inventions with claimed numerical ranges.

The use of generative and other forms of artificial intelligence is fueling challenging questions about AI’s relationship to IP rights. Businesses, investors, governments, lawyers and students all are learning as they go. What AI means to IP and how it can be regulated should be a part of every educator’s syllabus. How will students use AI to help them learn? Will the datasets that are being used to train popular AI tools be transparent and accessible? Will these datasets continue to use copyrighted works without compensating copyright owners? If that is the case, copyrights may never be the same, nor trade secrets nor patents, for that matter.

On March 4, the European Commission announced that it had levied a fine of more than €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion USD) against American consumer tech giant Apple over app restrictions employed by Apple’s App Store. The massive fine, which the Commission increased to ensure it was sufficiently deterrent to Apple’s anti-competitive practices, is the latest in a series of legal actions within the European Union (EU) to target dominant Internet platforms under competition law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision today mostly upheld a district court ruling that found Chewy, Inc. did not infringe several claims of one IBM web advertising patent and that granted summary judgment of patent ineligibility on certain claims of another. However, the decision, authored by Chief Judge Kimberly Moore, reversed the district court’s finding of noninfringement on one of the five asserted claims of one patent, remanding the case for further proceedings on that issue.

The recent U.S. auto workers strike has had a wide reaching impact on the automotive industry, including spurring investors to review their current automotive investments. While significant events like the strike often cause this sort of reaction, more common practices from automakers should – but usually don’t – draw investor attention, including intellectual property management. Our recent three-part analysis on the financial impact of patent lapse strategies for major automotive manufacturers found, among other data points,that major auto brands overspend several million dollars annually by paying fees to renew non-strategic U.S. patents. Investors who understand the patent lapsing strategies of these automotive companies can more effectively evaluate their growth plans and innovation strategies. 

Participants in the U.S. and European patent systems face a rapidly changing landscape as the European patent with unitary effect and Unified Patent Court (UPC) are off to a successful start. The UPC has positioned itself alongside U.S. district courts, the International Trade Commission (USITC), and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as a leading patent litigation forum…. Accordingly, participants in these patent systems constantly engage with U.S. and European patent attorneys, and now interact more frequently with attorneys who can represent them before the UPC (“UPC representatives”). This article describes key differences in the training, development, and skill sets of U.S. patent attorneys, European patent attorneys, and UPC representatives.

Panelists on day one of IPWatchdog’s Artificial Intelligence Masters 2024 program painted a sometimes-grim picture of the current state of generative AI (GAI) tools and the ways in which they are being deployed in the United States, but seemed convinced overall that the kinks would be worked out once lawmakers and courts catch up, as they have done with past disruptive technologies.

A large number of businesses trade through online platforms and marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay. Consumers may believe that because goods are listed on a well-known trusted platform, they are authentic, and the sellers have been approved in some way by the service provider. Unfortunately, as too many business owners are aware, e-commerce platforms offer counterfeiters and infringers a relatively easy way of offering their infringing goods for sale. A balance must be struck between forcing online marketplace providers to police intellectual property disputes themselves and allowing businesses to protect their intellectual property rights effectively when they are being exploited via online platforms.

In this special two-part episode of Clause 8, Eli delves into the creation, implementation, and strategic importance of Europe’s new Unified Patent Court (UPC) with UPC Judge Michael Fleuchaus and Dr. Benjamin Grau. Since the 1970s, European policy makers have dreamed of a common European patent court. That dream finally became a reality last year, in June of 2023, with the formation of the UPC. Most observers predicted that it would not only become the central court for patent enforcement in Europe but also the go-to destination for enforcing patents worldwide.  Since its inception, prospective litigants have understandably wanted to learn as much as possible about how the UPC would operate in practice and whether the dream would match reality. Fortunately, Judge Fleuchaus – one of the early UPC appointees – and European patent attorney Dr. Grau joined Eli for this special two-part episode of the Clause 8 podcast to discuss the creation, implementation, and role of the UPC from the vantage point of its operation in the first year.

In supreme irony, the U.S. Supreme Court lists the three exceptions to statutory patent eligibility in Chakrabarty, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) — the case most famous for the observation that Thomas Jefferson’s statutory language from the 1793 Act (still in place today) covers “anything under the sun made by man.” Id. at 309. While construing Jefferson’s “broad” statutory language in 35 U.S.C. 101 with “wide scope,” the Court noted: “The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable.” Id. The Court tries to support this listing with a string citation to several cases — each standing for something different than an exception from statutory language. Still, to ensure clarity, the Court gives examples: “a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter.” Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2, nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.”  Id. So far so good, but this classic example of the Court trying to sound informed and competent out of its comfort zone reemerges 30 years later to replace (and effectively overrule) the statutory rule that governed for over 200 years and remains in Title 35.

This week in Other Barks and Bites: a California district court rules a Chinese chipmaker was not guilty of stealing trade secrets; multiple news organizations sue OpenAI for using copyrighted material to train ChatGPT; and a writer accuses Amazon Studios of copyright infringement and using AI to work around the actor’s strike.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today published a Federal Register Notice (FRN) announcing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would make permanent certain aspects of the Motion to Amend (MTA) Pilot program and revise rules around the burden of persuasion governing MTAs. The MTA pilot program for America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) stems back to March 2019, when the Office published a notice of pilot program in the Federal Register announcing that patent owners would have the opportunity to seek preliminary guidance on MTAs from the Board itself. The pilot program also offered the opportunity for patent owners to file revised MTAs following a petitioner’s brief in opposition to the original motion to amend. Since launching the pilot program, the USPTO has twice extended the date for terminating the program, which is currently set to run through September 16, 2024.

For better or worse, anyone can be sued for any reason—even reasons that are completely fictitious and based on allegations that are entirely false. Several cases have recently caused me to ask a simple question: Can something actually be evidence if it is false? I’ve had a few people respond, some thoughtful and others intentionally dense. “Of course, something that is false is evidence,” one person recently told me. “It is up to the trier of fact to determine what is false, and that which is false is clearly evidence to be considered.”

As an update to my previous posts from 2017, 2019, 2020, March 2021, August 2021, 2022, and 2023, it has now been almost a decade since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision. Yet the debate still rages over when a software (or computer-implemented) claim is patentable versus being simply an abstract idea “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none” (as eloquently phrased 76 years ago by then-Supreme Court Justice Douglas in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.).

On February 20, 2024, a Brazilian congress member, Antônio Luiz Rodrigues Mano Júnior (known as Júnior Mano), introduced a bill to amend the national IP Statute (Law #9,279/96) and regulate the ownership of inventions generated by artificial intelligence systems. Bill #303/2024 proposes the addition of a paragraph to Article 6 of the IP Statute, which regulates ownership of inventions, with the following wording: “in the case of inventions autonomously generated by artificial intelligence system, the patent can be requested in the name of the artificial intelligence system that has created the invention, being the artificial intelligence system considered the inventor and owner of rights arising from the invention.”