Posts in Technology & Innovation

IP litigation is becoming more and more complicated—and more and more interesting. It is most important—extremely important to the nation, and all nations—that advances in technology be accompanied by full and fair dispute resolution and by fair and just law. Justice—this is where the judges come in. The target of litigation is the judge. The judge will decide who wins and who loses—that’s what judges do. These elaborate techniques we’re talking about at this meeting have only one purpose—to persuade the judge that you’re right and the opponent is wrong.

By now, you are aware that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on May 10, 2024 (89 Fed. Reg. 40439), that would dramatically alter patent applicant and patentee statutory rights in their patent filings by proposing a draconian change to the requirements for submission of a terminal disclaimer (TD). Several blogs, including IPWatchdog, have reported on it. Comments are due by July 10, 2024.

Imagine building a house and by law, 20 years from completion, all ownership rights to the asset expired permanently whether retained by the original owner or obtained through purchase. Notwithstanding rising real estate values, the ability to reap the benefit of that asset’s appreciation would decrease rapidly for every year the property was owned. After 20 years, as the house passed into the public domain, you might continue to live there, but its investment or resale value would effectively become zero. This is the reality for intellectual property rights, which are time-limited by law, a condition established by the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recent Request for Comments (RFC) on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) highlights a critical juncture in intellectual property law—evaluating the impact of generative AI (GenAI) on the non-obviousness standard. As GenAI technologies integrate deeply with human intellect, possibly even enhancing cognitive capacities, we must reassess what constitutes “progress” and the constitutional value that intellectual property law was envisioned to advance.

While it’s appropriate to lament the lack of bipartisan cooperation in Washington, just because something’s bipartisan doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. Exhibit A could be Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Senator J.D. Vance’s (R-OH) “Invent It Here, Make It Here” bill. Despite the name and its good intentions, it condemns promising federally funded inventions to waste away without doing a thing to build our domestic manufacturing base. It’s scheduled to be considered this Thursday in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

I was scrolling my LinkedIn feed recently and noticed a former associate had posted that they had achieved certification in “AI ethics” from one of the world’s largest technology companies. I’ve noticed this term becoming more ubiquitous lately, and it’s puzzling. Ethical according to whom? Ethical compared to what? Whose ethical code are we using to determine whether a given technology is ethical? By what standards do we measure whether an AI-generated image, song, article, thought piece, or other assets are “ethical?”

On May 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in Zircon Corp. v. International Trade Commission affirming the U.S. International Trade Commission’s (ITC) ruling that Zircon Corp. had failed to meet the domestic industry requirement to prove a violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 due to Stanley Black & Decker’s alleged patent infringement. The Federal Circuit agreed with the ITC that Zircon had failed to provide an adequate basis for evaluating its domestic industry investments by aggregating its investments into products that practiced fewer than all patents asserted by Zircon in the ITC’s Section 337 investigation.

Earlier this year, a jury trial was held in the matter of G+ Communications, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No: 2:22-CV-00078-JRG (E.D. Texas). Pursuant to the jury’s verdict, two of the three patents asserted were found to be infringed by Samsung, and compensation was awarded to G+ in the amount of $45 million for one patent and $22.5 million for the other. The verdict further indicated these amounts were running royalties as opposed to lump sum royalties. Additionally, the jury found G+ had not “breached its [fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory] FRAND obligation by failing to offer a license to the Asserted Patents to Samsung that was fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory, and by failing to act in good faith regarding negotiations with Samsung as to a FRAND license covering the Asserted Patents.”

In 1945, American engineer and the first Director of The Office of Scientific Research and Development, Vannevar Bush, published a famous report, Science and The Endless Frontier, which stated that “scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress.” However, scientific progress could not be achieved until a streamlined patent system that incentivized and rewarded inventors was created. 

On Tuesday, May 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit will hear argument in a long-awaited appeal addressing the inventorship of the Nobel Prize-winning CRISPR technology. The case is the latest in a continuing legal battle between two groups of innovators, each asserting patent rights to key aspects of the groundbreaking technology.

On May 2, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) issued its most recent biennial report, entitled “Making Innovation Policy Work for Development,” which analyzes patent filing, scientific publications and economic data across the globe over the last two decades to identify innovation policies effective at diversifying national economies. While WIPO’s report underscores the highly concentrated nature of the global innovation economy, it also highlights several countries that have seen significant improvements in their own technological diversification during the study period.

The judicially-created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) originated long ago as a shield to protect the public against unwarranted patent term extension (PTE). The Uruguay Round Agreements Act of 1994 (URAA) removed most of these concerns when it changed statutory term from 17 years from issue to 20 years from earliest effective filing date. By limiting patent families to a single 20-year term, the URAA eliminated the ability of patent owners to indefinitely extend the term of their invention by filing successive continuations claiming similar subject matter. After the URAA, all patents in a family are effectively limited to the 20-year term of the first-filed patent, plus an occasional modest term extension due to regulatory delays (PTE) or delays at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)).

Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) sent a letter yesterday to President Joe Biden again condemning the Administration’s December 2023 proposal to allow agencies to consider pricing in deciding whether and when to “march in” on patent rights. Under the proposed framework, which sources have told IPWatchdog is close to being finalized, an agency may consider “[a]t what price and on what terms has the product utilizing the subject invention been sold or offered for sale in the U.S.” and whether “the contractor or licensee [has] made the product available only to a narrow set of consumers or customers because of high pricing or other extenuating factors”.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently released new guidance for practitioners using artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools. The guidance primarily serves as a reminder of longstanding requirements and best practices for patent and trademark practitioners. For example, patent practitioners have a duty of candor and good faith to the USPTO and a duty of confidentiality to their clients. The guidance does not announce any new law or rule regarding practicing before the Office;  rather, it provides some insight into how the Office expects practitioners to operate when incorporating AI-based tools into their practice.