Posts in WIPO

In the increasingly global environment, our creators, inventors and innovators have continued to lean on the shoulders of the of intellectual property (IP) system as the core of the emergent global knowledge economy and a guarantee for private reward and public welfare. The products of intellect have continued to face opportunities and challenges presented by rapid technological changes. With the…

There are 10 candidates declared to succeed Francis Gurry as WIPO Director General, when he retires in September this year after serving two six-year terms. One of them will be nominated to be Director General by the WIPO Coordination Committee on March 5 and 6, before being formally appointed by the WIPO General Assembly. The Coordination Committee comprises 83 of WIPO’s 192 member states. The 10 candidates include eight men and two women. There are three candidates from Asia, three from Latin America, two from Africa, and one each from Europe and central Asia. There are no candidates from North America.

A patent maintenance fee is an official fee that is payable at prescribed intervals to a national patent office over the lifecycle of a patent application or a granted patent, in order to keep the patent application or the granted patent in force in that particular jurisdiction. It is payable by an applicant or a patent owner (an assignee or a patentee, as the case may be). Patent maintenance fees are an integral part of the patenting process and may also be referred to as patent annuities, patent annuity fees, patent renewal fees, or patent annual fees. The failure to pay a patent maintenance fee could have serious and far-reaching consequences, including the patent application or the granted patent being treated as lapsed, withdrawn, or abandoned in that particular jurisdiction. In this article, we will delve into the patent maintenance fees in the jurisdictions in which the payment of said fees begins at the patent grant stage or patent issue stage, or are calculated from the date on which a patent is issued or granted.

The European Patent Office has refused two European patent applications that designated an artificial intelligence called DABUS as the inventor, following a non-public hearing on November 25, 2019. The applications are for a “food container” (number EP3564144) and “devices and methods for attracting enhanced attention” (number EP3563896). They were filed by the Artificial Inventor Project, which has so far filed patent applications for the inventions via the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) in the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, China, Korea and Taiwan.

In 2019, the first-ever United States-India collaboration on intellectual property rights (IPR) education was launched. Program participants included entrepreneurs, students, and academic faculty. The initiative brought together multiple governments and agencies for a blending of ideas and priorities that elevated the experience for participants and advanced U.S.-India relations. The outcome was a sense of U.S.-India ‘team’ in collaboration to advance the cause of intellectual property education in India. The United States Consulate General Kolkata, India funded the creation of an IPR education initiative that included a series of webinars and a week-long series of summer workshops presented as the first United States-India Symposium on Intellectual Property Rights. Workshops focused on the value, importance, and use of IPR as a driver of economic success. The program was promoted within the practitioner, academic, and business community through email, Facebook, LinkedIn, and other social media including distribution channels of the local partners.

Innovative activity is more collaborative and transnational, but also focused on a few large clusters in a few countries. These are among the findings in the latest World Intellectual Property Report, published by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) on November 12. The report focuses on the geography of innovation, using geocoding based on the addresses of inventors listed on patents and the locations of the authors of scientific articles and conference proceedings. The report found that, during the period 2015-2017, some 30 metropolitan hotspots accounted for more than two-thirds of all patents and nearly half of scientific activity. The top 10 hotspots worldwide are: San Francisco/San Jose, New York, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Boston, Shanghai, London, Beijing, Bengaluru and Paris. In the U.S., hotspots around New York, San Francisco and Boston accounted for about a quarter of all U.S. patents filed from 2011 to 2015.

Each year the World Intellectual Property Organization releases a report titled World Intellectual Property Indicators. The latest edition of the report, the 2019 version, is a look back on the filing statistics for 2018. The report is eye-opening and should be mandatory reading for policy makers and legislators in the United States. For the first time since 2009, the United States saw a decline in the number of patent applications filed. This remarkable statistic comes at a time when patent applications are growing in number across the rest of the world. And let’s not forget that 2009 was a time of particular economic crisis both in the United States and around the world due to the global financial crisis and Wall Street meltdown brought on by the housing market collapse.  

This past week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit issued precedential decisions affirming the invalidation of patent claims covering osteoarthritis treatments and a costs award to Facebook, but reversed the PTAB on a reasonable expectation of success finding; the U.S. Supreme Court issued orders denying certiorari to several intellectual property cases; North Korea acceded to the Geneva Act of WIPO’s Lisbon Agreement; the Dollywood theme park was hit with a copyright suit over use of the Peanuts’ “Christmas Time is Here”; Nokia announced 2,000 patent families declared as 5G SEPs; former CAFC Chief Judge Rader has called on China to move forward with promised pharmaceutical patent reforms; 2019’s third quarter showed growth in the global PC market; and the USPTO announced that it has met its patent application pendency goals as well as a new senior-level position for an AI expert.

Today, blockchain projects are proceeding in nearly every major industry and occur in more than 140 countries. According to blockchain IP landscape research by Perception Partners, over the past three years, the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of patent families publishing in the United States, Europe, Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), China, Japan and Korea is about 23%. The space has more than 13,000 global competitors of every size with nearly 23,000 inventors or authors disclosing or researching blockchain innovations. Much has been written about Bitcoin and blockchain technology, including a prior article in which we provided an overview on “The Bitcoin Network, Blockchain Technology and Altcoin Futures.”  To keep pace with the evolving nature of blockchain intellectual property and technology, below we provide some sample use cases of how blockchain innovations are already being leveraged in commerce and likely to be exploited in the near future.

While online giant Amazon has been in the news recently for asking the Federal Aviation Administration to ease restrictions for its planned drone-based delivery services, a battle is raging behind the scenes for the future of unmanned delivery vehicles. Walmart is combating the narrative of online retailers overtaking brick-and-mortar businesses by revamping its image and services. Besides using a hybrid of online shopping and manual pick-up at the store, the company is very interested in delivering its products to the customer directly—not only through traditional means, but with unmanned drone delivery couriers.

Later this year (likely in October), the United Kingdom’s highest court will hear arguments on questions arising in two disputes concerning standard essential patents (SEPs). The UK Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals in Unwired Planet International Ltd and another v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and another UKSC 2018/0214 and the joined cases Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and another v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL UKSC 2019/0041 and ZTE Corporation and another v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL UKSC 2019/0042. The arguments are likely to focus on one question: can a national court impose a global license in SEP cases? The closely watched appeal will be the culmination of years of litigation between the parties. In the Unwired Planet case, Mr. Justice Birss of the High Court heard five trials on the validity and infringement/essentiality of Unwired Planet’s patents. In April 2017, he then gave a mammoth judgment determining what a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) license would be, and setting royalty rates. Critically, he found that only a worldwide license would be FRAND in the circumstances of this case. The England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld this conclusion, in a judgment in October 2018. The Supreme Court will likely sit in a five-judge panel in a hearing that will last about two days and will be live streamed on its website (the date and panel details have not been confirmed yet). It will hand down judgment later this year or early in 2020. (Ironically, patent specialist Lord Kitchin is a member of the Supreme Court but will not be sitting in this case as it is his own judgment that is under appeal.) You might have thought that—after decades of legal debate and academic writing, dozens of judgments addressing questions such as what constitutes a FRAND license and what are reasonable royalties, and extensive discussions between technology companies—the questions around SEPs would be close to being resolved. But that is far from the case. The outcome of the UK Supreme Court hearing, for instance, will have an impact on negotiations between owners of SEP portfolios and implementers worldwide, at a time when standards are set to become critical to many more industries.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: WIPO launches dispute resolution service for Chinese domain names; Morrison Foerster report shows that IP litigation costs are increasing as the number of IP matters being handled are decreasing; the Federal Circuit issues precedential decisions upholding claim construction findings at the ITC and overturning a district court jury verdict finding invalidity for being unsupported by record evidence; the Second Circuit clarifies when profits can be awarded in trademark cases; Uber IP transfer creates $6.1 billion tax break for the company; major football associations call for crackdown on Saudi piracy service; OPPO inks patent agreements with Intel and Ericsson; and Broadcom acquires Symantec’s enterprise security business.

Copyright is one of the most important intellectual property rights for any individual in America. The power to grant protection of copyrights “by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” is given to Congress in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. As an author and computer programmer, I find that many of my colleagues misunderstand these rights and the protections that they afford. For this reason, I think it is important to clear up some misunderstandings in the recent IP Watchdog article, “A Question of Morals: The U.S. Approach to Plagiarism, ‘Moral Rights’, and Copyright Infringement” by Dave Davis.

In recognition of China’s increasing importance in the global IP landscape, patent applications in China by U.S.-based applicants have steadily increased in recent years. Data compiled by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in its World Intellectual Property Indicators 2017 and 2018 reports show the number of regular patent applications in China filed by U.S.-based applicants increasing by about 14% from 2016 to 2017. Over the same period, the number of U.S. utility patent applications filed by U.S.-based applicants fell by about 0.5%. Whatever the story is behind these numbers, U.S.-based applicants are clearly interested in obtaining patent protection in China, and China is courting that interest. Most U.S.-based applicants will naturally gravitate toward protecting their inventions using China’s so-called “invention” patent. This is China’s counterpart to a U.S. utility patent. But China also has the world’s most active utility model system. In many cases, a U.S. patent application could be filed as either a utility model application or an invention application in China. In recent years, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has been quietly updating its utility model system by increasing the degree to which utility model applications are substantively examined.

In 2002, India’s Patent Act 1970 [“the Act”] was amended to include Section 107A. This provision says that any act of making, using, selling or importing a patented invention solely for uses reasonably related to the development and submission of information required under any law in India, or in a country other than India, shall not be considered as infringement of patent rights.  This provision also outlines India’s Bolar exemption. As per the “Bolar doctrine,” which arose out of the U.S. case of Roche Products v. Bolar Pharmaceuticals (1984), it is permissible for third parties to carry out research and development on patented products (especially drugs) for the purposes of submitting information as required by regulatory authorities. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that third parties can conduct research and development and obtain prior regulatory approvals, enabling them to launch the patented products on the market as soon as the patent term expires. This ensures that patent holders do not get a de facto monopoly on their inventions after expiration of their patent term. Further, it ensures that the public has access to cheaper generic versions of the drugs immediately after expiration of the patent term. In India, the scope of this provision has been controversial for some time now, leading to a slew of litigation between major international pharmaceutical companies and Indian generic manufacturers claiming the Bolar exemption. In the recent combined decision in the matters of Bayer Corporation v. Union of India & Ors. LPA No. 359/2017 and Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH & Anr. v. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd. RFA(OS)(COMM) 6/2017 (March 22, 2019), the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court laid these controversies to rest by deciding the question of whether export is permissible under this provision.