Posts Tagged: "Bruce Berman"

Is it a great time to be an inventor or a terrible one? From some corners of the inventing community, the news is doom and gloom, but for Stephen Key, a successful creator and entrepreneur, the opportunities faced by inventive people today are as varied and exciting as the challenges. Patents, he believes, are a tool to help people share their creativity. To commercialize some products they are absolutely necessary, but to bring others to market they may not be needed. In an industry where inventors are regularly charged tens of thousands of dollars for help with inventions that will never make it to market, his unique perspective and commitment to giving back to the next generation of creators have earned him a large following.

Investors, both speculative and strategic, are adjusting to the emergence of a bold new category of assets—digital collectibles. NFTs, or Non-Fungible Tokens, are so called because they are irreplaceable or one-of-a-kind artifacts–effectively, digital “limited editions.” NFTs trade on blockchains or distributed ledgers, typically without middlemen or brokers. The primary advantage of most blockchains is transparency and efficiency. Agreements are recorded on an open ledger for all to see. This is especially attractive to frequent traders who require accurate pricing and full disclosure for difficult-to-value assets. Now, two stalwarts in the intellectual property world, IBM and IPwe, believe that NFTs can be used to take patent monetization to new heights.

Starting this week, Bruce Berman, author and CEO of Brody Berman Associates and founder and chairman of the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding, an independent non-profit, will publish his well-known column, the “Intangible Investor” with IPWatchdog.The column ran for 17 years in IAM Magazine and will continue to focus on trends and observations in the realm of IP valuation and investment. Berman spoke with IPWatchdog about the history of the column and what readers can expect going forward.

Theranos was based on the promise that a charismatic 19-year-old Stanford drop-out, Elizabeth Holmes, had developed a revolutionary technology that could perform important diagnostic tests by using a drop or two of blood. Whatever the outcome of a planned three-month trial set to begin next August in San Jose federal court, there may never be a full accounting of the destructive power of a good story well-told. The attitudes that allowed Theranos and Holmes to operate undetected and for investors to be duped out of more than a half-billion dollars do not appear to have changed. “The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley,” a documentary released by HBO earlier this year, effectively dramatizes an extraordinary narrative. Gibney’s eye-opening film is important on several levels. However, its suggestion that “faking it ‘til you make it” is what many innovative businesses and professional inventors (like Edison) typically do, is inaccurate and disrespectful.

On March 21, Personalized Media Communications, LLC (PMC), owner of 98 patents covering networked equipment technologies, filed patent lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas against major tech firms Netflix, Google, and Akamai. The lawsuits claim that the defendants infringed upon intellectual property that covers a major part of the adaptive streaming capabilities for each of the three businesses. In the lawsuits, PMC is asserting claims from six patents it has earned between 2010 and 2017, each titled Signal Processing Apparatus and Methods.

While the goal of developing a US innovation policy bolstered by strong IP protections was the focus of the event it was clear that competition with China, who clearly has set their own innovation agenda on a country-wide level, created a clear sense of urgency in the discussions… Generally speaking, the panelists felt that the actions of the last few years had inflicted serious damage on the reliability of patent rights in the US and created substantial doubt about what those rights were worth economically with the changes. The panel was overwhelmingly in favor of making significant changes to the current environment especially with regard to the proceeding at the PTAB.

There are no shortage of opinions about what Director Iancu should do now that he is at the helm of America’s innovation agency. To contribute to the advice Director Iancu is no doubt receiving from many corners already, I’ve asked a panel of industry experts to weigh and give their advice about what should be on top of the Iancu agenda.

For my wishes, I’ll make four. First, as I did last year, I again continue to wish for patent eligibility reform in Congress that would overrule Mayo, Myriad and Alice.With there major industry organizations coming out in 2017 to support legislative reform perhaps this wish will eventually come true, although as of now it seems to be a long shot in 2018. Second, I hope the Federal Circuit dramatically decreases its use of Rule 36 affirmances, and specifically stops using this docket management tool when cases are appealed from the PTAB and also with respect to appeals dealing with 101 patent eligibility issues. Third, I wish for the AIA post grant procedures to be declared unconstitutional, which with the Supreme Court set to decide Oil States in 2018 is at least plausible. Finally, assuming the Supreme Court does not do away with post grant challenges, I wish for the new PTO Director to dramatically reform the post grant process in ways that remove the systemic biases that have made the proceedings hopelessly one-sided against patent owners.

Typically, the reform debate over the U.S. patent system features smaller players, but America’s largest tech firms also have issues with the patent system, which go way beyond any single company’s ability to sustain success… Leading off the panel’s remarks was Manny Schecter, chief patent counsel for IBM, who noted that innovation is a risk-bearing operation. “The likelihood that you ever make an investment [into research & development] is based on the return you anticipate on getting in that investment,” Schecter said. Any reduction to the anticipated return caused by uncertainty in IP policy discourages R&D investment. Schecter added that one of the ways in which intellectual property promotes innovation is by preventing others from taking innovations which are not their own. “We want to minimize or control uncertainty in the IP space if we want to maintain an IP surplus and promote the viability of the economy,” he said.