Posts Tagged: "Gene Quinn"

While 5G technology is quite well known by many in popular culture, thanks to nearly ubiquitous television commercials, it is not the only new wireless technology that promises revolutionary support for the fast-growing Internet of Things and associated devices. Wi-Fi 6 (or “802.11 ax”) also promises to offer consumers vastly improved wireless speed and performance, although it is not yet nearly as pervasive as 5G technology. As new technologies are developed and eventually used by customers, disputes about patent rights, licensing and royalties typically follow, and we can be certain that will be the case as wireless telecommunications continue to offer faster speeds and devices continue to become interconnected. The speed revolution will open horizons not yet imagined, and economies will change. Sorting out who deserves what for each innovative contribution will become increasingly important and complicated (at least under current paradigms).  

I recently had the opportunity to conduct an interview with Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, via WebEx. The focus of our conversation was the COVID-19 pandemic: USPTO efforts to work with stakeholders, the role of intellectual property in finding cures and treatments, and general thoughts relating to what the Office is observing. Our conversation also veered into Bayh-Dole and the the letter just sent by three-dozen state Attorneys General asking the federal government to use march-in rights against Remdesivir.

Several weeks ago, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice announced a positive Business Review Letter (BRL) concluding an eight-month review of Avanci’s new platform for licensing 5G standard essential patents. “In sum, the proposed 5G Platform has the potential to yield efficiencies by reducing transaction costs and streamlining licensing for connected vehicles,” wrote Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim, who heads the DOJ Antitrust Division. “Together these efficiencies may allow cellular standards-essential patent owners and vehicle manufacturers to focus resources elsewhere, such as investment in further research and development in emerging 5G technologies and applications. This possibility could enhance competition in these technologies, improve safety, and benefit American consumers.” The finding that the Avanci 5G platform could enhance competition is critically important for Avanci, and positively affects the technology licensing landscape.

As COVID-19 reaches into its sixth month in the United States, life has changed dramatically. Due to the pandemic, our CON2020 has been canceled and we have pivoted to present the panel discussions in a sponsor-supported free online series that will roll out throughout the month of September. The COVID-19 pandemic has also forced the decision to cancel our live SEP2020 program, which was to take place in Arlington, Virginia. Instead, we will once again pivot and present the panel discussions in a free online series. SEP2020 will be made up of a free online series of panels over three days: November 3, 10 & 17. These sponsor-supported panels are free to attend, and registration is open. We are well underway with plans for SEP2020, but we are looking for additional speakers.

Why are the tech companies so in love with China? Are they are begging for China to steal their intellectual property? Sometimes it feels that way. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that U.S. companies that see their fortunes tied to China are raising concerns with the White House over a Trump Administration Executive Order that would ban WeChat from the United States. U.S. companies, including Apple, Ford, Walmart, Walt Disney, Procter & Gamble and Intel “are concerned the administration’s action could effectively cut them off from access to the lucrative China market, for example by ending their ability to accept payments or advertise on WeChat.”

In Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8, of our Constitution, the founders were relatively specific. The founders give Congress power to secure “the exclusive Right” to “Authors and Inventors” in the “Writings and Discoveries”. Congress is given  specific direction on how to do it (i.e., “for Limited Times”), and why it should be done (i.e., “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”). Unfortunately, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011 dramatically changed how the Executive branch implements the Constitutional prerogative.  The AIA transferred power constitutionally allocated to the judicial branch to the executive branch – specifically, to Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) in the USPTO. In the process of implementing the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) on which the APJs sit, judicial independence, judicial ethics, rules of evidence, and other protections commonly afforded rights holders in disputes adjudicated by the federal judiciary were sacrificed in the name of expediency.

There is a symbiotic relationship between innovation and patents. The innovation that we say we most want is cutting-edge innovation that requires time, money and determination to bring into being.Unfortunately, paradigm shifting innovation does not come cheap. And patents are the lifeblood of this type of disruptive innovation. Those within the industry know this to be the case, and today the Alliance of U.S. Startups and Inventors for Jobs (USIJ) released a report detailing a comprehensive study that confirms the importance of patents and the consequences of a patent system in the United States that has veered away from strong protections for innovators and toward rules and laws that make it ever easier for implementers to copy the innovations of creators without remuneration.

On Thursday, July 23, the United States Senate passed the Sustainable Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2019 as a part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).

In December 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in a standard essential patent (SEP) appeal involving Ericsson and TCL Communication Technology—a closely watched case that many thought would shed light on what constitutes a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) offer of a licensing royalty rate relative to standard essential patents (SEPs). TCL appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on May 1 and several amicus briefs have now been filed in support of the petition being granted. Below are excerpts taken from the Summary of the Argument and the introduction to the Argument in the amicus filing by Mark Lemley and other professors. I’ve taken the liberty of providing my thoughts in the format of comments from the peanut gallery, or perhaps as a patent law equivalent to Mystery Science Theater 3000.

This morning, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced that Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross reappointed Commissioner for Patents Drew Hirshfeld for a second five-year term. Commissioner Hirshfeld’s original term was set to expire this month. Hirshfeld began his career with the USPTO in 1994 as a Patent Examiner, became a Supervisory Patent Examiner in 2001, and was promoted in 2008 to Group Director in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture Software and Information Security).

According to the Concord Monitor, the University of New Hampshire is being petitioned by several students to drop the name of Franklin Pierce from the law school. And although the decision will not rest with the faculty of the law school, sources tell IPWatchdog that 12 of the 25 full-time law school faculty support the petition. “With the movement that we’re currently in, it felt like an opportune time to take the name off there,” Adrián Coss, a rising third-year law student at the law school who is involved with the petition told the Concord Monitor. “It’s wrong to begin with. This is racially insensitive.” Why is the name “Franklin Pierce” racially insensitive? In a nutshell, Pierce, who did not himself own any slaves and abhorred slavery, did not do enough to put an end to the practice of slavery during his turbulent one term as President of the United States.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” reads the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, a document authored by Thomas Jefferson, edited by Benjamin Franklin, and signed by some 56 Congressional delegates. Over the weekend, we celebrated the 244th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and in light of everything that has happened over the second quarter of 2020 it is perhaps a good time to reflect. So much of the second quarter of 2020 has been defined by two major events— the unnecessary and unacceptable killing of George Floyd and COVID-19. In the coming weeks and months there will be much written and debated by experts in the field of social justice, police reform and government relating to just about every aspect of the events relating to the death of Mr. Floyd. As those conversations ensue, and reforms are brought to bear, as more fully explained below, America should also take this opportunity to have a broader conversation about private property rights— real, personal and intangible.

I’ve recently hosted two webinars on patent classification, taking a look at how contractors for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) determine where to route each patent application within the Office after filing. One webinar dealt with classification generally and a second dealt specifically with classification relating to computer implemented inventions. These webinars were fascinating on many levels. Did you know that the old patent classification system plays an important role in determining which Art Unit is assigned an application? And you probably thought you could forget about class 705! Not so fast! A sparsely populated technical disclosure in the specification with an inartful claim set is still a recipe for characterization in class 705, which still must be avoided at all costs if possible.

The first half of 2020 has brought so much upheaval and disruption that it is almost hard to contemplate. In the future, there will be entire treatises and dissertations in a variety of fields of study that seek to understand the socioeconomic, psychological and inter-personal dynamics brought to bear. For now, individuals, families, business leaders, government officials— everyone really—are left to figure out what is next in this ever-changing landscape before us, which in the United States has become even more complicated by domestic unrest in virtually every major city. As states are opening up slowly, many businesses— of all sizes really— remain cautious.  Plans to return to pre-COVID normal are being discussed, but how can you, for example, get employees into the office when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) continues to recommend social distancing of at least six feet? With many offices being in high-rise buildings and elevators being only so large, the logistics of getting staff into and out of the office safely are daunting, let alone the reality that there is no plan for social distancing when using mass transit, for example.