Posts Tagged: "Gene Quinn"

It has become difficult to understand why the Federal Circuit does what it does in any number of rulings, but its decisions relating to patent eligibility have set patent law back several generations, turned precedent on its head, ignored the Patent Act passed by Congress, and unnecessarily and inexplicably expanded upon bad Supreme Court precedent. Somewhere along the way, the Federal Circuit lost its footing in a spectacularly demoralizing fashion. Patents must be stopped at all costs—or so they seem to believe—and 35 U.S.C. 101 is the tool du jour.

Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) arguably has more pressing issues to focus on than intellectual property at the moment, as the nation scrambles to find solutions to the many economic and health crises caused by the coronavirus pandemic and COVID-19. And yet, Tillis has somehow managed to remain focused on IP, with recent movement in the areas of copyright and trademark modernization, as well as exploration into the implications of Allen et al. v. Cooper, Governor of North Carolina, et al. I recently had the opportunity to catch up with Senator Tillis on the record, discussing his interest in intellectual property, the status of patent eligibility reform, the COVID-19 outbreak, copyright modernization, trademark modernization and the harm done by counterfeiting. Without further ado, here is my conversation with Senator Thom Tillis, Chairman of the Senate IP Subcommittee.

It is with tremendous sadness that I write today to say that Q. Todd Dickinson passed away on Sunday, May 3, 2020. As I choke back tears, staring at my computer screen, I find myself at a loss for words to describe someone who has been a friend for so many years, both to Renée and I personally and to IPWatchdog. I mourn not only a great man who, through his many accomplishments, did much domestically and internationally within the intellectual property world, but I also mourn one of my best, truest friends.

When did it become necessary to triangulate the news in order to figure out what was really happening in the world? Many media outlets have significantly slowed down with respect to reporting on the news and are increasingly ramping up on opinion and conjecture in its place. Why that happened isn’t terribly difficult to understand, and it is likely going to only get worse. Once upon a time there were few sources of information, with only several TV channels and a small handful of national newspapers were competing for eyeballs. The rise of the 24/7 news cycle brought on by a proliferation of cable news stations with timeslots to fill changed the dynamic. The widespread adoption of Internet technologies and the World Wide Web also made it possible for people to get news throughout the day on their own terms, again making it less necessary for those seeking news and information to go to one of the chosen few industry leading sources. Today, many get news from myriad online sources, social media platforms, YouTube videos and more. There is so much information available, it is almost easy to mistake the information that is available as news.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Chief Economist today released a report, “Adjusting to Alice: USPTO patent examination outcomes after Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International,” outlining the effect of recent USPTO actions on patent eligibility determinations in certain technology areas most affected by the Alice decision. According to a USPTO press release, the conclusion is that these actions “have brought greater predictability and certainty” to these tech areas. “We have heard anecdotally from both examiners and applicants across the entire spectrum of technologies that our 2019 guidance on Section 101 greatly improved the analysis in this important area of patent law,” said Andrei Iancu, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO in the press release. “The Chief Economist’s report now confirms this general perception, especially with its critical finding that uncertainty decreased by a remarkable 44%.” 

Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), by and through his designees, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), has the unchallengeable authority to institute inter partes review (IPR) proceedings even when they are brought outside the statute of limitations. Thus, the PTAB is now the most important patent court in the United States. This begs an important question that Congress must soon wrestle with regarding access to the PTAB. We have been told over and over again just how essential the PTAB is to the patent system. How necessary the PTAB is with respect to rooting out bad patents that never should have issued. And, honestly, the PTAB has been very, very good at killing patent claims and patents. But there is a fundamental unfairness at the PTAB. If the PTAB is so important, why are the fees so high? If the PTAB plays such a vital role in correcting the egregious mistakes of patent examiners (of which there are apparently many given the number of valuable patents that die upon review), why should only those patents that are owned by independent inventors, universities, start-ups and research and development companies be the targets? What about the truly ridiculous, idiotic patents that are issued to large entities?

“The COVID-19 crisis has once more highlighted the need for incentivizing investment and innovation—and thus, for patent laws that duly “promote” and protect such “progress,” precisely as our Founders envisioned,” writes Chief Judge Paul Michel, now retired from the Federal Circuit. As he so often is, Judge Michel is absolutely correct. Many are asking why testing for the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 has been slow to roll out, and why tests in many countries are inaccurate. Those familiar with U.S. patent laws understand the problem. There has been a deemphasis on medical diagnostics in America as the result of a series of Supreme Court and Federal Circuit rulings, coupled with Congressional inaction.

Last week, as a part of the Virtual Patent Masters™ Program hosted by IPWatchdog, I had the opportunity to interview Makan Delrahim, who is Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). During his tenure at the Antitrust Division, AAG Delrahim has moved the policy of the federal government in a direction that is viewed as being more friendly to patent owners and innovators. For example, in December 2018, Delrahim indicated that the Antitrust Division was withdrawing its assent to the to the 2013 joint DOJ-U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (the 2013 Joint Policy Statement) during remarks delivered at the 19th Annual Berkeley-Stanford Advanced Patent Law Institute. It was the Delrahim’s view that patent remedies shouldn’t be unilaterally unavailable for one category of patent simply because the patent owner may be subject to an obligation to engage in fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory negotiations with implementers.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has denied rehearing en banc in Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, a decision that made the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) administrative patent judges (APJs) “inferior officers” under the U.S. Appointments Clause, in order to skirt the problem that they had been unconstitutionally appointed under the America Invents Act. Five of the 12 Federal Circuit judges wrote separately to explain their reasons for denying, or dissenting from denial on, rehearing. Judge Moore wrote to concur with the denial, and Judges O’Malley, Reyna and Chen joined, saying that granting rehearing “would only create unnecessary uncertainty and disruption.” Moore added that the Arthrex panel followed Supreme Court precedent in concluding that APJs were improperly appointed principal officers, and also followed precedent in its solution which severed a portion of the statute “to solve that constitutional problem while preserving the remainder of the statute and minimizing disruption to the inter partes review system Congress created.”

We live in interesting times. No corner of professional or personal life seems untouched in at least some way by the latest coronavirus (named SARS-CoV-2) and the disease it causes (named “coronavirus disease 2019” abbreviated COVID-19). Governments all around the world are either demanding or suggesting that people quarantine themselves or engage in social distancing. The intellectual property world is no different. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), IP Australia, the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA), and the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) are just some of the Offices that have in recent days issued COVID-19 guidance to inform stakeholders of how the Offices will handle workflow and meetings during this global health emergency.

Unfortunately, some simply cannot help themselves but to use every opportunity – real or imagined – to take a cheap shot at a patent owner for having the audacity to seek to enforce patent rights, so it should come as no surprise that false and misleading reports would surface in the life sciences world relating to the latest coronavirus (named SARS-CoV-2) and the disease it causes (named “coronavirus disease 2019” abbreviated COVID-19). It was only a matter of time. The true story begins in 2018, when Fortress Investment Group acquired the patent assets of Theranos Inc. Fast forward to March 9, 2020, when Labrador Diagnostics LLC filed a patent infringement lawsuit against BioFire Diagnostics, LLC and bioMerieux S.A., asserting U.S. Patent No. 8,283,155 and U.S. Patent No. 10,533,994, patent assets acquired by Fortress Investment Group from Theranos. This patent infringement lawsuit was not directed to testing for COVID-19, and instead focuses on activities by the defendants over the past six years that are not in any way related to COVID-19 testing.

Subsequently, two days after being sued for infringing the ‘155 patent and the ‘994 patent, on March 11, 2020, bioMerieux announced the forthcoming launch of three different tests “to address the COVID-19 epidemic and to meet the different needs of physicians and health authorities in the fight against this emerging infectious disease.”

Retired Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Paul Michel told registrants of IPWatchdog’s Virtual Patent Masters program taking place today  that the U.S. patent system has been “weakened to the point of being dysfunctional.” This dysfunction has been especially harmful to small businesses and startups, as well as to innovation in the life sciences industry—which we need now more than ever. Asked by IPWatchdog CEO and Founder Gene Quinn whether the coronavirus pandemic may be a wakeup call to those in power about the importance of incentivizing innovation in the life sciences area, Judge Michel noted that experts in the vaccine industry have indicated that China now dominates vaccine research and production. “The current circumstances may shift the thinking of policy makers quite suddenly and quite far,” Michel said. “We definitely are crimping the human health efforts for prevention and cure of symptoms. Let’s hope this really is a wakeup call for our leaders.”

A recently released report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) argues that while there is no easy solution to the ongoing scourge of digital content piracy on the Internet, voluntary agreements between copyright holders and payment processors, advertising networks, domain name registrars, search engines, and other stakeholders can serve as an important complement to legislative and other efforts by governments. Industry should come together and engage in a cooperative way to find mechanisms to stop copyright infringement. If we want original content creators to create original content, then copycats cannot be allowed to profit on the work done by others. Sadly, copyright infringement is rampant on the Internet, which is one of the reasons why there is so much duplicative content. And the industry hasn’t come together to provide a real solution for creators.

As anyone who follows the United States Supreme Court knows, the Court has historically been extremely fond of taking important cases with cutting edge issues, only to dodge the real issues and address some insignificant procedural or hyper-technical issue. Such disappointment is all too frequent, so Supreme Court watchers are seldom surprised when the Court passes on an opportunity to breathe clarity into otherwise unsettled waters. But what the Supreme Court did in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006) was far more disappointing. In eBay, the Supreme Court decided to throw out longstanding and well-established Federal Circuit jurisprudence and offered little or nothing in its place. The result has been an extraordinary shift in the balance of power between patent owners and infringers.

Are you bullish or bearish on the 2020 patent market? That is the question I asked a panel of experts recently. Each of the experts surveyed will participate on the faculty at IPWatchdog CON2020, which will take place in Dallas, TX from March 15-18. All those industry insiders who responded are bullish, which is an interesting change after many years of insiders being bearish, or at best cautiously optimistic. Indeed, the sentiment expressed across the board by experts from both the monetization / licensing world and litigation world is surprising, at least at first glance. And, as you will read below, while at least several people cited the uncertainty around patent eligibility in the United States, there is real optimism because license deals are getting done and policy changes show evolutionary changes in the IP ecosystem.