Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

In what has to be the unkindest cut of all, those expected to benefit from the proposed misuse of march-in rights so the government can impose drug price controls say they don’t support it either. The proponents promoting this hot house theory have seen it denounced by those who created the Bayh-Dole Act as being unauthorized under their law and seen evidence they can’t refute that it would have little impact on drug prices but would devastate small business entrepreneurs in all fields of federally supported research and development. And now they’ve lost the generic drug industry.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been working diligently towards introducing a system supporting the submission of new patent applications in structured text, particularly utilizing the DOCX format, over the past few years. This transition has recently been realized, as the Office officially implemented DOCX filing starting from January 17, 2024. This consideration of filing in DOCX format stemmed from a Proposed Rule issued by the USPTO on July 31, 2019.

This week was an above-average one for patent filings in both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in district courts. The PTAB had two new post grant review (PGR) petitions and 39 new inter partes review (IPR) petitions, for a total of 41 new filings. And the district court also had heightened activity with 75 new filings.

On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Weber, Inc. v. Provisur Technologies, Inc., reversing the finding of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that certain operating manuals with limited dissemination and confidentiality restrictions did not qualify as prior art. The Federal Circuit’s decision concluded that the Board misapplied the analysis for meeting the public accessibility standard for a printed publication to qualify as prior art.

The use of generative and other forms of artificial intelligence is fueling challenging questions about AI’s relationship to IP rights. Businesses, investors, governments, lawyers and students all are learning as they go. What AI means to IP and how it can be regulated should be a part of every educator’s syllabus. How will students use AI to help them learn? Will the datasets that are being used to train popular AI tools be transparent and accessible? Will these datasets continue to use copyrighted works without compensating copyright owners? If that is the case, copyrights may never be the same, nor trade secrets nor patents, for that matter.

The recent U.S. auto workers strike has had a wide reaching impact on the automotive industry, including spurring investors to review their current automotive investments. While significant events like the strike often cause this sort of reaction, more common practices from automakers should – but usually don’t – draw investor attention, including intellectual property management. Our recent three-part analysis on the financial impact of patent lapse strategies for major automotive manufacturers found, among other data points,that major auto brands overspend several million dollars annually by paying fees to renew non-strategic U.S. patents. Investors who understand the patent lapsing strategies of these automotive companies can more effectively evaluate their growth plans and innovation strategies. 

Participants in the U.S. and European patent systems face a rapidly changing landscape as the European patent with unitary effect and Unified Patent Court (UPC) are off to a successful start. The UPC has positioned itself alongside U.S. district courts, the International Trade Commission (USITC), and the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as a leading patent litigation forum…. Accordingly, participants in these patent systems constantly engage with U.S. and European patent attorneys, and now interact more frequently with attorneys who can represent them before the UPC (“UPC representatives”). This article describes key differences in the training, development, and skill sets of U.S. patent attorneys, European patent attorneys, and UPC representatives.

A large number of businesses trade through online platforms and marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay. Consumers may believe that because goods are listed on a well-known trusted platform, they are authentic, and the sellers have been approved in some way by the service provider. Unfortunately, as too many business owners are aware, e-commerce platforms offer counterfeiters and infringers a relatively easy way of offering their infringing goods for sale. A balance must be struck between forcing online marketplace providers to police intellectual property disputes themselves and allowing businesses to protect their intellectual property rights effectively when they are being exploited via online platforms.

In this special two-part episode of Clause 8, Eli delves into the creation, implementation, and strategic importance of Europe’s new Unified Patent Court (UPC) with UPC Judge Michael Fleuchaus and Dr. Benjamin Grau. Since the 1970s, European policy makers have dreamed of a common European patent court. That dream finally became a reality last year, in June of 2023, with the formation of the UPC. Most observers predicted that it would not only become the central court for patent enforcement in Europe but also the go-to destination for enforcing patents worldwide.  Since its inception, prospective litigants have understandably wanted to learn as much as possible about how the UPC would operate in practice and whether the dream would match reality. Fortunately, Judge Fleuchaus – one of the early UPC appointees – and European patent attorney Dr. Grau joined Eli for this special two-part episode of the Clause 8 podcast to discuss the creation, implementation, and role of the UPC from the vantage point of its operation in the first year.

In supreme irony, the U.S. Supreme Court lists the three exceptions to statutory patent eligibility in Chakrabarty, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) — the case most famous for the observation that Thomas Jefferson’s statutory language from the 1793 Act (still in place today) covers “anything under the sun made by man.” Id. at 309. While construing Jefferson’s “broad” statutory language in 35 U.S.C. 101 with “wide scope,” the Court noted: “The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable.” Id. The Court tries to support this listing with a string citation to several cases — each standing for something different than an exception from statutory language. Still, to ensure clarity, the Court gives examples: “a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter.” Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2, nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.”  Id. So far so good, but this classic example of the Court trying to sound informed and competent out of its comfort zone reemerges 30 years later to replace (and effectively overrule) the statutory rule that governed for over 200 years and remains in Title 35.

As an update to my previous posts from 2017, 2019, 2020, March 2021, August 2021, 2022, and 2023, it has now been almost a decade since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision. Yet the debate still rages over when a software (or computer-implemented) claim is patentable versus being simply an abstract idea “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none” (as eloquently phrased 76 years ago by then-Supreme Court Justice Douglas in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.).

On February 20, 2024, a Brazilian congress member, Antônio Luiz Rodrigues Mano Júnior (known as Júnior Mano), introduced a bill to amend the national IP Statute (Law #9,279/96) and regulate the ownership of inventions generated by artificial intelligence systems. Bill #303/2024 proposes the addition of a paragraph to Article 6 of the IP Statute, which regulates ownership of inventions, with the following wording: “in the case of inventions autonomously generated by artificial intelligence system, the patent can be requested in the name of the artificial intelligence system that has created the invention, being the artificial intelligence system considered the inventor and owner of rights arising from the invention.”

Welcome to the synthesized world of “Techno-Humanism,” the latest episode from IP Goes Pop!®, where the promises and legal challenges of an augmented future are decoded through the lens of pop culture. Join Co-hosts, Shareholders and Intellectual Property attorneys Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushue as they navigate the interface of IP and transformative technologies that can augment human capabilities, both in science fiction and emerging reality.

Maintaining control over trade secrets is mostly about risk management, and one dimension of risk lies in having to tell hundreds or thousands of employees to keep quiet and then depend on each of them to do so. Human nature being what it is, risk increases quite a bit when the secret is about something really big and important. And it increases even more if the secret shows that your employer is lying to the public. Indeed, you might think that kind of information is the very hardest to keep under wraps. But there seems to be a growing number of people who think it’s quite easy.

Writing a useful and enforceable patent application is not an easy task. A number of articles show how to draft a patent application. For example, Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog published a series of articles with tips to avoid mistakes or pitfalls. Automated software and AI-assisted drafting tools have also become available, but there have been ethical and practical concerns about relying on AI. Instead of discussing the specific details of the steps in writing a patent application or the pros and cons of automated or AI tools, I will focus on the overall strategies or approaches.