Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

If you’re reading IPWatchdog, you probably have some familiarity with intellectual property rights, such as patents, copyrights and trademarks. However, one distinct type of intellectual property is often left out and misunderstood. It’s called the right of publicity. While publicity rights are often confused with other types of intellectual property or privacy rights, or mistakenly associated only with famous individuals, they are incredibly important, far-reaching, and deserve much more attention.

Although the proceedings before federal district courts may not garner as much attention as those of the U.S. Court of appeals for the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court, they can be an important proving ground for the decisions rendered by those courts. And 2023 was no exception to that rule. As discussed below, the Zogenix v. Apotex and Teva v. Eli Lilly decisions provide a glimpse into what litigants can expect in the aftermath of the GSK v. Teva and Amgen v. Sanofi decisions, respectively. These cases will have an especially significant impact on the life sciences industry, and watching how these decisions are applied by the district courts should be a priority for practitioners in this space.

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided four intellectual property cases. The cases touched all of the major fields of intellectual property—two cases interpreted the federal trademark act (Jack Daniel’s and Abitron), one case involved patent enablement (Amgen), and one case explicated the federal copyright statutes (Goldsmith). The decisions were split along party lines, with two cases finding in favor of intellectual property owners (Jack Daniel’s and Goldsmith) and two cases in favor of the accused infringers (Abitron and Amgen).

Innovators that invest in R&D are the driving force behind today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape. However, implementers that rely on – and as a result benefit from – those innovations to sell their own products and services aren’t usually eager to pay those innovators. But by paying the innovators, the implementers are actually helping make sure that the cycle of innovation continues. Matteo Sabattini, the new President and Chief Licensing Officer of Convida, joins Eli on this episode of the Clause 8 podcast to talk about this important dynamic.

As 2023 draws to a close, here’s a gift of five golden Federal Circuit patent cases! These decisions issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) significantly impact patent practitioners in several areas, including patent prosecution, litigation, and inter partes reviews (IPRs).

On December 11, the Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) released a letter affirming the USCO’s refusal to register a work created with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) software. The decision to affirm the refusal marks the fourth time a registrant has been documented as being denied the ability to obtain a copyright registration over the output of an AI system following requests for reconsideration.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice decision alleges that “…merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” And the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) of 2023 alleges that “adding a non-essential reference to a computer by merely stating, ‘do it on a computer’ shall not establish such eligibility.” Clearly, it is assumed that “merely” doing something on a computer or “merely” saying “do it on a computer” is not a desirable thing in the eyes of some; a computer supposedly invalidates the inventive effort and “merely” doing something on a computer is undeserving of even consideration of a patent.

One might think that we had enough crises already without creating a new one, but apparently that’s not the case. To much fanfare, the Biden Administration unveiled its long awaited “guidelines” for agency use of the march in rights provision of the Bayh-Dole Act. Ironically, it started this exercise just as it had joined every other administration in dismissing attempts to misuse the statute as a pretext for the government to micro-manage the price of a successfully commercialized government funded invention.

In 1975, Ian Murgitroyd founded his own firm in Glasgow, Scotland after stumbling into the patent field.  He could not have imagined that it would become one of the world’s biggest IP service providers, let alone that it would make history by being the first and only law firm to be listed on the London Stock Exchange or later be acquired by a private equity firm for £63 million.

It was an overall below-average week for patent filings at both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and district courts. The PTAB had only 15 new PTAB petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs), while the district court had only 24 new complaints filed. There were two more Fintiv discretionary denials this week, with the Board denying institution of two IPRs filed by IBM against inventor-controlled DigitalDoor Inc. [funding unknown] patents broadly related to various aspects of data security technologies.

In March 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) addressed in Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.,  IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (Mar. 10, 2023), a key issue in inter partes reviews: how to establish a reference patent as prior art based on the filing date of an earlier-filed application, such as a provisional. The Board held that the requirements of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015), do not apply for post-America Invents Act (AIA) patents. Penumbra, IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 at 29-35. On November 15, 2023, U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal designated the Penumbra decision precedential. This article explores the evolution of the law on this issue.

In September 2023, one man grabbed the authors’ attention with his astonishing story about defending his trademark registration from an opposition by professional trademark attorneys using ChatGPT. His months-long battle began in December 2022, less than a month after the public launch of the now infamous AI chatbot. Nine months later, Jamiel Sheikh — an entrepreneur, tech-guru, and adjunct professor — survived the pressure from formal proceedings and obtained a settlement from his opposer without spending a dime. As young trademark attorneys, we were horrified yet extremely curious about what he had done. This article is the result of speaking with Sheikh about his experience and the evolving needs and expectations of sophisticated legal service consumers.

It seems likely that Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi 598 U.S. 594 (2023) will be one of the most significant, if not the most significant Supreme Court patent decision of 2023. Its holding that a claim to a genus of antibodies must be enabled to the full scope of species within that genus was emphatic and—coming from our highest court—about as final as stare decisis can guarantee. Forty years ago, I was knee deep in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and court proceedings on behalf of laser pioneer, Gordon Gould. A 1983 decision in Gould’s favor by an appellate court effectively shut down efforts by the USPTO and laser manufacturers to derail Gould’s patent portfolio, ultimately leading to widespread licensing of Gould’s patents. But there was one point in that 1983 decision that might be viewed as inconsistent with Amgen’s holding.

Recently, Wen Xie argued on IPWatchdog that the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have reached different conclusions regarding “the creative and conceiving capabilities of machines,” which leads to intellectual property (IP) law being self-contradictory. According to Xie, the USCO presumes that artificial intelligence (AI) is creative, while the USPTO does not reach a similar conclusion regarding AI inventorship. I disagree.

On September 13, the Global Innovation Policy Center of the U.S. Chamber published its “IP Principles” paper declaring the Chamber’s “Beliefs about Intellectual Property.” It was promptly endorsed and signed by 32 external IP thought leaders, including the heads of nearly all major IP associations and organizations, and individual experts such as a former Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), two retired judges (including myself), and leading IP academics…. In my view, the Chamber was exactly right to call for a “reset” in the policy debate over IP rights.