Posts Tagged: "innovation"

Bacon is delightful. And the similarly savory subject of who must be named inventor on a bacon patent was the issue in the recent case of HIP, Inc. v. Hormel Foods Corp., No. 2022-1696 (Fed. Cir. May 2, 2023). HIP claimed that one of its employees materially contributed to the invention of Hormel’s patent on methods for precooking bacon. The question of what makes one an “inventor” was central to whether HIP’s employee should be added to the patent. More broadly, questions about inventorship and authorship have become central to recent commentary and speculation about the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on intellectual property law. While AI did not factor into HIP v. Hormel, the decision provides a useful reminder about the role of the common law in developing answers to these momentous questions.

The patent examination process is subject to the well-known issue of hindsight bias. Issues with hindsight bias come up when a patent examiner, without realizing it, uses their knowledge of the invention itself to reject a claim as being obvious. If left unchecked, these issues can lead to incorrect determinations of obviousness, which prolong prosecution, cause unnecessary ex parte appeals to be filed, and force unfair narrowing of independent claims. However, even when an examiner learns about an invention that seems straightforward, human emotions and subjectivity can make it difficult for that examiner to appreciate that the invention was not obvious based on prior art that existed before the invention.

You have to give them credit. The Department of Energy (DOE) bureaucracy doesn’t give up. For more than 40 years, they’ve been resisting the Bayh-Dole Act’s mandate cutting Washington out of micro-managing the commercialization of federally funded inventions. And under the guise of increasing domestic manufacturing, they’re well on their way to reasserting control. Before 1980, federally funded inventions were strangled under laborious case by case reviews to determine whether ownership would be waived from government agencies to the inventing organization. As a result, few inventions were ever developed. Bayh-Dole cut the Gordian knot, mandating that universities, contractor operated federal laboratories and small companies could own and license their discoveries. American innovation took off, and we regained our lead over our foreign competitors.

The issue of AI inventorship in the United States remains at large following the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in Thaler v. Vidal, meaning that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) finding that AI cannot be considered a named inventor to a patent application remains the law of the land. Now that the agency is seeking public comments on the issue of AI inventorship, I reached out to Dr. Thaler to get his comments on the current AI inventorship debate within the patent space.

On May 2, Northeastern University hosted the IP awareness and literacy organization The Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU) for its 6th Intellectual Property Awareness Summit (IPAS), titled Bridges, Not Barricades. The view of Boston’s skyline from the 17th floor conference room on St. Botolph Street served as an appropriate backdrop to a series of expert panels exploring efforts to unleash the next generation of American economic development by accelerating popular understanding of the value of obtaining IP rights.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court urging the Court to accept a certiorari case relating to patent eligibility. See Interactive Wearables, LLC v. Polar Electro Oy, et al, and David A. Tropp v. Travel Sentry, Inc., Nos. 21-1281 and 22-22. In each of these cases, which were separate from one another, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled the patents to be ineligible as being abstract ideas, and thus an exception to Section 101 patentable subject matter. This amicus brief follows an earlier amicus brief from the Justice Department, in May 2022, also supporting the petition for certiorari on a patent found by the Federal Circuit to be an abstract idea, and therefore not patentable under Section 101.

Use of free open-source code can be a massive accelerant when building complex software applications. Why reinvent wheels? And depending on resources and budget, sometimes it’s the only practical way. But like with most things, free often isn’t really free. The cost is just transferred somewhere else. When it comes to open source, these short-term savings can have significant long-term consequences for your intellectual property rights. For some licenses, if open-source is included and combined with other proprietary software, the combination of that software becomes bound by the open-source license terms. This viral, infectious attribute can have profound implications for code intended to be proprietary and protected. Consequences can include being required to release your code to the public domain as open source, automatic patent licenses for other users of the open source, and an inability to assert patent rights against infringers of your invention.

On Tuesday, the European Patent Office (EPO) announced the 12 inventors and inventor teams that have been selected as finalists for the 2023 European Inventor Award. The EPO placed three finalists each into four groups: Industry, Research, SMEs, and Non-EPO Countries. Members of the public can vote for the winner on the EPO’s website. The finalists hail from 12 countries, Australia, Austria, Belgium, China, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, and the United States. An independent jury of former European Inventor Award finalists used their expertise to select this year’s finalists.

President Joe Biden has announced that his nominee for the next Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) will be Deborah Robinson, head of intellectual property enforcement at Paramount Global. The position has been vacant since Vishal Amin, who was confirmed to the post under President Donald Trump, left in 2021.

This week in Washington IP news, both houses of Congress are busy with hearings that touch on subjects relevant to IP. Both the Senate and House will be holding hearings on two hot-button issues: semiconductor supply chains and prescription drug pricing. Elsewhere, the USPTO is holding an AI inventorship listening session on the West Coast.

The story seems to unfold the same way every time, whether the actor is a high-level departing employee or a customer or business partner. When sharing confidential information in a long-term relationship results in the release of a similar product by the recipient, the reaction is a claim of theft, laced with accusations of treachery and betrayal. And the response is equally strong: “no, I did this on my own”; in legal terms, “I engaged in ‘independent development.’” Strictly speaking, this means that the development of the new product was accomplished “independently” of the information shared in the confidential relationship. As a practical matter, this can be difficult to prove. Once you have been exposed to the secret process or design, or other related information, how do you demonstrate that your work was entirely your own?

On April 27, a pair of legal measures were advanced within the European Union that promise to greatly impact the state of technological commercialization within Europe for both standardized and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. While political leaders in the EU maintain that either proposal addresses consumer safety and competition concerns, multiple commentators have pointed out issues that could slow the rate of technological commercialization to the detriment of Europeans across the continent.

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its annual Special 301 Report on April 26, adding two countries to the “Watch List”: Bulgaria and Belarus. In total, there are now 29 countries on either the Priority Watch List or Watch List, up from 27 last year. Belarus was added because it passed a law that “legalized unlicensed use of certain copyrighted works if the right holder is from a foreign state ‘committing unfriendly actions.’” This includes the U.S. sanctions imposed on Belarus for its support of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “

Today’s hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet on Oversight of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) demonstrated some confusion on the part of Congress about the intent of USPTO Director Kathi Vidal’s recent Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on changes to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) processes, and suggested the Subcommittee members believe she may be exceeding her authority.

With the planet now awash in unused vaccines, efforts are underway to extend the TRIPS waiver to our COVID diagnostics and therapeutics (terms that are poorly defined). By the way, China is considered a “developing country” that could use the waiver. The U.S. Trade Representative asked the U.S. International Trade Commission to investigate whether or not such an extension is justified. That effort includes seeking public comments, which are due by Friday, May 5, 2023. The Bayh-Dole Coalition, which I lead, just submitted to following letter to US ITC Secretary, Lisa Barton, laying out some of the many reasons why the extension would be a colossal blunder.