Posts Tagged: "innovation"

The intellectual property regime of the International Trade Commission (ITC) made mainstream news this year with its ban on Apple Watch importation and sales in the dispute between Masimo Corporation and Apple. While that dispute is ongoing and the subject of much coverage already, here are five other key IP cases with a variety of important rulings for parties at the ITC—particularly some outside of the typically patent-centric docket.

Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) have introduced a bill to study the inefficiencies in the reporting system required under the Bayh-Dole Act, with an eye toward streamlining processes. Titled the “Improving Efficiency to Increase Competition Act of 2023,” the bill would direct the Comptroller General of the United States to submit a report to Congress on the impact of the various reporting requirements implemented by different agencies under Bayh-Dole for intellectual property developed by federal grantees.

In the book / movie “The Shining”, the Overlook hotel is haunted by ghosts involved in past wrongs committed on the property, presumably to make the current inhabitants atone for such sins. Notwithstanding this transcendental precedent, Judge Rodney Gilstrap recently declined to extend such a notion to patents subject to Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing related obligations.

The dominance of Asian tech companies in the U.S. patent space and the impacts of growing backlogs in patent examination were major takeaways from the Top 50 U.S. Patent Assignees and Global 250 Lists, published by IFI CLAIMS on January 9. The patent database developer also released a Top 10 Fastest Growing Technologies list reflecting the strong global popularity of smoking, whether via electrical device or in traditional cigarette form.

On December 8, 2023, provisional agreement was reached between the European Union (EU) Parliament and the EU Council on the basic content of the new AI Regulation (the “AI Act”) to be implemented as legislation in the EU. The text is still not publicly available as it is subject to certain further refinement over the coming weeks. However, there is information available in the public domain (including press releases issued by the European Union) as to the likely format of the AI Act. Additional background on the legislative process towards the AI Act is available here.

On December 22, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a notice and request for comments (RFC) regarding the United States’ negotiating position on a draft convention on pandemic preparedness being developed at the World Health Organization (WHO). The HHS’ RFC specifically targets certain portions of the draft convention that would impact intellectual property (IP) ownership, research & development, and technology transfer for pandemic-related technologies.

Recent debates about AI patentability have focused on whether the outputs of an AI system, such as a neural network, can be patented. Such debates have been spurred not only by recent general advances in the power of AI but also by Dr. Stephen Thaler’s “Artificial Inventor” project’s attempts to obtain patents on devices generated using his neural network-based DABUS software. If you thought that whether an AI-generated output can be patented is a cutting-edge question, then consider whether an input to an AI system, such as a prompt to a large language model (LLM), can be patented.

We are less than 24 hours out from 2024 and, after reflecting on what mattered in 2023 and other year-in-review recaps, it is now time once again to ponder what lies ahead. From exciting patent legislation to Supreme Court trademark and copyright cases that could have big implications, here is what the IPWatchdog community will be keeping on its radar in the new year. 

The patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) tell the story of society’s innovative future. While the true value of a technological advance develops over time, the following selection of patents of 2023 represent meaningful advances in several emerging areas of technology. From artificial intelligence (AI) systems for retail checkout to improved mRNA drug delivery, these innovations have been chosen for their likeliness to make a significant real-world impact in 2024 and beyond.

Senator Thom Tillis sent a letter today to President Joe Biden asking him to answer three broad questions related to his proposal earlier this month that would allow government agencies considerable discretion in deciding whether and when to “march in” on patents. As we previously reported, the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) and the Department of Commerce published a Federal Register Notice on December 8 seeking comments on a proposed framework for exercising march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act that would significantly broaden the criteria for compulsory licensing of patented technology developed with federal funding, particularly with respect to drug pricing.

Unsurprisingly, the UK Supreme Court today ruled that Stephen Thaler’s AI Machine, DABUS, cannot be granted patents for inventions it autonomously created. While the Court suggested that questions such as whether inventions like DABUS’ should be patentable and if the meaning of the term “inventor” should be expanded are important ones that should be considered at a policy level, the present case was concerned solely with the interpretation of the present law, which clearly does not contemplate non-human inventors.  

Throughout 2023, a number of legislative initiatives impacting intellectual property rights were introduced in the United States Congress or signed into law by the President. In some instances, these efforts are meant to try and re-balance the various, sometimes competing, interests of the public and the innovators. In other instances, the legislation is aimed at weaponizing the intellectual property right procurement process to reward some and punish others. Various pieces of legislation as well as Executive Directives directed at artificial intelligence also have been introduced at different levels. This piece, however, leaves those AI issues for others to address. Below is a summary of some of the key legislative efforts in 2023 touching on U.S. IP rights.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report today predicting that proposals by the Biden Administration to impose price controls on certain pharmaceuticals will reduce the number of clinical trials “by thousands across all categories of research examined and by up to 75% in some therapeutic areas,” eventually turning the United States into a “research desert.” The report comes on the heels of a Federal Register Notice last week that proposed a framework for expanding the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act to circumstances in which qualifying drugs are priced too high.

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.

The National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) and the Department of Commerce today published a draft version of a Federal Register Notice seeking comments on a proposed framework for deciding whether and when to exercise march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act that would significantly broaden the criteria for compulsory licensing of patented technology developed with federal funding. While Bayh-Dole contemplates march-in rights, the law strictly limits the situations in which they can be exercised and does not make any reference to pricing as a criterion for marching in. But under the proposed framework, an agency may consider “[a]t what price and on what terms has the product utilizing the subject invention been sold or offered for sale in the U.S.” and whether “the contractor or licensee [has] made the product available only to a narrow set of consumers or customers because of high pricing or other extenuating factors”.