Posts Tagged: "innovation"

Breakthrough discoveries often receive the spotlight and intellectual property (IP) protection. Unfortunately, lesser, yet nonetheless valuable, contributions often go unrecognized and unprotected. Determining when to contact your institution’s Technology Transfer Office in order for them to assess research projects for IP protection is vital. Reaching out to Tech Transfer early and often will help researchers protect their accomplishments and receive the recognition they deserve.

The Hatch-Waxman Act (“the Act”) was designed to strike a delicate balance between pharmaceutical innovation and faster access to affordable drugs. However, one aspect of the Act, the patent listing process, when used improperly, can knock this balance out of whack. Unfortunately, in the present environment, the potential for improper patent listing is high, and current remedies are insufficient.

Regulatory Law in the Life Sciences and Agribusiness sector plays an essential role in balancing scientific innovation and the protection of public interests. In Brazil, a country recognized for its vast biodiversity and potential for scientific research, regulation in this field is crucial to ensuring responsible access to genetic resources and to address emerging issues, such as cannabis regulation. Before commercializing products in the Brazilian market, a company must be able to navigate a vast array of laws and regulations, especially in cases involving pharmaceuticals, seeds, pesticides, food or feed, cosmetics and medical devices. On top of that, when it comes to biotechnology related products involving genetically modified organisms (GMOs), or products derived from access to genetic resources or where traditional knowledge is associated, another layer of rules is applicable.

The regulatory framework for the inter partes review (IPR) process has long been the subject of criticism from both patent owners and petitioners. There is a growing consensus that the existing rules need to be revised to address loopholes and unintended consequences that have developed over the 10 years the America Invents Act (AIA) has been in effect. To that end, both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and Congress have proposed changes in the regulatory framework. While the two disparate approaches seek to change the IPR playing field, their purpose and approach are significantly different. This article discusses those similarities and differences.

For corporate intellectual property practitioners, the quest to excel can be daunting and all-consuming. Indeed, IP teams and their clients face a multitude of complex internal and external challenges amidst an ever-evolving business, legal, and technology landscape. Cognizant of the considerable trust and influence bestowed upon them by the C-suite, IP teams naturally desire to perform at the highest possible level. As chief IP counsel at a global company, I constantly put myself and my team under the proverbial microscope. I reflect upon our people, strategy, and operations; assess our individual and collective performance; and seek new ways to maximize the value we deliver to our company and internal clients. In some instances, such new ways entail minor course corrections. In other instances, they encompass the pursuit of novel pathways that upend the status quo.

The Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU) has released a report that gauges the level of intellectual property (IP) engagement at the largest U.S. university entrepreneurship and innovation (E&I) programs. The nonprofit organization found that E&I programs at U.S. universities are increasingly incorporating IP into students’ business education. The report’s goal was in part to evaluate whether the observed increase in entrepreneurship in the United States is improving engagement with or is a result of intellectual property. CIPU wrote, “understanding the level of IP engagement among students enrolled at these schools provides insight into ways to increase support for the nation’s would be entrepreneurs.”

Confusion and misunderstanding among some independent inventors might slow or stall progress of the excellent eligibility reform bill recently introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Thom Tillis (R-NC). Titled the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), the legislation would overturn Supreme Court and Federal Circuit decisions that scrambled settled law, excluding many worthy classes of inventions, such as medical diagnostic methods and advanced computer applications.

Intellectual property (IP) theft has severe consequences for U.S. business, and many companies—particularly small businesses—can feel overwhelmed at the seemingly insurmountable task of stopping IP theft that occurs overseas. Introduced by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and John Cornyn (R-TX) earlier this summer, the American IP Defense and Enforcement Advancement Act, or the “American IDEA Act,” promises to protect U.S. businesses against international IP theft. It is not to be confused with the Inventor Diversity for Economic Advancement (IDEA) Act, which aims to improve demographic data-gathering efforts at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Given current and ongoing economic realities, patent practitioners—both in-house and outside counsel—are constantly being asked to do more within existing budgets. Meanwhile, more robust patent applications thick with technical detail are necessary to satisfy courts and patent offices around the world. Working within budgetary constraints without sacrificing quality requires outside the box thinking and use of available tools to streamline as much of the process as possible. Enter Artificial Intelligence (AI), which is taking the world by storm, and recently garnered the attention of the American Bar Association, which has just announced the creation of a task force that will examine the impact of AI on law practice and the ethical implications of its use for lawyers.

It is time to set the record straight. For reasons I don’t understand, many inventors are just not being truthful about the provisions of patent reform bills now pending in Congress. In fact, some in the independent inventor community are attempting to rally support to kill the overwhelmingly pro-patent, pro-innovation, patent eligibility bill now pending. This is an enormous mistake that will have tragic consequences unless those who have the most to lose become willing to accept a win, even if that win does not provide them with 100% of what they want.

This week in Washington IP news, as a new school year begins, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) looks at the latest research on invention education. Congress is still on vacation, yet hot topic issues are still being discussed elsewhere, including the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) looking at the state of the Chinese economy, and the American Enterprise Institute discussing what the U.S. federal government can do to patent rights during a public health emergency.

Autonomous vehicles were designed with the purpose of minimizing accidents on urban roads and providing more safety and comfort, assisting or performing independently some tasks that are the driver’s responsibility. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) has developed a classification of autonomous vehicles, creating six categories for autonomous driving. Level zero refers to conventional cars without any technology of this type, while at the other extreme, at level five, the driver becomes a passenger, needing only to activate the vehicle and indicate the destination. In such case, it is up to the vehicle control system to carry out in a fully autonomous way the driving of the vehicle throughout the route and to carry out any emergency decision-making. The intermediate levels of autonomous driving include systems already found on the market, such as parking assistance, emergency braking and lane change assistance, among others.

On Thursday, Reuters reported that Google sent a letter to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) criticizing proposed rule changes that the tech firm believes will stifle U.S. innovation. The internet giant expressly pointed to the field of artificial intelligence as a weak point for the USPTO and its patent examiners. The letter was signed by Halimah DeLaine Prado, General Counsel for Google.

On June 12 and 13, 2023, the German giant textile company, Oerlikon Textile G.M.B.H. & CO. K.G. (Oerlikon), filed two applications with the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC’s) Milan Local Division to preserve evidence against two Indian companies accused of infringing the (Italian portion) of the European patent EP214848B1, which covers a “False twist texturing machine”. The defendants, Himson Engineering Private Limited (“Himson”), and Bhagat Group, were exhibiting two machines at a trade fair, bearing the trade names Machine 2 and Machine 2-TS, along with a machine bearing the trade name, Bhagat Textile Engineers.

A letter sent to the United Kingdom’s International Business and Trade Secretary today urged scrapping proposals that health groups say would undermine the generic medicines industry in India. The letter refers to a leaked document that indicates the UK will be asking India to agree to a number of patent provisions as the two countries negotiate a trade deal today.