Posts Tagged: "innovation"

In the high-stakes world of global competition, China is emerging as a key battleground, making the protection of intellectual property rights more crucial than ever. With its recent revisions to its patent enforcement and damages laws, China took a decisive step towards a more rigorous patent system that favors patentees, both domestic and foreign. This new landscape challenges businesses to adapt and reassess their strategies in the face of these transformative changes…. The latest modifications enable businesses not only to receive increased damages for infringement but also recover legal costs and punitive damages. Thus, in a post-COVID business environment, organizations should reevaluate their patent enforcement strategies within China.

The past year has provided decades’ worth of developments across law and policy in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) technologies. If 2022 was the breakthrough year for accessible AI, then 2023 can so far be deemed as the first year of likely many more to come in the era of an AI inquisition. “After years of somewhat academic discourse,” reflects Dr. Ryan Abbott, “AI and copyright law have finally burst into the public consciousness—from contributing to the writer’s strike to a wave of high-profile cases alleging copyright infringement from machine learning to global public hearings on the protectability of AI-generated works.” Both the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) are in active litigation over the eligibility of generative AI outputs for statutory protection. Additionally, both offices have held numerous webinars and listening sessions and conducted other methods of collecting feedback from the public as they work through policy considerations surrounding AI.

A little over halfway through 2023, and nearing the end of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) fiscal year, we can take stock of an administrative body that is settling into a decade of precedent while big changes still loom. Unlike prior years, where policy changes resulted in statistical swings for institution rates, outcomes, amendment practice, and the like, this year has been more of an extension of previous trends (though institution rates are still creeping higher).

Everyone’s talking about artificial intelligence (AI), but not everyone’s talking about it the same way. The tenor of the global conversation on AI ranges from dystopian fearmongering to evangelistic optimism. It’s vital to know the prevailing mood in the territory where you plan to launch your AI-powered service, app, or consultancy. In this article, we’ll briefly tour recent legislation, ethical conversations, and economic strategies to demonstrate how varied current thinking is on this revolutionary new technology. We’ll look at the current situation in the United States, Canada, Europe, China, Japan and beyond, as countries develop the policies, guidelines and laws necessary to regulate AI innovation without stifling creativity.

Voice cloning, a technology that enables the replication of human voices from large language models using artificial intelligence (AI), presents both exciting possibilities and legal challenges. Recent machine-learning advances have made it possible for people’s voices to be imitated with only a few short seconds of a voice sample as training data. It’s a development that brings exciting possibilities for personalized and immersive experiences, such as creating realistic voiceovers for content, lifelike personal assistants and even preserving the voices of loved ones for future generations. But it’s also ripe with potential for abuse, as it could easily be used to commit fraud, spread misinformation and generate fake audio evidence.

Recently, it has come to my attention that a system that utilizes a camera to capture images and software to run facial recognition is being rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as an abstract idea. Why? Well, it unfortunately seems that the reason is simply because the purpose of this very tangible, working system is to identify people and charge them a fare. Because money is overtly involved, for reasons that make no rational sense, this is being deemed a business method, despite the facial recognition technology—and even though this is a clean, streamlined approach for conducting commerce.

This week in Washington IP news, while Congress continues its summer recess, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) hosts several events, including on how to protect your IP in Southeast Asia. The Office also continues its #WEWednesday series, this week with an installment on how to increase the number of women in the STEM field. Elsewhere, the Peterson Institute for International Economics will look at what preventative policy measures are needed to prevent repeat bank failures in the United States.

The PREVAIL Act addresses current rules that enable gamesmanship at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by huge corporations against small inventors, startups and other patent owners, and that increase invalidation rates. It introduces standing requirements, establishes a clear and convincing evidence standard to invalidate a patent, ensures a code of conduct is put in place for administrative patent judges (APJs), and more. While these changes are well-intended, due to the PTAB’s perverse incentive structure, the PREVAIL Act will only be marginally effective, and may have no real effect at all.

On August 2, inventor advocacy group US Inventor held a webinar on provisions of the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act that are intended to curb abuses impacting small business patent owners at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While most panelists on the virtual call acknowledged that the PREVAIL Act wouldn’t solve every problem threatening the U.S. innovation ecosystem’s most vulnerable members, there was widespread agreement that the bill would have beneficial impacts if enacted. The webinar was US Inventor’s second on the PREVAIL Act following a virtual call last week with law professor Adam Mossoff and C4IP General Counsel Jamie Simpson.

On July 31, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) hosted a virtual workshop titled Transforming Discoveries into Products: Maximizing NIH’s Levers to Catalyze Technology Transfer. Public comments submitted to the NIH ahead of the event reflect current tensions between advocates supporting either private commercialization or government pricing control of federally-funded medical breakthroughs commercialized by private companies.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in a decision published Monday, denied the defendants’ motions to vacate asset freezes in a case brought by Gilead alleging a massive HIV drug counterfeiting ring that involves “hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth” of fake medications. In January 2022, the court unsealed documents in the suit against a slew of defendants who Gilead said sold, marketed, and distributed counterfeits of its HIV medications. Gilead’s complaint sought immediate monetary and injunctive relief, including seizure at certain of the defendants’ premises, as well as relief for trademark and trade dress infringement and trademark dilution, among other alleged violations.

On July 7, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot issued a Notice of Initial Determination in favor of computer and graphics processor maker AMD. See In the Matter of Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Digital Televisions Containing the Same (No. 337-TA-1318). This puts AMD one step closer to preventing TCL and Realtek from importing smart TVs and components containing infringing graphics processors in its patent infringement case at the International Trade Commission (ITC).

On Friday, July 28, President Biden announced a new Executive Order titled “Federal Research and Development in Support of Domestic Manufacturing and United States Jobs.” Rumors that the Administration was considering extending the deeply flawed Department of Energy (DOE) policy (see “More DOE Bureaucracy Equals Less Innovation” to all agencies had been swirling for months. Luckily, the new Executive Order doesn’t do that, but how it will be applied is subject to a convoluted interagency process, so it will be months before we see if it’s meeting its intended goal or not.