Posts in Business

As of today, the world’s major platforms—Apple, Alphabet, Meta, Amazon, Microsoft and ByteDance—must be in full compliance with the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), an EU regulation intended to level the playing field in the digital marketplace. Signed into law in September 2022, the DMA imposed a complex regulatory framework upon the major Internet services platforms that are deemed to be “gatekeepers” (i.e. have a market capitalization of at least €75 billion [$83 billion USD]) due to their dominant market position. These gatekeepers each market at least one “core platform service” (CPS) that connects large numbers of users and business interests.

On March 4, the European Commission announced that it had levied a fine of more than €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion USD) against American consumer tech giant Apple over app restrictions employed by Apple’s App Store. The massive fine, which the Commission increased to ensure it was sufficiently deterrent to Apple’s anti-competitive practices, is the latest in a series of legal actions within the European Union (EU) to target dominant Internet platforms under competition law.

The recent U.S. auto workers strike has had a wide reaching impact on the automotive industry, including spurring investors to review their current automotive investments. While significant events like the strike often cause this sort of reaction, more common practices from automakers should – but usually don’t – draw investor attention, including intellectual property management. Our recent three-part analysis on the financial impact of patent lapse strategies for major automotive manufacturers found, among other data points,that major auto brands overspend several million dollars annually by paying fees to renew non-strategic U.S. patents. Investors who understand the patent lapsing strategies of these automotive companies can more effectively evaluate their growth plans and innovation strategies. 

Panelists on day one of IPWatchdog’s Artificial Intelligence Masters 2024 program painted a sometimes-grim picture of the current state of generative AI (GAI) tools and the ways in which they are being deployed in the United States, but seemed convinced overall that the kinks would be worked out once lawmakers and courts catch up, as they have done with past disruptive technologies.

A large number of businesses trade through online platforms and marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay. Consumers may believe that because goods are listed on a well-known trusted platform, they are authentic, and the sellers have been approved in some way by the service provider. Unfortunately, as too many business owners are aware, e-commerce platforms offer counterfeiters and infringers a relatively easy way of offering their infringing goods for sale. A balance must be struck between forcing online marketplace providers to police intellectual property disputes themselves and allowing businesses to protect their intellectual property rights effectively when they are being exploited via online platforms.

As an update to my previous posts from 2017, 2019, 2020, March 2021, August 2021, 2022, and 2023, it has now been almost a decade since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision. Yet the debate still rages over when a software (or computer-implemented) claim is patentable versus being simply an abstract idea “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none” (as eloquently phrased 76 years ago by then-Supreme Court Justice Douglas in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.).

Maintaining control over trade secrets is mostly about risk management, and one dimension of risk lies in having to tell hundreds or thousands of employees to keep quiet and then depend on each of them to do so. Human nature being what it is, risk increases quite a bit when the secret is about something really big and important. And it increases even more if the secret shows that your employer is lying to the public. Indeed, you might think that kind of information is the very hardest to keep under wraps. But there seems to be a growing number of people who think it’s quite easy.

When the Biden Administration unleashed its proposed march-in guidelines last December, it claimed they would be a powerful tool for lowering drug prices by allowing the government to “march in” to license copiers under the authorities of the Bayh-Dole Act. It did so despite previously joining every other Administration denying price control petitions as not authorized under the law. It should have known the proposal would have minimal impact on drug prices—but would have a devastating impact on American innovation. That’s because the guidelines apply to all federal R&D agencies—not just the National Institutes of Health — so they cover inventions across the spectrum, not just the life sciences.  Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Three Congressional letters illustrate the point.

On February 22, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) released the 2024 International IP Index, which provides an annual snapshot of the impact of legal developments in intellectual property (IP) on the innovation ecosystem in dozens of nations across the world. While this 12th version of the GIPC’s index noted some positive developments in national IP frameworks, stagnation among the recurring leaders of the IP Index is a major concern given growing efforts by governments to control prices in critical sectors of the economy, especially in pharmaceuticals.

A bipartisan group of 28 members of congress, including Senate IP Subcommittee Chair Chris Coons (D-DE), Ranking Member Thom Tillis (R-NC) and House IP Subcommittee Chair Darrell Issa (R-CA), sent a letter yesterday to President Biden urging the administration to reconsider its December proposal to allow agencies to consider pricing in deciding whether and when to “march in” on patent rights. Also yesterday, four bipartisan senators wrote to National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan in opposition to the negotiating text of the World Health Organization (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, warning that it “would undercut—if not destroy—the very aspects of our innovation ecosystem that just recently produced such positive results.”

Fashion is a brand-driven industry, and few brands in the fashion space carry the same cachet as Chanel. But how much control do brands like Chanel have over merchants who resell name-brand items in the secondary market? The answer, according to a federal jury in the Southern District of New York, is “Quite a bit.” The jury awarded Chanel $4 million in statutory damages on Chanel’s claims of trademark infringement, false association, unfair competition, and false advertising related to What Goes Around Comes Around’s (WGACA) reselling and marketing of Chanel products. The plaintiffs prevailed on all claims.

Is your company paying the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) maintenance fees for expired patents? The USPTO requires payment of maintenance fees to keep a granted patent in force due at 3.5 years, 7.5 years, and 11.5 years after the date of grant of a patent. For 2023, these fees amount to $2,000, $3,760, and $7,700, respectively. You may be unknowingly paying maintenance fees for expired patents.

The importance and profitability of diversity are already well-known by companies. Research conducted by McKinsey & Company shows that in 2019 companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams were 25% more likely to have above-average profitability than companies in the fourth quartile. However, when we look at diversity in the patent sphere, a report published by the World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO) showed that, in 2021, women accounted for only 16.5% of all inventors listed in Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) applications.

For many legal professionals, artificial intelligence platforms are being adopted at a speed that they think is imprudent. Well-respected patent and intellectual property thought leaders have been very open about their concerns on this point. From client confidentiality to patentability, risks posed by the use of generative AI systems must be eliminated by AI companies themselves before they partner with the patent law profession.

The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education Labor & Pensions held a hearing today on why the United States pays “by Far, the Highest Prices in the World for Prescription Drugs.” Patents came up throughout the hearing as one barrier to lowering prescription drug prices, while pharmaceutical industry representatives underscored the cost of bringing innovative and life-saving drugs to market and the superior access Americans have to such drugs compared with other countries.