Posts in Capitol Hill

This week in Washington IP news, Congress starts a two-week district work period, but there are still several interesting events taking place in the nation’s capital. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is holding an event on anticounterfeiting and anti-piracy strategies, as well as a discussion on how to enforce IP rights in Mexico. Elsewhere, New America is digging into the federal government’s efforts to spur domestic development in emerging technology.

PERA is no doubt an ambitious bill. In terms of its design, the proposed legislation attempts to deal with each of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice, Mayo and Myriad, plus all of their progeny applications thereafter engendered by the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), all the way down to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examining corp. In a nutshell, the bill, if passed, would return us to a time when Bilski was the law of the land, which will no doubt be welcomed by many innovators.

Twenty-five intellectual property luminaries sent a letter today to several members of Congress asking them to beware of misleading and inaccurate assertions by “activists and academics” that government price controls on drugs will lead to lower costs for consumers. The letter was sent to Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; and Representatives Jason Smith (R-MO) and Richard Neal (D-MA), Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the House Committee on Ways and Means.

This week in Washington IP news, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) discusses how innovators and the Office can use AI tools to their advantage. The Hudson Institute turns its attention to U.S. trade policy, including important trends in semiconductor geopolitics. Elsewhere, the House Science Committee will look into how the EPA uses technology and research development to support local partners and other stakeholders.

On day two of IPWatchdog LIVE, J. John Lee, Chief Counsel for Intellectual Property for the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, told those who are skeptical of the chances for Senators’ Tillis and Coons’ Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) to move forward that a House version of the bill is likely to be introduced in the near future. Lee, who is principal advisor on IP issues and helms the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, was speaking on a panel titled “Politics, Policy and Legislation at the Intersection of Intellectual Property,” which also featured David Jones of the High-Tech Inventors Alliance; Joe Matal of Haynes Boone, LLP and former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Acting Director and Acting Solicitor; and Eli Mazour of Harrity & Harrity.

This week in Washington IP news, the House IP Subcommittee evaluates IP competition with China, and the House Space Committee reviews one year of the CHIPS and Science Act. Elsewhere, the 78th UN General Assembly holds a high-level meeting on pandemic preparedness and vaccine patents.

This week in Washington IP news, Congress holds a trio of hearings on artificial intelligence (AI) covering a variety of angles, from transparency to how the government is implementing the technology. Elsewhere, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) hosts an event about registering and enforcing trademarks in Mexico, and the American Enterprise Institute looks at balancing drug pricing and innovation.

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.

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.

This week in Washington IP news, Congress is returning from its summer recess and the Senate is holding several hearings its first week back, including the Senate Energy Committee which turns its focus to artificial intelligence. Elsewhere, CSIS will discuss defense technology acquisition, and ITIF meets with state government representatives to look at how states can help the CHIPS Act succeed.

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).

The contentious issues surrounding Right to Repair are getting super-heated as the U.S. Copyright Office concludes its triennial rulemaking review of exemptions to section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Exemptions granted would be in force for three years beginning October 2024.  When is an exemption not an exemption? When it’s an exemption from common sense.

On August 30, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a notice of inquiry in the Federal Register seeking public comment on a range of issues related to the intersection of copyright law and artificial intelligence (AI). The recent notice is the latest action by the Office on the myriad of copyright issues that have been arising around the use of generative AI platforms including infringement liability for training AI systems on copyrighted content and human authorship requirements.

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.

The Film Independent and the International Documentary Association (IDA) sent a letter to the  Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Tuesday, asking the Subcommittee to ensure that any federal right of publicity it may be considering as an answer to problems raised by generative AI artificial intelligence (AI) include an express exemption for creative works. The letter, penned by the law firm Donaldson Callif Perez, came in response to the Subcommittee hearing held on July 12, 2023, during which witnesses floated the idea of creating a federal right of publicity or an anti-impersonation right as a solution to concerns that generative AI could mimic artistic styles.