Posts in China

Finnish telecom firm Nokia (NYSE:NOK) and Chinese mobile handset developer Xiaomi recently issued a joint press release announcing a multi-year patent cross license agreement granting both companies access to standard essential patents (SEPs) owned by either firm in the cellular space. In addition, Xiaomi bought patents from Nokia outright. Details on financials and the patents involved were not included in the press announcement.

Securing IP rights in China has been a priority for companies selling or manufacturing in China due to the country’s singular attitude to intellectual property, which has been much abused. Today 84.5% of counterfeits originate in either China or Hong Kong, and as the world becomes progressively more connected alongside the rise of e-commerce and cross-border exportation capabilities, increasingly there is a need for IP protection strategies of all companies to be adapted to Chinese policies.

The Anhui solar farm is the world’s largest floating farm but its 40 MW capacity is much lower than other large photovoltaic power stations across the world. However, news reports have focused on the fact that the Anhui farm is the latest in a string of renewable energy plant construction projects, which have been ramping up in China. In recent years, that country’s central government has made steps towards building massive solar farms on land, including a 2,550-hectare plant in the Gobi Desert.

“The Supreme Court has told us, and told itself, a particular story — a story based in history to justify its current regime,” Lefstin said near the top of his presentation, which was titled Invention and Discovery: A Fable of History. “But when one starts to inquire into that history, you find the story is quite different than the court has led us to believe.” According to Lefstin, this story and its diversion from a factual basis in history began with the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Mayo v. Prometheus, the case which established the current legal concept that a further inventive step was required in order to transform a fundamental principle or law of nature into patent-eligible subject matter. “In particular, what the Court has made clear is that if one has made a scientific discovery, one needs something more than known, routine, or conventional activity in order to transform that into a patent-eligible invention,” Lefstin said.

The pressure to adhere to the patent troll rhetoric was difficult for people to grasp if they don’t live within Silicon Valley, Causevic noted. He noted a conference which he was invited to speak at which changed its title from “Have We Gone Too Far in Weakening Our Patent System?” to “Where Are We in Eradicating Weak Patents?”, a radical shift in focus. “The pressure is very personal,” Causevic said, citing a paper he had worked on which found that company directors were often pressured against telling shareholders to monetize their patents as it could hurt their chances at employment with an anti-patent tech firm later on. As Taylor would add, this pressure affects the “tens of thousands of little companies started by entrepreneurs” in that region which live under a cultural overhang created by the large Silicon Valley entities.

Due to the death of the patent troll narrative, venue reform would never have made it through Congress, but the infringer lobby doesn’t need Congress when they have a Supreme Court. They just need to make it sound like Congress may pass it and the Supreme Court will just do it for them, as if the Court can’t help themselves but to meddle in patent politics as they continue to disrupt generations of well settled patent law with practically every decision. However, this mode of lawmaking comes with very serious consequences. A group of nine liberal art majors who have never started up a company with the sole asset of a patent need a lot of information in order to understand the effects of their decisions. It is clearly evident from eBay, Alice and virtually all of the Supreme Court’s major patent decisions in the last decade that they do not understand the consequences of their decisions.

Unified Patents is a relatively new form of patent troll that works as a “Troll of Trolls” or “ToT.” They file IPRs (inter-partes reexamination requests) to kill patents. While they purport to only attack “bad patents,” their definition of a “bad patent” is simply any patent asserted against their clients. So who are their clients? Good question – that is a large part of the problem. They keep most of their clients’ identities secret. Unified does identify a handful of their members on their website such as Adobe, Google, NetApp, Roku, and Salesforce… But China is different. Here, a mercenary third party attacking innovation via patents is problematic. China, unlike America, has made innovation a top priority. China’s government has also, over the last few years, created the best patent enforcement environment in the world.

The old arguments that patents inhibit innovation, and non-exclusivity with compulsory licensing leads to a brave new world are now in vogue. We’ve stood at this fork in the road before. It requires courage to reject the easy path downward and restore the system which created our prosperity. If we lack the will, we have no one else to blame as we plunge deeper into the mire. That’s the last place anyone wanting to drain the swamp while growing the economy should go.

This is the first win in court against Samsung by Huawei, which currently places third in the global smartphone market with 8.9 percent market share as of last September. Huawei asserted a patent covering smartphone technology against the Korean tech company, reportedly seeking compensation for 30 million smartphone units which were sold for a total of $12.7 billion. These infringing smartphone units included the Galaxy S7, according to reports.

American drugmakers Bristol Myers Squibb Co. (NYSE:BMY) and Pfizer, Inc. (NYSE:PFE) fired off a series of nine lawsuits to prevent generic versions of Eliquis, a treatment that helps reduce the risk of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. The lawsuits stem from abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) filed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to market generic versions of apixaban, the anticoagulant agent used in Eliquis. The suits have all been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (D. Del.).

At this moment in history almost everything we thought we knew about global patent protection is being challenged. The U.S. is not the most patent friendly jurisdiction in the world, instead being tied for 10th with Hungary, which really puts into perspective the fall from grace patent rights are having in America… There is no doubt that the U.S. continues to take steps backwards due to variety of self- inflicted wounds. The omnipresent threats of more patent reform, a Supreme Court that has created unprecedented uncertainty surrounding what is patent eligible (see e.g., here, here and here), and a Patent Trial and Appeal Board that has been openly hostile to property owners (see e.g., here and here), allows harassment of certain patent owners over and over again, all the while failing in its mission to provide relief from patent trolls. Meanwhile, a number of countries around the world have taken positive steps forward on the patent front, including countries you might not ordinarily consider as patent friendly jurisdictions.

The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case that could create venue limitations on patent infringement actions. A major Korean consumer tech firm files its first patent infringement suits it has ever filed in the U.S. Chinese courts overturn a ban on a major American-designed smartphone. President Trump taps Jared Kushner to lead a new innovation office within the White House. And Marvel wins a partial summary judgment in a copyright dispute relating to Iron Man and whether the company stole the familiar Iron Man suit from another comic book character.

The problem with not having an independent invention defense, according to Lemely, is that people who invent themselves couldn’t possibly find out about what others have invented because these inventions lay in unpublished patent applications at the Patent Office. “You have people who genuinely tried not to infringe,” Lemley said… While Professor Lemley is entitled to his opinion, and he is an excellent and formidable attorney that no one should ever take for granted, he is not entitled to his own facts. Deliberate disdain for patent property is a purposeful business model driving mega-tech IT incumbents. This business model is called “efficient infringement.” Efficient infringement is a cold-hearted business calculation whereby businesses decide it will be cheaper to steal patented technology than to license it and pay a fair royalty to the innovator, which they would do if they were genuinely trying not to infringe as Professor Lemley suggests.

These government agencies target successful, inventive U.S. firms. They politicize their processes and disregard the exclusivity that rightfully belongs to patent owners. They take away private property from the creators and give it to favored domestic companies like Samsung and Huawei, which apparently lack the smarts to win fair and square in market-based competition or by ingenuity. It’s time that America put an end to these threats, foreign and domestic. Either you believe in property rights and free enterprise or you don’t… In essence, Chinese, South Korean and FTC officials demand the benefits produced by free markets and property rights for free from American innovators in mobile technology, who took all the risk and made investments in research and development.

A well-known patent monetization firm jumps back into the brokered patent market in 2016’s fourth quarter. A federal judge in New York allows arguments over whether American movie star Marilyn Monroe has become too generic for any trademark rights to continue. Sony files a patent infringement lawsuit over set-top boxes. Forever 21 files a declaratory judgment action calling Adidas a trademark bully. Cher wins a copyright dismissal over claims her 2013 album cover was infringing. The Supreme Court gears up to hear oral arguments in a case that examines the limits of the patent exhaustion doctrine. Plus a very busy week on Capitol Hill.