Posts in Legislation

Recently, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property released a draft of the ‘‘Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023” (“PERA”) for the purpose of addressing the judicially-created exceptions to patent eligibility plaguing the country. Among the Senate’s findings are that patent eligibility jurisprudence requires significant clarification, the judicial exceptions are rendering an increasing number of inventions ineligible for patent protection, and Alice/Mayo is confusing and inconsistent. None of this is surprising. Alice/Mayo has been a resounding failure. However, of particular importance, the Senate bill has declared “All judicial exceptions to patent eligibility are eliminated.”

California is poised to become the third state to enact a right to repair law aimed at making it easier for independent repair shops and consumers to repair electronic devices. This might sound well and good—until you think about what it actually means for IP owners. While repair advocates may not care about, or even acknowledge, the IP side of the equation, the not-so-hidden truth of the right to repair movement is that it expands repair opportunities for consumers by taking away the rights of copyright and patent owners. Indeed, the foundational premise of the repair movement is that there is something inherently wrong when an IP owner exercises its right to exclude and imposes a repair restriction. Of course, this lopsided view elevates access over incentives, and it ignores how IP law itself promotes the public good by rewarding creators and innovators for their individual efforts. But, more importantly, it’s not up to the states to second-guess Congress’s judgment.

Last week, the White House announced that the manufacturers of all ten of the drugs singled out by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and its drug price negotiation program (DPNP) have “agreed” to participate therein. The announcement concerns the manufacturers reluctantly agreeing to subject themselves to the sweeping drug price “negotiation” provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was passed last year. Those provisions empower CMS to essentially dictate whatever price it pleases for a set of prescription drugs, the first ten of which were announced at the end of August.

Judicial rulings have muddied the waters of patent eligibility, with judges themselves expressing uncertainty. In the case, Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judge Kimberly Moore openly shared the challenge of applying Section 101 consistently, explaining that “the majority’s blended 101/112 analysis expands § 101, converts factual issues into legal ones and is certain to cause confusion for future cases.” This haze has driven innovators to tread cautiously, often sidelining potential patents for fear of 101 rejections—stifling the American dream of groundbreaking innovation. Stakeholders craft tactics to dodge these pitfalls while lawmakers propose reforms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 commercialization of space flight and space exploration has given rise to many inventions being deployed into outer space and onto celestial bodies. Inventors seeking to enforce their patent rights are challenged by the territorial nature of intellectual property laws. The current treaties do not protect the inventors’ rights against infringement.

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.

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).