Posts in Technology & Innovation

On day one of the new year, we continue the IPWatchdog tradition of asking readers what they would like to see happen if their every IP wish could come true. Some commenters stuck with more realistic asks, such as for patent eligibility reform to move forward or that an extension of the waiver of IP rights under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS) will be opposed. Others went out on a limb by pulling for a new central patent court based in Hawaii or that congress will get its act together, for instance. Of course, the most popular dream articulated below is once again that patent eligibility certainty will be restored, either by the courts or congress.

We are less than 24 hours out from 2024 and, after reflecting on what mattered in 2023 and other year-in-review recaps, it is now time once again to ponder what lies ahead. From exciting patent legislation to Supreme Court trademark and copyright cases that could have big implications, here is what the IPWatchdog community will be keeping on its radar in the new year. 

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) stayed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) October 26 Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) against certain Apple Watches that the ITC found infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels. The CAFC does not appear to have published the order on its public website but it is widely available online.

Many IP attorneys have expressed concerns about complying with confidentiality duties while using large language models (LLMs). For example, in a recent panel at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), multiple panelists expressed the opinion that attorneys should not perform LLM queries because LLM queries are stored remotely while Internet searches are not. The goal of this article is to explore, as examples, Google’s and OpenAI’s data retention policies and the intersection of those policies with attorneys’ confidentiality duties.

The most significant development in IP in Europe in 2023—indeed arguably the most significant in nearly 30 years—was the launch of the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court on June 1. The full implications of this are explored here. Beyond the UP and UPC, however, there were a number of. important developments in Europe affecting all the main IP rights.

Another year of IP is behind us, and it is time to reflect on what mattered most—what decisions will affect practice for years to come and/or continue to play out in the courts as we move into 2024? Below are reflections on milestones from this past year—some positive, some negative, and some neutral–at least for now.

Copyright exits everywhere—from books on a library shelf to music playing on the radio, to the software running the electronic device on which you are reading this article. Copyright’s broad scope and extensive reach foster a varied and fascinating landscape of copyright cases. From cases involving the use of a celebrity photograph, animated dancing video game characters, to artificial intelligence (AI) infringement inquiries, the number and type of matters copyright touches is seemingly infinite. This provides an evergreen bounty of copyright cases to digest. The following highlights some of the top copyright decisions of 2023.

The patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) tell the story of society’s innovative future. While the true value of a technological advance develops over time, the following selection of patents of 2023 represent meaningful advances in several emerging areas of technology. From artificial intelligence (AI) systems for retail checkout to improved mRNA drug delivery, these innovations have been chosen for their likeliness to make a significant real-world impact in 2024 and beyond.

Unsurprisingly, the UK Supreme Court today ruled that Stephen Thaler’s AI Machine, DABUS, cannot be granted patents for inventions it autonomously created. While the Court suggested that questions such as whether inventions like DABUS’ should be patentable and if the meaning of the term “inventor” should be expanded are important ones that should be considered at a policy level, the present case was concerned solely with the interpretation of the present law, which clearly does not contemplate non-human inventors.  

From SAG-AFTRA strikes to the class action lawsuit of McKernan against Stability AI, Stability Diffusion and Midjourney, the creative industries are concerned with the ability of AI systems to produce outputs in the likeness of their original works. Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit against popular generative AI developers Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt was filed in the United States alleging copyright infringement. McKernan and others claimed that generative AI outputs have reproduced a significant portion of their original work.

On December 11, the Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) released a letter affirming the USCO’s refusal to register a work created with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) software. The decision to affirm the refusal marks the fourth time a registrant has been documented as being denied the ability to obtain a copyright registration over the output of an AI system following requests for reconsideration.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report today predicting that proposals by the Biden Administration to impose price controls on certain pharmaceuticals will reduce the number of clinical trials “by thousands across all categories of research examined and by up to 75% in some therapeutic areas,” eventually turning the United States into a “research desert.” The report comes on the heels of a Federal Register Notice last week that proposed a framework for expanding the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act to circumstances in which qualifying drugs are priced too high.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice decision alleges that “…merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” And the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) of 2023 alleges that “adding a non-essential reference to a computer by merely stating, ‘do it on a computer’ shall not establish such eligibility.” Clearly, it is assumed that “merely” doing something on a computer or “merely” saying “do it on a computer” is not a desirable thing in the eyes of some; a computer supposedly invalidates the inventive effort and “merely” doing something on a computer is undeserving of even consideration of a patent.

In September 2023, one man grabbed the authors’ attention with his astonishing story about defending his trademark registration from an opposition by professional trademark attorneys using ChatGPT. His months-long battle began in December 2022, less than a month after the public launch of the now infamous AI chatbot. Nine months later, Jamiel Sheikh — an entrepreneur, tech-guru, and adjunct professor — survived the pressure from formal proceedings and obtained a settlement from his opposer without spending a dime. As young trademark attorneys, we were horrified yet extremely curious about what he had done. This article is the result of speaking with Sheikh about his experience and the evolving needs and expectations of sophisticated legal service consumers.

An event held Monday by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), and moderated by former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu, featured a number of high-profile political and professional figures in the intellectual property space debating approaches to strengthening the U.S. patent system, with an emphasis on national security. Representative Deborah Ross (D-NC), who serves on the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, first joined Iancu to discuss her reasons for supporting the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act.