Posts in Technology & Innovation

On October 23, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) published a report detailing patent application filing trends at the USPTO related to COVID-19 diagnostics technologies. The OCE found that filing activity surged following the arrival of the novel coronavirus in early 2020, with much of that increase driven by small companies and research institutions. The report found further evidence suggesting that federal funding had a significant impact on driving innovation into COVID-19 diagnostics at small R&D entities.

On  April 27, 2023, the European Commission published its proposal for how the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs) should be governed in the EU. The draft regulation states that the initiative aims to incentivize participation by European firms in the standard development process and the broad implementation of such standardized technologies, particularly in IoT industries. The developments are of interest to any business that develops, implements or markets connective technologies.

Last week, the U.S. Copyright Office issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NRPM) in the Federal Register as part of the triennial rulemaking process for exceptions to 17 U.S.C. § 1201’s prohibition against circumventing technological protection measures (TPMs) controlling digital access to copyrighted works. This proceeding is the ninth triennial Section 1201 rulemaking since passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in 1998, and it starts with the Copyright Office intending to recommend renewal of all but one existing exemption. The Office also announced that it has received petitions for seven classes of newly proposed exemptions for which the agency will initiate three rounds of public comments.

I was not even aware of the issue below until a CPA friend of mine happened to mention it during a friendly telephone call. But unless Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code is restored to its previous state from prior to the 2017 Trump tax cuts, U.S. innovation will be greatly impacted. Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code has been around since 1954. It was enacted to eliminate uncertainty in the treatment of research and development (R&D) expenditures and to encourage businesses to carry on research and experimentation.

In Part I of this article, I recalled the early years of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, when the court was working well, and how it all went wrong. In this second half, I recount how the America Invents Act (AIA) has fundamentally shifted the power in patent enforcement and policy. I close on a positive note, detailing the current legislative efforts that, if enacted, will restore balance in the U.S. patent system, which is necessary for continued innovation leadership, economic success, and national security.

Music publishing companies Universal Music, ABKCO and Concord filed suit on Wednesday, October 18, in a Tennessee district court against generative artificial intelligence (AI) company, Anthropic, alleging “widespread infringement of their copyrighted song lyrics.” Anthropic’s core product is the AI ChatBot, Claude, which can be used to generate song lyrics to popular songs owned by the publishers or to generate “original” song lyrics in response to “requests to write a song about a certain topic, provide chord progressions for a given musical composition, or write poetry or short fiction in the style of a certain artist or songwriter,” for example, according to the complaint. These outputs also copy the publishers’ lyrics because Claude is trained on the infringing works and does not license the copyrights to those works, like other music lyric aggregators, said the publishers.

Innovation has been the driving force behind our country since its inception. So much of our nation’s success has flowed from U.S. ingenuity and innovation. Yet much remains to be done on this front. Indeed, in a few short years, we will be celebrating the Semiquincentennial (also called the Sestercentennial)—250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. We need the same approach moving forward, and we have the opportunity to do so with pending legislation, which brings me to a chance to reflect on some important questions of intellectual property and innovation policy.

IPWatchdog’s Life Sciences Masters 2023 concluded today, following three days of panels that tackled some of the most pressing issues facing intellectual property professionals in the life sciences space. In the spotlight was the Biden Administration’s recent passage of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and its potential impact on future drug development in the United States. Prescription drug pricing controls are one aspect of the IRA, a landmark piece of legislation passed by Congress last August that also directs funding to be spent on clean energy projects and increased tax enforcement. The IRA authorizes the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary to establish a Drug Price Negotiation Program, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 1320f, to establish maximum fair prices of certain drugs that become eligible for the program because they constitute a large portion of expenditures by Medicare Part B and Part D patients. Pharmaceutical companies who do not agree to the price set during negotiations with HHS will have to pay a new excise tax codified at 26 U.S.C. § 5000D calculated based on daily sales and starting at 65%.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) released a sprawling report on Tuesday analyzing market dynamics surrounding the question of whether to extend the waiver of IP rights for COVID-19 technologies under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to diagnostics and therapeutics. The report stopped short of making any recommendations, but ultimately did not find any definitive evidence that IP rights present a barrier to access in the context of COVID diagnostics and therapeutics. However, it largely amounts to a reiteration of talking points on both sides and seemingly does little to further the debate.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied certiorari to review a February ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that held claims of ChromaDex, Inc.’s patent on an isolated form of vitamin B3 are directed to unpatentable subject matter under Section 101. The CAFC affirmed the Delaware district court’s grant of summary judgment for Elysium Health that the relevant claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,197,807, titled “Nicotinamide riboside kinase compositions and methods for using the same,” were invalid under Section 101 as being directed to a natural phenomenon, specifically, “compositions comprising isolated [NR], a naturally occurring vitamin present in cow milk.”

This week in Washington IP news, Congress returns from its district work period with the House holding several meetings related to IP and innovation. The House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet holds a hearing on IP competition with China and another subcommittee discusses safeguarding data in the growing AI industry. Elsewhere, IPWatchdog is hosting its Life Sciences Masters™ program in Ashburn, VA, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office hosts a panel discussion for its ongoing Women’s Entrepreneurship (WE) program

Last month, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) announced that it had joined with 30 other signatories to publish a framework of intellectual property principles designed to reshape the narrative around intellectual property (IP) rights and maintain America’s global lead in innovation. Broadly speaking, the principles focus on five primary goals to be achieved by American lawmakers and policymakers: 1) national security, 2) technological leadership, 3) fostering creative expression, 4) enforcing the rule of law, and 5) ensuring full access to the innovation ecosystem for all.

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.

In recent months, two U.S. government executive initiatives have reshaped the landscape concerning intellectual property and the domestic production of products resulting from federally funded research. These initiatives are poised to bring substantial changes to the dynamics of academic-industry collaborations as inventions are brought to market.

On September 6, OpenAI faced its second invasion of privacy lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, for allegedly stealing private information from millions of internet users. While the Plaintiffs acknowledge in their complaint that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to create life-saving technologies and herald discoveries that could improve our daily lives, they claim OpenAI crossed the line of using altruistic means of reaching its objective when it abruptly restructured itself into a for-profit business. Following this restructuring, the Plaintiffs allege OpenAI scraped private information from millions of users to train their Large Language Models. Here are five key allegations from the privacy suit against OpenAI.