All Posts

Some Apple Watches Off the Market Following ITC Ruling

Apple confirmed to media outlets on Monday that it will halt sales of certain Apple watches following the October International Trade Commission (ITC) ruling issuing a limited exclusion (LEO) order against the products. In its October ruling, the ITC found Apple violated section 337 by importing Apple Watches that infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels.

Federal Circuit Upholds PTAB Claim Construction Conflicting with Parallel District Court Proceedings

On December 15, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision in ParkerVision, Inc. v. Vidal affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) invalidation of ParkerVision’s patent claim to down-converting electromagnetic (EM) signals in wireless communication networks. In so holding, the Federal Circuit upheld the PTAB’s use of claim construction conflicting with parallel proceedings in the Western District of Texas on the grounds that the patentee defined the term “storage element” as a lexicographer.

What Happened at the U.S. Copyright Office in 2023

In 2023, the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) addressed key challenges in copyright law, ranging from navigating the intricacies of AI-generated content to refining rules for the modern music industry, as well as proposing new exemptions as part of the ninth triennial rulemaking proceeding. These major developments underscore the Office’s dedication to keeping copyright law current in the face of rapid evolution, and offering a glimpse of what lies ahead.

Evaluating Europe’s New IP Court: How the UPC is Doing So Far and What’s to Come

On June 1, 2023, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened, providing a new venue for patent litigation across all 17 ratifying European Union member states. The court represents a significant shift in patent litigation in the EU, which is poised to impact the global patent strategy of U.S. and multinational companies. Through the European Patent Office (EPO), inventors have long been able to obtain patent protection across most of the EU through a single application. Once the EPO grants a European Patent, inventors have the option of obtaining local patent protection in any member state that they select without the need for further examination or review. However, historically, once the EPO granted a patent, there was no single enforcement or invalidation mechanism, leaving it up to the member states to enforce patent rights.

Other Barks & Bites for Friday, December 15: Members of Congress Criticize Big Pharma’s Patent Tactics; Authors Relaunch Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Meta; and the FTC Authorizes a Lawsuit Against Sanofi Alleging Potential Monopoly

This week in Other Barks & Bites: a group of authors filed a trimmed-down lawsuit against Meta accusing the company of infringing copyright to train generative AI models; the FTC authorizes a lawsuit against Sanofi accusing a potential acquisition of being a move to monopolize Pompe disease drug development; and Chinese courts publish rulings to combat malicious trademarks.

Why You Should Care About a Federal Right of Publicity

If you’re reading IPWatchdog, you probably have some familiarity with intellectual property rights, such as patents, copyrights and trademarks. However, one distinct type of intellectual property is often left out and misunderstood. It’s called the right of publicity. While publicity rights are often confused with other types of intellectual property or privacy rights, or mistakenly associated only with famous individuals, they are incredibly important, far-reaching, and deserve much more attention.

Key U.S. District Court Cases with Implications for IP in the New Year

Although the proceedings before federal district courts may not garner as much attention as those of the U.S. Court of appeals for the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court, they can be an important proving ground for the decisions rendered by those courts. And 2023 was no exception to that rule. As discussed below, the Zogenix v. Apotex and Teva v. Eli Lilly decisions provide a glimpse into what litigants can expect in the aftermath of the GSK v. Teva and Amgen v. Sanofi decisions, respectively. These cases will have an especially significant impact on the life sciences industry, and watching how these decisions are applied by the district courts should be a priority for practitioners in this space.

IP at the Top: What the Supreme Court’s 2023 IP Rulings Mean for Practice

In 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court decided four intellectual property cases. The cases touched all of the major fields of intellectual property—two cases interpreted the federal trademark act (Jack Daniel’s and Abitron), one case involved patent enablement (Amgen), and one case explicated the federal copyright statutes (Goldsmith). The decisions were split along party lines, with two cases finding in favor of intellectual property owners (Jack Daniel’s and Goldsmith) and two cases in favor of the accused infringers (Abitron and Amgen).

Clause 8: Matteo Sabattini on How Licensing Ignites a Virtuous Cycle of Innovation

Innovators that invest in R&D are the driving force behind today’s rapidly evolving technological landscape. However, implementers that rely on – and as a result benefit from – those innovations to sell their own products and services aren’t usually eager to pay those innovators. But by paying the innovators, the implementers are actually helping make sure that the cycle of innovation continues. Matteo Sabattini, the new President and Chief Licensing Officer of Convida, joins Eli on this episode of the Clause 8 podcast to talk about this important dynamic.

House IP Subcommittee Examines Efforts to Address Worst Abuses of Illegal Streaming Platforms

On December 13, the U.S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet held a hearing titled Digital Copyright Piracy: Protecting American Consumers, Workers, and Creators to examine the current state of copyright infringement on the Internet, especially issues related to illicit streaming services. While recognition of shortcomings in current copyright legislation is nothing new, subcommittee leadership and membership from both sides of the aisle demonstrated an earnest desire to address the worst of professional online piracy and a commitment to further hearings on the subject.

Five Golden CAFC Patent Cases of 2023

As 2023 draws to a close, here’s a gift of five golden Federal Circuit patent cases! These decisions issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) significantly impact patent practitioners in several areas, including patent prosecution, litigation, and inter partes reviews (IPRs).

Understanding IP Matters: Special Guest — Tech Pioneer Marshall Phelps, Who Established IP Businesses at Microsoft and IBM

IP legend Marshall Phelps joins host Bruce Berman to deliver a masterclass on IP strategy from a business perspective on Episode 5 of Season 3 of the podcast “Understanding IP Matters.” In the 1990s, as vice-president of IP business and licensing at IBM, Phelps’ group generated as much as $2 billion annually by establishing partnerships and focusing on R&D (IBM rarely sued). In 2003, he was personally recruited by Bill Gates to head Microsoft’s IP business, where he was instrumental in helping it become one of the most profitable IP focused businesses ever. He has taught IP strategy at Cornell, USC, Duke, UC Berkeley, and in Japan.

Justices Skip Bid to Review Case Questioning CAFC Reversal Practices

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday denied a petition for writ of certiorari asking the Court to reconsider the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) June ruling that the petitioner said signals an expanding practice of reversing agency decisions in lieu of remand. In the CAFC’s decision, the court reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) judgment that affirmed patent claims in part due to the commercial success of MacNeil IP’s WeatherTech vehicle floor tray. The CAFC also affirmed a PTAB ruling that invalidated three claims of one of MacNeil’s patents in its battle with Yita LLC, a Seattle-based auto parts company.

Copyright Office Affirms its Fourth Refusal to Register Generative AI 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.

Cisco Wins on Remand from CAFC in High-Profile Case with Centripetal

Centripetal Networks was dealt a blow by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia yesterday when the court ruled that it had failed to prove that Cisco infringed three of its patents. It’s a years-long case that the court referred to as having an “unusual history.” The district court first entered one of the highest damages awards ever issued in a patent case, following a 22-day bench trial. In an opinion authored by the late Judge Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., the court found that Cisco willfully infringed four out of five of Centripetal’s asserted patents and awarded enhanced damages in an amount of $755,808,545 (enhanced by a factor of 2.5X), and prejudgment interest in an amount of $13,717,925, which resulted in a total past damages award amount of $1,903,239,288.