Posts Tagged: "Congress"

The Senate has a busy schedule related to tech and innovation topics for the week of April 8, including hearings on prescription drug pricing, broadband Internet coverage maps developed by the U.S. government, free speech on social media and tech platforms, and clean energy innovations to address climate change. The Senate Environment Committee also has a business meeting this week to discuss a piece of legislation that would support innovation in direct air carbon capture. This week’s tech and innovation lineup at the House of Representatives is a bit lighter, although there are hearings looking at a proposed bill to restore net neutrality, as well as a review of the 2020 budget request for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Elsewhere, the Brookings Institution hosts events on EU-U.S. digital data collaboration and the impact of automation on the future of work, and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation explores funding issues for the National Institutes of Health and their impact on American biomedical innovation.

It is getting tiring to read in case after case the Federal Circuit saying that they are forced by Alice or Mayo to find real innovation to be patent ineligible. This is not true. Have the judges lost their ability to distinguish cases based on the underlying facts? This is a skill taught in the first semester of law school, and one that separates those who will ultimately become lawyers and those who will drop out and pursue other avenues. But for some reason, the Federal Circuit is applying Mayo and Alice, two cases where the patent claims did not cover any innovation whatsoever, to strike a dagger through the heart of the innovation of tomorrow. Is this what the Supreme Court has mandated? While we are quick to say—for good reason—that Supreme Court precedent on 101, from Benson to Flook to Diehr to Chakrabarty to Bilski to Mayo to Myriad and ultimately to Alice, are incomprehensible, incoherent and most importantly irreconcilable with each other, we give the Federal Circuit a complete pass, despite the fact that CAFC precedent is at least equally incomprehensible, incoherent and irreconcilable.

On Monday, April 1, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics affirming the invalidity of patents covering medical diagnostic tests for determining a patient’s risk for cardiovascular disease. The decision, which is nonprecedential and was decided along similar lines to another 2017 decision between the two parties, is yet another depressing sign that U.S. patent law is woefully inadequate when it comes to supporting important innovations in the biotech fields. Of particular note is the Federal Circuit’s finding against Cleveland Clinic’s argument that the district court didn’t give appropriate deference to subject matter eligibility guidance published by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as required by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1944 decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. Although this argument related to USPTO guidelines published in 2016, it would seem to call into question the USPTO’s more recent revised subject matter eligibility guidance issued earlier this year by USPTO Director Andrei Iancu. This gives voice to fears that the “Iancu Effect” on subject matter eligibility won’t matter much if the Federal Circuit and other courts don’t adhere to the USPTO’s views on patent eligibility under Section 101.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: a trio of U.S. Senators introduce a bill for countries and municipal governments that want to register trademarks; Williams-Sonoma and Amazon go to court in trademark case over rights to resell merchandise; Apple wins a ruling that ends a seven-year long dispute over the iPad trademark; Prenda Law attorney at the center of a copyright settlement mill scheme could receive a prison term of 12.5 years; the Kardashians avoid an adverse ruling in a trademark case over the Khroma cosmetic line; the World Intellectual Property Organization unveils new AI-powered tools for trademark searches; and Poland’s ruling conservative party indicates freedom of speech concerns over the new EU copyright reforms.

During a break at IPWatchdog’s recent Patent Masters™ Symposium, former Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel went on record to express his grave concerns about the U.S. patent system and where he believes it’s headed. Like many of the Patent Masters, Michel’s view was decidedly grim, but he did express optimism about the new IP leadership in Congress. Following are Judge Michel’s remarks in full.

Today, April 3, the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property held a hearing titled Trailblazers and Lost Einsteins: Women Inventors and the Future of American Innovation—a topic that also was considered last Wednesday by the House Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet in their first hearing of the term. The House hearing was titled, Lost Einsteins: Lack of Diversity in Patent Inventorship and the Impact on America’s Innovation Economy and, like today’s Senate hearing, focused on a recent report on female inventorship released by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and featured testimony on how to improve rates of female inventorship from a collection of women in fields having strong ties to the U.S. patent system. Susie Armstrong, Senior Vice President of Engineering for Qualcomm, Inc., said that, for companies like hers that were trying to take the lead in 5G mobile networks and other areas of innovation, more great tech minds from underrepresented communities were needed. An inventor herself who helped create single packet data communications that allowed cell phones to access the Internet for the first time, Armstrong said that Qualcomm had produced educational initiatives like the Thinkabit Lab, which partners with school districts and libraries to encourage students to innovate in the Internet of Things (IoT) sector.

This week on Capitol Hill will include a series of hearings related to tech and innovation topics on Tuesday at the House of Representatives, where debate will focus on the 2020 budget for NASA and the National Institutes of Health, as well as on technology issues at Veterans Affairs. Senate hearings will take a look at Alzheimer’s research and funding for the Department of Energy. On Wednesday, the Senate IP Subcommittee will hold a hearing to look at gender diversity issues in the U.S. patent system. Elsewhere in D.C., the Cato Institute will look at Medicare drug pricing issues, a topic which has increasingly included discussion of patents, and the American Enterprise Institute will consider consumer data privacy issues in a two-hour event featuring officials from the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: Karyn Temple is appointed Register of Copyrights; the International Trade Commission recommends excluding certain iPhone models for infringing Qualcomm patent claims; the EU approves new copyright rules which will affect online media platforms; Senators Tillis and Coons move forward with stakeholder discussions on a legislative fix to Section 101 of patent law; Peloton responds to copyright infringement suit by dropping online cycling classes; Amazon adds nearly 1,000 jobs in Austin, TX; the District of Delaware tosses out willful infringement claims against Intel; and Oracle files opposition asking Supreme Court to deny a petition for writ filed by Google.

Over the last 15 years, Congress, the courts and the USPTO have gutted the patent system. Fortunately, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu has been taking important steps to reverse some of the damage, with revised 101 guidance and changes in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). But the most important thing Iancu is doing is silencing the big tech “patent troll” narrative. False political narratives condense complicated issues into an object and then villainize the object. Once a villain is created, its evil can be expanded to encompass anything you don’t like. When you have pushed enough bad stuff into the moniker, you can simply state its evil name, add a few campaign contributions, and Congress will magically pass laws in your favor to kill the villain. The “patent troll” narrative has been valuable to big tech. It bought the laws they needed to perpetuate their monopolies. With Iancu silencing the “patent troll” narrative, big tech created a new one: “bad patents”.

There is little doubt that the way intellectual property is viewed and protected has transformed over the last 12 years, at least in the eyes of those who strategically appreciate both the importance and limitations of rights available today. Once upon a time, corporations would seek to patent as much innovation as possible, working to obtain gargantuan patent portfolios. These gargantuan patent portfolios often provided protection in numbers, and not necessarily in quality. But with the Supreme Court becoming more interested in patents since 2007, and with decisions in KSR, Bilski, Myriad, Mayo and Alice, many of these gigantic portfolios were reduced to rubble. There were several very large technology companies that led the charge both in the courts and on Capitol Hill to change U.S. patent laws in a way that many believed would weaken patent rights and ultimately the patent grant itself. These companies enjoyed tremendous success, and today, U.S. patent laws simply do not look anything like they did a mere 12 years ago. This became indisputably clear last year when the U.S. Supreme Court decided Oil States and said that a patent is merely a government franchise, which shocked many observers.

IPWatchdog’s most recent Patent Masters™ Symposium, held Monday and Tuesday March 25-26 in Washington, D.C., examined the state of the U.S. patent system and how we arrived here. Some concluded that Congress, rather than the courts, must take action to resolve the many conflicts that presently exist in the muddled judicial approach to patents that has been developed over the last two decades or the U.S. patent system will become irrelevant. While the mainstream narrative traditionally has held that patents impede innovation by making access to technology too difficult or expensive, the narrative that unfolded over the two days of discussions with some of the leading legal experts in the field told quite an opposite tale. Institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic are closing up their diagnostics shops due to uncertainty around Section 101 law in that area, and small businesses are unable to secure funding due to the many risks and expenses surrounding patent enforcement in a post-America Invents Act environment. These developments demonstrate that patents are vital to economic prosperity and that weak patents result in medical and other technologies simply not being made here. Many of the Masters lamented the fact that China and Europe currently have more reliable patent systems than the United States, precisely because those countries have begun to copy the previous U.S. approach, while we stray farther away from it. Alden Abbott, General Counsel of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, delivered a keynote speech in which he emphasized that uncertainty around the ability to obtain patents is also harming the U.S. competitive process.

On March 14, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE), respectively the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, sent a letter addressed to Karyn Temple, Acting Register of Copyrights at the U.S. Copyright Office expressing concerns that Tillis and Coons share about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC. As the letter from Sens. Tillis and Coons notes, it takes an average of about six months for the Copyright Office to fully process registration applications. Given that the Supreme Court has now ruled that these applications must be fully processed prior to the filing of a suit, Senators Tillis and Coons said the real impact of the Fourth Estate decision “will be the extended unlawful exploitation of a copyright owner’s intellectual property.”

This week on Capitol Hill, the House IP Subcommittee convenes its first hearing of the 116th Congress to discuss a recent report from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on female inventors, and various other House subcommittees will convene hearings to discuss 2020 budget requests for the National Science Foundation, NASA and the Department of Defense. In the Senate, there are hearings scheduled to look at government oversight of electronic health records as well as cybersecurity issues related to small businesses. In the middle of the week, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation will host events that will explore proactive strikes by companies against cyber attackers, as well as how immigration issues are affecting STEM fields. The week closes out with a Brookings Institution event looking at consumer data privacy issues and policy reactions from around the world.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Supreme Court asks for the U.S. Solicitor General’s view on whether patents that claim a method of medically treating a patient automatically satisfy Section 101; a jury gives Qualcomm a win in its ongoing patent battle with Apple; the World Intellectual Property Office announces record-breaking totals for international patent applications and cybersquatting actions; Cisco avoids a nearly $60 million damages award at the Federal Circuit; McDonald’s appeals its loss in the EU over its Big Mac trademark; Tesla files trade secret lawsuits against former employees; Peloton faces a copyright suit from music publishers who are seeking $150 million; and Google gets another billion-dollar-plus fine from antitrust regulators in the EU.

The original motivation for the Bayh-Dole Act was to encourage the commercialization of academic innovation so that new technologies could be available for the benefit of all. Yet today, I feel compelled to call attention to a compliance landscape that is significantly different than that of the past four decades—one that could have dire consequences for institutions if they choose to be complacent. Not only do sponsoring agencies have an interest in how tech transfer complies with Bayh-Dole regulations, other entities have entered the competitive landscape looking for opportunities to turn lack of compliance to their advantage. In just the past two years we’ve seen a spike in requests for the government to exercise march-in rights by a variety of non-governmental advocacy groups (NGOs). These NGOs are staffed by PhDs who are well-versed in the academic tech transfer ecosystem and they actively seek out pockets of non-compliance. An attempt is then made to extricate key technologies using non-compliance as a lever and the NGOs become the primary influence on how innovation is put into the marketplace. I would ask the question, “Who will pick up on these inventions?” If you follow this chain of events we may find ourselves in a situation where innovation is not freely available to all (the original intent of Bayh-Dole) but an endpoint where NGOs and their backers control how technologies get into the marketplace.