Posts Tagged: "Congress"

This week on Capitol Hill and in the Washington D.C. area, the Supreme Court grants cert in Iancu v. NantKwest; the U.S. House of Representatives will hold several hearings on important topics in technology, including electronic health records modernization for veterans, cybersecurity measures for voting systems and research on the nexus between energy and water. House committees will also explore ways to improve broadband access for small businesses and promote generic competition to reduce branded pharmaceutical prices. Drug pricing, which often involves a focus on patents, is the subject of a two-part hearing series in the U.S. Senate. Other Senate hearings this week will look at data breaches in the private sector and IP issues related to Chinese trade. The week is book-ended by a pair of events hosted by the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, including a Thursday event that looks at the impact of the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 and controversial calls to enforce certain provisions of the law to reduce drug prices.

This week in Other Barks and Bites: the Senate Judiciary Committee plans to go after drug patents to promote access to generic medications; Apple faces another patent suit in the Eastern District of Texas in the midst of attempts to remove its business presence from the district; China enacts a code of conduct for patent agents; Samsung and Huawei enter into an agreement to terminate their multi-year legal battle in the Android sector; the makers of Fortnite face yet another copyright suit over dance moves; Warner Bros. strikes down a Kickstarter campaign intending to distribute edited versions of The Departed; and a Delaware jury upholds cholesterol treatment patents owned by Amgen.

Last week, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) and Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC)—respectively, Ranking Member and Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, which was resurrected on February 7 for the first time since 2007—met with Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA) and others for their second bipartisan meeting in three months in search of a possible legislative solution to the patent eligibility crisis facing biotechnology, medical diagnostics and software related innovations. The same players met in December to begin discussing the issue, and stakeholders are now being told that they should join the conversation sooner rather than later if they want their voices to be heard. With the Senate IP Subcommittee back up and running and the seeming momentum on fixing patent eligibility law, it’s worth taking a look at the Subcommittee’s leadership and what their collective experience could mean for substantive change.

This week on Capitol Hill, the newly revived Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property meets for the first time this term to discuss the 2019 “Annual Intellectual Property Report to Congress”; other Senate committee hearings will look at concerns related to drug pricing, the effects of the Made in China 2025 initiative on American industry and proposed legislation to support innovation in carbon capture technologies; U.S. House of Representatives committees hold hearings focusing on issues from cybersecurity in the nation’s surface transportation and defense agency to energy research funding programs and trade tensions between the U.S. and China; and elsewhere in the nation’s capital, the Heritage Foundation looks at issues related to the modernization of the United States’ nuclear submarine fleet and the Cato Institute holds a day-long event on Friday to examine the topic of regulating the activities of American tech giants like Facebook and Amazon.

On February 19, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service—one of two IP cases the Court heard that week. The courtroom for the Return Mail hearing was particularly full of press because it was Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s first hearing following a recent hiatus to have nodules on her lungs removed. The case asks whether the federal government constitutes a “person” for the purposes of instituting post grant review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). As reported earlier this week, the justices appeared to be dissatisfied with arguments from counsel on both sides—and skeptical that Congress had any view on the issue to begin with—but they arguably pushed back more against the government’s position. As always, IPWatchdog reached out to the patent bar for their take on the arguments. Like the questioning, the predictions were mixed and reveal no clear path, but a narrow holding in favor of Return Mail could be likely.

It seemed like a trade secret trifecta when Congress in 2011 passed the America Invents Act (AIA). Although the statute was aimed at patent reform, it made three helpful changes in how trade secrets are treated. First, companies could hold onto secret information about an invention without risking invalidation of their patents for failing to disclose the “best mode” of implementing it. Second, the “prior user right” that guarantees continuing use of a secret invention, even if someone else later patents it, was extended to cover all technologies. And third, the law would no longer deny a patent simply because the inventor had already commercialized the invention in a way that didn’t reveal it to the public. Or so we thought. That last change depended on how you read the legislation. The long-standing requirement that an invention could not be “on sale” or “in public use” more than a year before filing a patent application was still there. But Congress added a qualifier to 35 U.S.C. §102: there would be no patent if the invention had been “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public . . . .”

On Tuesday, February 19, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service, a case that asks the nation’s highest court to determine whether the federal government constitutes a “person” for the purposes of instituting review proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). Although the Supreme Court Justices appeared to be dissatisfied with arguments from counsel for either side, they arguably pushed back more against the USPS’ position. All Justices apart from Justice Clarence Thomas played an active role in questioning.

On February 13, global policymakers and technology company representatives gathered in Washington, D.C. at Google’s offices for the Women’s High-Tech Coalition (WHTC) Third Annual “Women of Wireless” dialogue. The speakers represented companies including Google, Verizon, and Qualcomm, as well as major industry organizations such as the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) and the Consumer Technology Association (CTA), and discussed the various infrastructure, policy, and privacy challenges facing the industry in the race to 5G-implementation. With a record number of women elected to the 116th Session of the U.S. Congress and recent White House Executive Orders on technology issues— including this month’s “Maintaining American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI),” an expected executive order on 5G technology, and likely Congressional briefings and hearings focused on wireless innovation—the WHTC is an integral network of stakeholders to discuss these issues and to develop opportunities for strategic partnerships and shared initiatives.

This week is quiet on Capitol Hill with Presidents’ Day on Monday, after which the House of Representatives enters a district work period and the Senate is out of session for the rest of the week. However, Washington, D.C., will still host a series of events related to intellectual property, innovation, and technology. Counsel and amici appearing before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC on Tuesday will offer post-oral argument reflections this Wednesday at the American University Washington College of Law. Earlier that same day, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation looks at the policy debate surrounding the U.S. Postal Service in the e-commerce era. This week in IP, business and tech policy wraps up on Thursday with a look at lunar tech commercialization and other legal matters related to Moon exploration by the Washington Space Business Roundtable.

On February 20, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC on appeal from the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. The case presents the question of whether a debtor-licensor’s rejection of an executory trademark license agreement in bankruptcy, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365, results in the agreement’s complete termination, including loss of the licensee’s right to use the licensed trademark. Given that trademarks are the most widely used form of registered intellectual property, and trademark rights often are among a debtor’s key assets, the treatment of the debtor’s licenses of those rights is an issue that arises frequently in the bankruptcy context. For this reason, among others, the issue presented by this case has been hailed by the International Trademark Association (INTA) as “the most significant unresolved legal issue in trademark licensing.”

Here we go again! Another patent whose claims have been invalidated at the Federal Circuit—predictably, another medical diagnostic patent. Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative (Fed. Cir. Feb. 6, 2019). This is getting old, tired and fundamentally ridiculous. The statute, which is all of one-sentence long, specifically lists discoveries as patent eligible. So why are discoveries being declared patent ineligible? To the extent these decisions are mandated by the Supreme Court, they directly contradict the easy to understand and very direct language of the statute. The Federal Circuit is wrong, period. Perhaps they are so close to these cases and trying so hard to do what they think is right that they have lost perspective, but these rulings are fundamentally saying that discoveries are not patent eligible. We are told repeatedly that they are mandated by Supreme Court precedent. Obviously, that cannot be correct. The statute says: “Whoever invents or discovers… may obtain a patent…” Clearly, Congress wants discoveries to be patented, and in our system of governance, Congress has supremacy over the Supreme Court with respect to setting the law unless the law is unconstitutional. 35 U.S.C. 101 has never been declared unconstitutional, so discoveries must be patent eligible, period. It is time to face the facts—the Supreme Court has considered only bad cases, with bad facts, where there was really no innovation presented in the claims, or even in the patent application as a whole. These decisions have absolutely no meaning or proper application with respect to any inventions, let alone inventions of monumental complexity such as true artificial intelligence, autonomous vehicles, or new medical diagnostics that allow risk-free testing of common ailments, where previously existing tests required potentially catastrophic risk.

On February 7, the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce held its 2019 U.S. Chamber International IP Index Reception to announce the findings of this year’s International IP Index, which saw the United States patent system shoot from twelfth place last year to second place this year. Following are remarks delivered by United States Patent and Trademark Office Director Andrei Iancu at the event, after being introduced by GIPC President and CEO, David Hirschmann.

This week on Capitol Hill, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives has planned a number of hearings on climate change and antitrust matters, especially where the T-Mobile/Sprint merger is concerned. In the Senate, cybersecurity takes center stage at the Senate Homeland Security and Energy Committees. Elsewhere in Washington, D.C., the Brookings Institution got the week started early with a look at the impacts of artificial intelligence on urban life; Inventing America hosts a half-day event looking at current issues in the U.S. patent system; and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation examines the future of autonomous vehicles in the freight industry.

According to the World Blind Union, of the millions of books published each year, approximately only 1-7 percent are made available to those who are visually impaired. On January 28, President Donald J. Trump signed the documents for the United States to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons Who Are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled. The treaty was adopted in Marrakesh, Morocco in 2013. The goal of the copyright treaty is to increase access to printed materials for those with visual or other disabilities. The treaty is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

On February 7, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) released the latest version of its International IP Index assessing the intellectual property environments in 50 world economies. Once again, the United States achieved the top overall ranking as the strongest intellectual property regime in the world. The country’s improved ranking in patent rights—moving from its twelfth-place ranking in 2018 to a tie for second place this year—is particularly notable. However, the United States does find itself tied with 10 other countries for that second-place ranking in patent rights and is just as close to being tied with thirteenth-place Italy as it is to being tied with first-place Singapore.