Posts Tagged: "Gene Quinn"

October 20, 2022, Webinar: Sponsored By ClearstoneIP

Title and Description Pending

October 18, 2022, Webinar: Sponsored By Innovation Alliance

Title and Description Pending

Webinar: How to Navigate the Risks of SEP Licensing and SEP Litigation – Sponsored by IPlytics

Connectivity technology will not only connect smartphones, tablets and computers but every device or object across many industry verticals linking other vehicles, trucks, traffic lights, machines, TVs, smart metres or medical devices. Technology standards such as 4G, 5G, Wi-Fi, HEVC, VVC and many more will enable connectivity that heavily relies on standards subject to standard essential patents (SEPs). SEP-related global…

Webinar: Outperforming Your Peers (Part 2) – Sponsored By LexisNexis

After a very successful first panel discussion focused on innovation, Gene Quinn sits down once again with in-house lawyers from some of the most innovative companies in the world to speak about their company’s vision on innovation. The panelists were chosen from companies identified in the “Innovation Momentum 2022: The Global Top 100” report that was published by LexisNexis Intellectual…

Webinar: Telling Stories to Clients with IP Intelligence – Sponsored By PatSnap

Data-driven, visual storytelling is invaluable for law firms. Not only does it enable firms to strengthen and build client relationships, but it also allows them to operate more efficiently, and create greater client value. In this webinar, we will explore the tools and tactics for synthesizing IP, and legal and business intelligence into compelling narratives. Please join us on Thursday, September 1, 2022, at 12:00 PM ET, for…

Tillis Addresses Criticism of His Eligibility Reform Bill, Warns WD of TX Not to Backtrack on Standing Order

Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) has been perhaps the most active and passionate Congress person when it comes to intellectual property (IP) rights, and patents specifically, in recent history. In early August, he released the first draft of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022, which if enacted would abrogate the Supreme Court’s decisions in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 2107 (2013) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012). He has also been closely involved with oversight of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on topics such as patent quality and has written numerous letters to the Biden Administration on issues including the waiver of IP obligations under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, the theft of U.S. IP by Chinese companies, and more. While he seemed fairly exasperated by the end of his last attempt at eligibility reform in 2019, he explains below that the Supreme Court’s refusal to fix the problem by denying the American Axle case inspired him to revive his efforts.

Webinar: Litigating Inventorship – When and How to Change Named Inventors on an Issued Patent

At first blush, the notion of who is an inventor, author, creator, or owner of an intangible asset is a relatively straightforward question. Federal law sets forth, in broad strokes, the basic parameters governing those issues. What is not so clearly defined, however, is who actually qualifies to be a joint inventor or joint author based on any unique set of…

Dissent Today, Majority Tomorrow—A Federal Circuit Approach to Rehearing

Talk about snatching victory from the jaws of defeat! That is precisely what the Federal Circuit did for HEC Pharm Co. recently in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare Inc. et al (No. 2021-1070). In what can only be characterized as an astonishingly unprecedented procedural betrayal of justice, Novartis recently found itself on the losing side of a request for panel rehearing. Save for a moment just how extraordinarily uncommon it is for the Federal Circuit to grant panel rehearing, and likewise save for a moment how extremely uncommon it is for the Federal Circuit to overrule a prior panel decision even when a panel rehearing is granted. But in Novartis Pharmaceuticals v. Accord Healthcare, neither of the panel members in the majority of the original opinion even agreed to rehear the case, let alone agreed to reverse their prior ruling.

Webinar: Boosting the Bottom Line – Strategies for Managing Patents During a Recession

What lies ahead for the US economy remains uncertain as economists warn of an imminent recession. Companies are beginning to buckle down and preparing to respond in predictable and obvious ways as they look internally to find cost-savings opportunities. But there are better ways to save than the all too familiar across-the-board cuts. For IP-centric organizations, assessing your own patents…

Webinar: Holding the USPTO Accountable in District Court – Why the Underutilized 145 Action is a Smart Choice for Patent Applicants – Sponsored By Triangle IP

Section 145 of the Patent Act authorizes patent applicants to bring suit against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in district court following a loss at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Under Section 145, patent applicants can present new evidence that was not suitable in a Patent Office appeal, including expert testimony. A 145 action can…

A License to Steal IP: What Partnering with China Really Means for Businesses

“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help,” said President Ronald Reagan during a press conference on August 12, 1986. This is one of President Reagan’s most often quoted quips, and for a reason. The Government can certainly help people in times of need, but it can also be a scary bureaucracy, particularly when it shows up unannounced and uninvited. Fast forward 31 years and the 12 most terrifying words in the English language for any business should be: “I’m from China, and my company would like to partner with yours.”

The Push for Clean Energy Ignores Economic and U.S. Innovation Realities

During the last Presidential campaign, then candidate Biden famously promised to end fossil fuels. True to his commitment, President Biden has attempted to make the oil and gas industry less attractive to both corporations and investors. Unfortunately, clean energy is not ready as a solution for 21st century economies. But if the Biden Administration does want an alternative energy future, it better figure out how to fix a broken American patent system where virtually nothing is patent eligible, and it better also figure out how to keep the United Nations and developing countries from stealing proprietary rights of innovators. On the heels of the Biden Administration siding with developing nations in their effort to appropriate vaccine technology, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres is calling for all intellectual property on clean energy technologies to be busted, and the innovations handed over to developing nations for free.

Patent Litigation Financing: Fighting Efficient Infringement with Funding

Today, many companies make the business decision to infringe patented technology instead of paying a royalty to license it—so called efficient infringement. The calculation is that it will ultimately be less expensive to ignore the patent rights of innovations than to take a license in an arm’s length negotiation. Over the last 15 years, that calculus has largely proven correct, with changes to numerous laws and the introduction of additional administrative processes all conspiring to make it easier to challenge issued patents. This means that litigation is often the only way for an innovator to protect valuable intellectual property and to stop infringement. Unfortunately, lacking leverage and financial resources, many patent owners cannot stop infringement—in some instances, even after a jury trial.

Sotera Stipulations Less Likely Given Vidal Memo on PTAB Discretion

As we reported yesterday, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal issued a memorandum on the “Interim Procedure for Discretionary Denials in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings with Parallel District Court Litigation” clarifying current Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice on discretionary denials of inter partes review (IPR) and post grant review (PGR) proceeding institutions. The memo and corresponding press release explain that the PTAB “will not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv (i) when a petition presents compelling evidence of unpatentability; (ii) when a request for denial under Fintiv is based on a parallel ITC proceeding; or (iii) where a petitioner stipulates not to pursue in a parallel district court proceeding the same grounds as in the petition or any grounds that could have reasonably been raised in the petition.”

Webinar: Communicating with the C-Suite – Innovative Approaches to Strategic Portfolio Development – Sponsored By

Communications between the C-suite and IP counsel can be layered with misunderstanding and peril. How can IP teams get the resources they need to do the job they are tasked with doing if the C-suite doesn’t understand what it is that the IP department is actually delivering for the company, or even capable of delivering for the company? Too often…