IPWatchdog.com is in the process of transitioning to a newer version of our website. Please be patient with us while we work out all the kinks.

Posts Tagged: "innovation"

As Raimondo Takes the Helm on Council for Inclusive Innovation, Inventors Have an Unresolved Ask

In a letter provided last week to members of the National Council for Expanding American Innovation (NCEAI), Secretary of the U.S. Department of Commerce Gina Raimondo announced her role as Chair of the Council for Inclusive Innovation (CI2). I congratulate the Secretary for this extremely important role. Innovation should have no barriers, and both of these—a) innovation and b) the breaking down of unjust barriers—stand at the root of America’s success and identity. To aid the CI2 and all who create and execute innovation policy in our government, underrepresented inventors have an unresolved ask, and it involves breaking down a barrier identified by the very people who the CI2 and Congress desire to help. That ask is this: remedy the inventor’s second prong.

This Week in Washington IP: Cleaning Up Counterfeit Goods from Online Marketplaces, The Impacts of Automation on the Future of Work, and Digital Trade in the EU

This week in Washington IP news, the Senate Judiciary Committee hosts a hearing Tuesday morning to discuss various legislative efforts designed to address the rampant issue of counterfeit goods sold online by third-party sellers on major e-commerce platforms. Over in the House of Representatives, the House Select Committee on Economic Disparity takes a closer look at technological automation and its likely impacts on the future of work in America, while the House Financial Technology Task Force examines issues with the growing “buy now, pay later” fintech sector. Elsewhere, the Center for Data Information examines how online advertising has helped grow the European economy, while the Center for Strategic & International Studies provides a critique of the EU’s Digital Markets Act and unintended economic consequences that may come from the EU’s passage of that bill.

Financial Institutions Face Fork in Patent Road

Large banks have a reputation for being slow to change. However, in the past decade, the financial services industry has seen the wholesale adoption and implementation of new technology as firms realize that consumers and businesses are increasingly demanding a strong digital experience. In 2007, Bank of America was one of the first financial institutions to offer a mobile banking application and since then, the rest of the industry has followed suit. Now, consumers could not go without their banking apps ­– imagine going to the bank to deposit a check.

IP/Antitrust Policy Changes are Afoot in the Biden Administration’s DOJ

The intersection of intellectual property (IP) and antitrust law is again a hot debate after a recent speech by the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s (“DOJ” or “Division”) Economics Director of Enforcement, Jeffrey Wilder, titled Leveling the Playing Field in the Standards Ecosystem: Principles for a Balanced Antitrust Enforcement Approach to Standards-Essential Patents. Before we dive in on the key takeaways from the speech, and our thoughts on potential ramifications, it bears briefly mentioning how we got here.

Industry Reacts to Kathi Vidal Nomination

Following yesterday’s announcement of Kathi Vidal as President Joe Biden’s nominee to head the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), IP professionals largely expressed their congratulations and support based on her strong credentials. However, many acknowledged the hard road she has ahead of her—first before the Senate Judiciary Committee and, once confirmed, tackling the many challenges facing the USPTO. Here is what some stakeholders had to say about her nomination.

Assessing How Much an Alzheimer’s Drug is Worth

On June 7, 2021, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave the green light to Aducanumab, a drug developed by Biogen to treat early stage Alzheimer’s, despite the controversies surrounding its efficacy. Biogen stock price increased 38.3% on the day, adding $16.5 billion to the company’s market value. The news rippled across the pharmaceutical industry and lifted stock prices of most Alzheimer’s drug developers. As an example, Eli Lilly stock price jumped 10.2% on June 7, or a hike of $18.6 billion in market cap, because the company also has a similar drug candidate. Subsequently, as the controversies over the Aducanumab approval deepened, Biogen had lost $7 billion in market value by September 9. With all of these multi-billion-dollar numbers, one can’t help but wonder: how much is an Alzheimer’s drug worth? This article tries to assess the market value of an Alzheimer’s drug. It first estimates the implied values of Alzheimer’s drugs by looking into stock market reactions to major events associated with Biogen’s Aducanumab and Eli Lilly’s Donanemab. As a sanity check to the values derived from the stock market, a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis is conducted to evaluate whether the stock market valuations are rational.

How Technology is Reshaping the IP Management Industry

There’s hardly any area in entrepreneurship today that deals with innovation more than intellectual property rights protection – in fact, cutting edge technology and inventions are at the core of the IP industry. However, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the real-life practices, processes and management in the industry are as technologically advanced –it’s actually quite the contrary, or, at least, has been until recently.

Judge Koh Responses on Antitrust-IP Intersection Promise More of the Same

On October 5, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered the nomination of Judge Lucy Koh, currently of the U.S. Federal District for the Northern District of California, to an appointment by President Biden to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After that hearing, several Senators submitted written questions, which Judge Koh responded to last week. There is no indication that Judge Koh’s nomination to the Ninth Circuit is in jeopardy, but it is noteworthy, and at least somewhat unusual, numerous Senators asked Judge Koh virtually the same questions regarding her decision in FTC v. Qualcomm. This level of overlapping interest by multiple members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which IPWatchdog.com has learned was not coordinated and developed organically, is normally reserved for nominees to the Supreme Court, and even then, typically reserved to social or constitutional issues. So, even though it is believed Judge Koh can and will easily receive a favorable confirmation vote, the questions relating to the intersection of antitrust and patent law demonstrate a keen awareness and interest in these issues on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

From SEP to Deal: Insights On an Often Long and Challenging Process

In this article, we’re going back to basics and discussing why our smartphones work everywhere, doing things closer to science fiction of the 1960s or 70s than anyone would have believed, as well as the role that Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) play in making this happen. We are going to examine inherent conflict between innovators and inventors that create new products and services, patent their inventions, and the implementors that leverage and deploy those inventions. Most of all, we’re going to discuss the process that converts these inventions and patents into money. A lot of money. Millions, tens of millions, and sometimes even billions of dollars. Why? Because your smartphone would be a paperweight without these innovations and patents. And soon vehicles, home appliances, production lines, meters, healthcare devices and many more industries will follow.

COVID IP Waiver Attempts are Becoming Harder to Justify

Last week, at a meeting of the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), World Trade Organization (WTO) members had an opportunity to engage in small group and bilateral meetings to discuss the proposals by South Africa and India to waive patent and trade secret protections relative to COVID-19 innovations, as well as the proposal from the European Union regarding the use of current TRIPS compulsory licensing provisions during a pandemic. Some delegations believed the discussions were encouraging, while others expressed more skepticism, pointing out that a deal will not be achieved “unless delegations are able to make some real compromises.” See Members pursue convergence for IP COVID-19 response.

Coons and Hirono Raise Concerns Over Pride in Patent Ownership Act Penalties

During a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s IP Subcommittee today, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) were the only senators present to question the Pride in Patent Ownership Act’s (PPOA’s) approach to penalizing patent owners who fail to record accurate ownership information within 90 days after the issuance date. The hearing included testimony from four witnesses on the topic of the PPOA introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) in September. Leahy explained in his introduction that the same fundamental principle of disclosure that underpins issuance of a patent should extend to patent ownership information. There is presently no requirement that ownership information be publicly available after a patent issues.

Comments on USPTO Patent Eligibility Study Reveal Stark Contrast in Viewpoints of Some U.S. Patent Stakeholders

Friday, October 15, marked the final day of the public comment period for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s patent eligibility jurisprudence study. By the close of the comment period, 43 public comments were submitted from entities with very different viewpoints on the U.S. patent system. Public comments will be used to determine how the current state of Section 101 patent eligibility case law is impacting investment in U.S. innovation. Many comments raised dire concerns about the uncertain nature of Section 101 eligibility and how that uncertainty has been impacting R&D activities across the nation.

The Fintiv Deception: Leahy’s Legislative ‘Fix’ is Unwarranted in Light of Sotera Wireless

Several weeks ago, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the Restoring America Invents Act, which would reverse the reforms of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) introduced by former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu. The Senators claim that the legislation is necessary, among other reasons, to prevent undermining the Congressional intent in enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). According to Senator Leahy specifically, Director Iancu’s reforms politicized inter partes review (IPR) decisions by exercising discretion not to institute every IPR challenge filed by petitioners. “[Andrei Iancu] took actions that were designed to undermine the IPR process,” Leahy explained at a ceremony in September commemorating the 10th anniversary of the AIA. “[The Iancu reforms] hamstring the ability of the public to challenge poor-quality patents.”

An Ax(le) Needs Grinding: Can the Federal Circuit Turn the Wheel?

I recently opened a Bordeaux and re-read the petition for certiorari in American Axle v. Neapco. Not because I like watching horror films or black-and-white footage of a piano sliding downstairs, mind you. But well, you know. The Petition is well written and the Bordeaux did its job; however, it was still painful to read the recounting of the successive bad decisions to invalidate American Axle’s patents in light of the arguments made by accused infringer Neapco. Yet, in context, it’s just another of the thousand blows against U.S. inventors and our innovation ecosystem. It’s shameful that a company with a new and useful technology in the automotive industry was stymied in its appeal by our nation’s highest patent court.

How Public Opinion Polls Expand the Conversation on GSK v. Teva and Skinny Labeling

The Federal Circuit’s recent majority opinion and Chief Judge Prost’s dissenting opinion in the GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals “skinny labeling” case has raised eyebrows and piqued interest beyond the usual circles. The decision’s result is a lower bar for finding induced infringement—a win for brand-name companies. While the jury found infringement against Teva’s skinny labeled carvedilol, a congestive heart failure drug, we could not help but wonder if the American public sees the issue more like the majority Federal Circuit opinion or more like the dissenting opinion of Chief Judge Prost? How do Americans view “skinny labeling,” and how might those opinions intersect with future findings of the evolving law? Will jurors see the stronger position of brand companies as something to uphold or does the consumer benefit of generics foster a different preference? We discuss the legal perspectives and national surveys on skinny labeling and patent protections to expand the conversation.