Posts Tagged: "innovation"

Energy Demand Response Programs and Patent Exposure

The core business model of energy producers and providers does not traditionally create significant patent litigation risk. Despite the complexity of the modern energy grid, the basic business and technology of energy generation has not changed significantly in the past 100 years. However, new programs, including residential demand response, executed via smart home appliances and controls, may expose utility companies to increased liability. Demand response programs allow utility providers to reduce grid load and energy pricing by offering customers pricing incentives to reduce energy usage during times of peak demand…. While such programs have been generally available for commercial customers, recently, demand response opportunities for residential customers have been expanding. Where these residential demand response programs allow energy providers to directly control, through the internet, consumers’ smart thermostats and appliances, energy providers may be exposed to patent liability.

This Week in Washington IP: Overview of SBIR and STTR Programs, Securing American Manufacturing of Electric Vehicles, and AI Innovation’s Impact on Social Welfare

This week in Washington IP news, the House of Representatives will host committee meetings to consider the reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs managed by the U.S. Small Business Administration, as well as ways that Congress can encourage more domestic manufacturing of the next generation of electric vehicles. In the Senate, the Judiciary Committee discusses several judicial nominees by the Biden Administration, including a few that would serve in U.S. district courts important to IP law. Elsewhere, The Brookings Institute hosts a conversation with Columbia University Professor Joseph Stiglitz on the potential impacts of AI innovation on social welfare, while the Hudson Institute explores ways that Japan and the U.S. can further collaborate on our 5G mobile networking future.

End of a Patent Battle, Beginning of a Licensing Fight For CRISPR

By now, news of MIT and Harvard’s Broad Institute’s victory over the CVC group (the University of California-Berkeley, the University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier) in a dispute over genome-editing CRISPR technology has spread like wildfire in the biotech industry and academia. To recap, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled that the Broad Institute (Broad) was the first to invent single-guide CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology for use in eukaryotes. Furthermore, the judges ruled that “CVC fails to provide sufficient, persuasive evidence of an earlier reduction to practice or conception, as they are legally defined, of each and every element of Count 1 before Broad’s evidence of reduction to practice.” While the decade-long patent battle over the Nobel Prize-winning technology might have come to an end with Broad breathing a sigh of relief and CVC contemplating whether to take it to the next level, this has left some biotech companies scrambling to renegotiate their licensing agreements.

IP Audits for the Emerging Life Science Company: A Staged and Strategic Approach for Value

The trend is here to stay – large life science companies are basing their growth strategies on research and development happening at early-stage companies. It is easier, and less risky, for large companies simply to acquire these enterprises working on new and innovative therapeutic candidates that have advanced to a certain stage. For early stage life science companies (ESLSCs), intellectual property is the asset. Although 2021 saw what appeared to be a slowdown in deal-making activity compared to 2020, the top M&A and licensing deals were valued at well over $50 billion dollars. Whether to attract the attention of one of the larger players in the space – for a potential license or acquisition, to entice investors, or to remain competitive – a methodical and focused IP review should ensure clear alignment with business objectives and maximum return on investment. Not only does the IP audit provide the ESLSC a chance to broadly inventory and strategically review their IP, it also prepares them for any potential third-party diligence.

Fifth Circuit Says Auto Parts Suppliers Have No Article III Standing to Bring Antitrust Claims Against SEP Holders

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Monday vacated and remanded a district court decision that had dismissed Continental Automotive Systems, Inc.’s suit against several standard-essential patent holders and their licensing agent, claiming violations of federal antitrust law and state law. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed with prejudice Continental’s Sherman Act claims for lack of antitrust standing and, alternatively, for failure to plausibly plead certain elements. Continental appealed, but the Fifth Circuit said Continental’s claims should have been dismissed for lack of Article III standing because it had not proven that the SEP holders had “denied Continental property to which it was entitled and that Continental thereby suffered a cognizable injury in fact.”