Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"

The most dominant, divisive issue in patent law over the last decade—Section101-eligibility and the Supreme Court’s Mayo-Alice framework—appears to have just become more divisive. Indeed, at least part of the reason for the controversy is that, with Mayo-Alice as the governing test, courts as a preliminary matter can decide Section101-eligibility based on considerations of an “inventive concept” and patentability—issues the Court once declared were “not relevant” to the separate eligibility provision of the Patent Act. Be that as it may, the Federal Circuit has recently issued certain decisions indicating that Section 101 now incorporates another vast area of invalidity; viz., the requirements for “enablement” under 35 U.S.C. §112(a). See, e.g., Customedia Technologies, LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. March 6, 2020). In this article, we examine how this new requirement for Section 101 has emerged, the recent precedent on the issue, and the Patent Act’s requirements that undermine such Section 112(a) considerations for a Section 101-eligibilty test.

On July 9, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed in-part and vacated in-part a decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple, Inc.  In particular, the CAFC concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Uniloc’s requests to seal its own confidential information. However, the CAFC concluded that the district court failed to properly assess whether third-party information, including licensees’ names, addresses and royalty rates, should be sealed.

Along with cat memes, TikTtok videos and electoral manipulation, the Internet is enriching people’s lives with the instant quiz. Whether seeking to gauge one’s resemblance to a Game of Thrones character or satisfaction with an online purchase, the instant online quiz, questionnaire or survey is a powerful mechanism for businesses, governments and nonprofits to learn about potential customers, constituents and supporters. As with anything that can create value, a lawyer’s advice will eventually be sought to learn how to protect the client’s brands and works from appropriation and misuse by third parties. The protectability of a quiz as a species of intellectual property is now before the Southern District of New York in the case of Metabeauty, Inc. v. HelloAva, Inc., et. al., a lawsuit filed by my client Metabeauty, Inc. against a venture-backed online platform that recommends skincare and cosmetic products.

According to the Concord Monitor, the University of New Hampshire is being petitioned by several students to drop the name of Franklin Pierce from the law school. And although the decision will not rest with the faculty of the law school, sources tell IPWatchdog that 12 of the 25 full-time law school faculty support the petition. “With the movement that we’re currently in, it felt like an opportune time to take the name off there,” Adrián Coss, a rising third-year law student at the law school who is involved with the petition told the Concord Monitor. “It’s wrong to begin with. This is racially insensitive.” Why is the name “Franklin Pierce” racially insensitive? In a nutshell, Pierce, who did not himself own any slaves and abhorred slavery, did not do enough to put an end to the practice of slavery during his turbulent one term as President of the United States.

Versatile video coding (VVC), also known as Future Video Coding (FVC) or H.266, is a video compression standard that was released on July 6 and is being positioned as the successor to High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC or H.265). CPA Global has reviewed the key aspects of the standard and factors which could impact its licensing and adoption and we have identified and analyzed the key patented technologies that have a possibility of being relevant to the VVC standard. The standard was in the process of being finalized at the time we conducted our analysis and we have therefore referred to Draft 8 of VVC, which was approved by JVET in the Brussels meeting from January 7-17, 2020.

On July 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) vacated and remanded an Attorney Fee Order of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida denying an award of attorney fees to ShoppersChoice.com. Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC. v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC.  The CAFC held that the District Court erred in failing to consider Electronic Communication Technologies, LLC’s (ECT) manner of litigation and the objective unreasonableness of ECT’s infringement claims, and further held that the court applied the incorrect attorney fee statute.

On July 7, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), in In re: Boloro Global Limited, granted a motion by Boloro Global Limited (Boloro) to vacate and remand the decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the Board) in three ex parte appeals that affirmed an examiner’s rejection of claims of Boloro’s patent applications. Each of Boloro’s U.S. Patent Applications Nos. 14/222,613, 14/222,615, and 14/222,616 were rejected by the patent examiner as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. On appeal, the Board affirmed the examiner’s rejections and denied rehearing. In August 2019, Boloro appealed the decisions to the CAFC. Subsequently, in October 2019, the CAFC issued a decision in Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., which was an appeal from an inter partes review, holding that administrative patent judges (APJs) were not constitutionally appointed.  In January 2020, Boloro filed a motion to vacate the Board’s decisions and remand for further proceedings consistent with the CAFC’s decision in Arthrex.

It was another relatively normal week at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board with 30 patent filings—two post grant reviews (PGRs), 28 inter partes reviews (IPRs)—and another big one in district court with 98 new petitions—but yet again, that spike is largely driven by WSOU’s unusual filing pattern. WSOU has now sued Google on 15 separate patents, all covering different software aspects of various products, and single patent suits—the former Uniloc contingent continues to drive the numbers up, and continues to favor the Western District of Texas to do so. Some of the petitions challenging the Magnetar Capital-backed Neodron were instituted this week, the same week a tranche of Magnetar’s Data Scape patents were affirmed unpatentable on Section 101 before the Federal Circuit; further Bausch & Lomb abbreviated new drug application (ANDA)-related suits were filed as discussed last week; and new and old-hand IP Edge subs continue to file at a brisk clip.

On June 25, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision in Blumenthal Distributing v. Herman Miller, Inc. in which the appellate court reversed some parts of a Central District of California ruling on trade dress and trademark infringement claims related to office chairs sold by Herman Miller, and affirmed others. The Ninth Circuit’s decision discusses at length the issue of functionality, an area of trademark law which is undefined by statute and is notable for overturning parts of the district court decision because of an erroneous jury instruction based upon the Ninth Circuit’s own model rules. The decision also includes a partial dissent by Circuit Judge Michelle Friedland on the issue of dilution, with Judge Friedland arguing that Herman Miller hadn’t proven the requisite fame to prevail on its trademark dilution claims.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” reads the preamble to the Declaration of Independence, a document authored by Thomas Jefferson, edited by Benjamin Franklin, and signed by some 56 Congressional delegates. Over the weekend, we celebrated the 244th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and in light of everything that has happened over the second quarter of 2020 it is perhaps a good time to reflect. So much of the second quarter of 2020 has been defined by two major events— the unnecessary and unacceptable killing of George Floyd and COVID-19. In the coming weeks and months there will be much written and debated by experts in the field of social justice, police reform and government relating to just about every aspect of the events relating to the death of Mr. Floyd. As those conversations ensue, and reforms are brought to bear, as more fully explained below, America should also take this opportunity to have a broader conversation about private property rights— real, personal and intangible.

On July 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a holding of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in Immunex Corporation, Amgen Manufacturing, Limited, Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., Sandoz International GMBH, Sandoz GMBH, holding that Sandoz failed to prove that the asserted claims were invalid for obviousness-type double patenting (ODP), failure to meet the written description requirement, and obviousness for lack of motivation to combine the prior art references. The ruling for now blocks Sandoz from marketing its biosimilar version (Erelzi) of the popular rheumatoid arthritis drug, Enbrel. Judge Reyna dissented, arguing that certain clauses of the licensing agreement were illusory, thereby rendering the agreement an effective assignment for purposes of ODP.

Many people are looking for ways to support the Black community and to encourage police reform following the death of George Floyd and others by police. One of the most common ways to provide support has been to organize fundraisers and donate money to nonprofits and grassroots organizations coordinating these efforts. Unfortunately, organizations sometimes adopt similar names or slogans, and donations can be misdirected. In one recent example, donors who thought they were donating to the Black Lives Matter movement—operated under the name Black Lives Matter Global Network (BLMGN)—mistakenly designated funds to an unrelated nonprofit called the Black Lives Matter Foundation. The Black Lives Matter Foundation has a very similar name to the Black Lives Matter movement, but a different mission. Donors were dismayed to discover that they had inadvertently committed funds to the wrong organization.

When it comes to patents, timing matters. If two inventors are working on the same invention, it is the one who races to the patent office first that gets the brass ring. Perhaps the most famous example of a “patent race” is when Alexander Graham Bell and Elisha Gray both filed a patent for the telephone on the same day. Bell won the patent, started a successful company, and is now synonymous with the telephone, while few people remember Gray. For years, economists have used patent races as the quintessential example of how firms innovate in the presence of competition. But these discussions are usually only grounded in theory. To gain more insight on how this plays out in the real world, Jeffrey Kuhn and I created the first way to identify patent races—and we used it to analyze the effect of patent racing on innovation.

This week in Washington IP news, a pair of committee hearings in the House take a look at the use of artificial intelligence in contact tracing and exposure notification programs related to COVID-19, as well as the role of the federal government in financial supporting U.S. R&D programs. While the Senate is quiet this week, policy institutes continue to host online events on various topics of political importance in the tech world. Potential biases in algorithmic models used for AI programs are the focus of events at New America and the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, while the Aspen Institute will host an event Wednesday morning on the potential for algorithms to unearth biases hidden in our society. The American Enterprise Institute will also explore federal research programs, including the need for a major U.S. project to jump-start basic and applied research.

With a growing number of users and increased demand for consumer electronics, smart-wearables, electric vehicles, Internet-of-Things (IoT) and Internet-of-Everything (IoET), the need for powering such devices and for hassle free charging has to keep pace with this rapid growth. “Wireless Charging” is the process of electrically charging battery-powered devices and equipment without the need for a wired electrical power connection. Broadly speaking, it includes three sub-types of charging: Inductive Charging, Resonance Charging, and Radio Charging.