Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"

On June 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) denied a request by Almirall for attorney fees incurred for work on an inter partes review (IPR) and for work done in connection with a motion before the Federal Circuit in Amneal Pharmaceuticals v. Almirall…. The CAFC explained that it does not appear that it has ‘had occasion to consider to what extent section 285 applies to IPR appeals’ and said that the plain meaning of section 285’s reference to “the court”, suggests that fees should only be awarded if they ‘were incurred during, in close relation to, or as a direct result of, judicial proceedings,’ which did not include USPTO proceedings.

Earlier this week, the Senate IP Subcommittee met to hear from two panels of witnesses about whether and how to reform the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for the 21st Century. In the first panel, representatives for big tech and academia were juxtaposed with successful artist Don Henley of the Eagles and prolific author and Authors Guild President Douglas Preston—with tech arguing that changes to the DMCA to strengthen copyright protections would cripple the internet as we know it, and Henley and Preston painting a grim future for musicians and authors if the system is not significantly overhauled. The second panel was divided along similar lines.

On May 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Odyssey Logistics and Technology Corporation v. Iancu in which the appellate court affirmed the Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal of claims filed against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court that Odyssey’s challenges to the USPTO’s rules and procedures governing ex parte appeals at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or were barred by the six-year statute of limitations for actions against the U.S. governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2401.

In a follow-up to a decision earlier this month blocking an attempt by Palomar Technologies, Inc. to bar new prior art references based on IPR estoppel, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 28 has now granted a motion for summary judgment by MRSI Systems, LLC (MRSI), holding U.S. Patent No. 6,776,327 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The district court concluded that the ’327 Patent was directed to the abstract idea of placing an item at an intermediate location before moving it to a final one in order to increase the accuracy of the final placement and is applicable to an ‘almost infinite breadth of applications.

In part one of this series, I outlined the preliminary steps I took on behalf of my client “Bill” to initiate Amazon’s Neutral Patent Evaluation Process. In part two, I will describe the substantive procedure of the evaluation process and its successful resolution…. Overall, Bill and I were extremely pleased with the speed and efficiency of the evaluation process and delighted with the outcome. Moving forward, Bill requested that my firm monitor Amazon for additional infringing products. Because we have already participated in the Neutral Patent Evaluation Process and obtained a favorable outcome, Bill and I will simply report any future infringers to Amazon without having to initiate the evaluation process for a second time.

In the first part of a two-panel hearing today on whether the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is working for the 21st Century, Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Ranking Member Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) said he was struck by the conclusion of a recent Copyright Office report that found that Congress’ original intended balance for section 512 “has been tilted askew.” Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), added that fixing the problems may require designing an entirely new system, as “the grand bargain of the DMCA is no longer working and not achieving the policy goals intended.”

Intellectual property (IP) is a “bridge to collaboration” between companies, and not just a “weapon of competitive warfare.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) launched an IP licensing marketplace, “Patents 4 Partnerships” (P4P), on May 4 that is a platform furthering this ideology. The P4P platform is initially being limited to technologies related to COVID-19 to address the ongoing pandemic. However, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu seems prepared to expand the platform to include other technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) innovations and cancer treatments, based on interest and engagement during this pilot phase.

On May 26, Zaxcom filed an appeal brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in which the PTAB invalidated claims directed to Zaxcom’s award winning wireless microphone technology.  Zaxcom appealed the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, which was filed by Lectrosonics, Inc., arguing that the PTAB misconstrued the patent claims and failed to properly consider evidence of industry praise.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has published a Revised Issue Paper on Artificial Intelligence and IP Policy. The Revised Issues Paper updates the Draft Issues Paper published in December 2019 with the addition of a glossary and sections on trademarks and trade secrets, and an expansion of the sections covering patents, copyright, infringement and deep fakes. As reported by IPWatchdog in February, WIPO received more than 250 submissions from IP offices, companies, organizations and individuals in response to the draft paper. These have been taken into account in the Revised Issues Paper, which lists a large number of questions (many of them not included in the draft paper) under 16 separate issues.

This week in Washington IP events, the Senate IP Subcommittee convenes a hearing to look at recent recommendations made by the U.S. Copyright Office regarding the systems of receiving copyright claim notices and taking down infringing content from online platforms under provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. While Congress remains mostly quiet, various think tanks will host online video webinars including the Center for Strategic & International Studies, which will explore a fictional depiction of the impact of the robotic revolution as well as innovative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic being developed by the retail and apparel industry.

An employee comes to you with a recipe for your competitor’s “secret sauce.” You know she worked for your competitor before coming to work for you. How do you respond? It’s an important question, because it may go to the core integrity of your organization and because exploring this trade secret conundrum may offer some decision-making principles that businesses can apply when addressing other difficult decisions that they are being called to make in these stressful COVID-19 times.  

Like most countries, Brazil has been facing severe restrictions in an attempt to slow down the spread of COVID-19.  Non-essential services are currently closed in almost all metropolitan areas and authorities are discussing plans to resume activities while the number of fatalities reaches its peak. In Brazil, the courts have approximately 450,000 employees, including more than 18,000 judges. If we also consider 1.2 million attorneys, it is reasonable to say that the justice system in Brazil involves at least 1.65 million people. The Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (BPTO) operates on a smaller scale, with no more than 1,000 public officials on duty. The IP community is on average quite smaller in comparison to other areas, such as banking and M&A, but still extremely active. The BPTO hears over 250,000 proceedings per year, including patent, trademark, design applications and contracts.

On May 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed a decision of the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Engineered Tax Services, Inc., v. Scarpello Consulting, Inc. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Scarpello, asserting that no reasonable jury could find ENGINEERED TAX SERVICES to be a valid trademark due to a lack of distinctiveness. Engineered Tax Services (ETS) appealed to the Eleventh Circuit, which found that a reasonable jury could have found the mark to be inherently distinctive.

On May 21, the U.S. Copyright Office published a report on Section 512 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code, which governs limitations on copyright liability to materials published online. Safe harbor provisions in Section 512, which were enacted as part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), have allowed online service providers to operate tech platforms without facing liability for infringing content posted on those platforms. While the Copyright Office acknowledges that the careful balance intended to be struck by Section 512 has become unbalanced, to the detriment of rights holders, the report only recommends that Congress fine-tune certain aspects of Section 512 to restore this balance of competing interests.

Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed a decision on appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board  (PTAB) in ESIP Series 2, LLC, v. Puzhen Life USA, LLC. The CAFC found no error in the PTAB’s holding that the claims at issue were obvious and determined that the PTAB’s decision to institute inter partes review (IPR) despite ESIP’s contention that Puzhen failed to identify all real parties in interest was final and non-appealable.