Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"

Intellectual Property Risks in the Metaverse: Protection, Jurisdiction and Enforcement

The metaverse is commonly known as “a collective virtual shared space, created by the convergence of virtually enhanced physical reality and physically persistent virtual space, including the sum of all virtual worlds, augmented reality, and the Internet.” The metaverse may eventually provide a three-dimensional or virtual world for users to shop, play games, travel, learn, socialize, work, compete, or otherwise experience life in a virtual environment. Users may eventually visit the metaverse for an activity or even choose to live much of their life in this virtual world.

Teva Tells SCOTUS CAFC Decision Could Upend Hatch-Waxman

On July 11, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in which the CAFC found that Teva could be held liable for inducement based on sections of a “skinny label” that provided information about unpatented uses. Teva claims that the decision by the CAFC would upend the legal rules governing the modern prescription-drug marketplace. The petition notes that the decision would wreak doctrinal havoc in two equally disturbing ways. First, the court’s decision eliminates the key element of inducement liability requiring plaintiffs to prove that a defendant took active steps to encourage the direct infringement. Secondly, it effectively nullifies a Congressional act that was enacted to bring low-cost generic drugs to market, which is precisely what Teva was doing.

How to Protect Your Company When Using Open Source Software

Today’s software is built like a Lego model. Instead of a singularly developed string of code, multiple building blocks of existing code are used to create a codebase. Some of those building blocks are developed in-house by the software vendor. Others are developed by third-party commercial software providers. And a lot of them come from open-source projects. When you’re a company that puts that codebase into your final product, you must take precautions to minimize the risks that each type of code presents to you and to your customers. This is what is meant by protecting your software supply chain. It’s also how you maximize the value of the code for you and your customers. Each type of code has its own set of benefits and risks that need to be understood and managed. This article addresses just one type of those building blocks: open source software (OSS).

Other Barks & Bites for Friday, July 15: Ninth Circuit Says Discovery Rule Survived Petrella, CJEU Rules Against Denmark in ‘Feta’ PDO Case, and WIPO Director Tam Calls on IP Specialists to Provide Jobs Catalyst

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Ninth Circuit holds that public policy arguments cannot overturn claims to monetary damages stemming from a French copyright proceeding; the Ninth Circuit also affirmed that the discovery rule still applies to copyright claims despite the application of laches to the Copyright Act’s statute of limitations in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer; Judge Newman dissents from the Federal Circuit’s ruling that an error in asserted prior art is merely typographical and would have been overlooked by a person of ordinary skill in the art; WIPO Director Tam calls on attendees of the WIPO Assemblies to use IP as a “powerful catalyst for jobs”; TSMC posts record quarterly net income as the company provides optimistic guidance on supply chain issues in the chip market; and the CJEU rules that “Feta”-branded cheese sold by Danish cheese makers violates EU law on protected designations of origin even when that cheese is sold outside of the EU.

Canadian Federal Court Sets a New Subject-Matter Eligibility Test for Computer-Implemented Inventions

Clearing the air on labyrinthine subject-matter eligibility standards for computer-implemented inventions (CIIs), a Canadian Federal Court last month revisited the issue in Benjamin Moore & Co. v. Attorney General of Canada, 2022 FC 923. In its decision, the court, while setting a new test, rejected, for the second time, a problem-solution approach to claim construction followed by the Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) in examining patent applications. The appeal was filed against decisions by the Canadian Commissioner of Patents finding two Canadian Patent Applicants numbered 2,695,130 and 2,695,146 as patent ineligible under sections 2 and 27(8) of the Canadian Patent Act. Intellectual Property Institute of Canada (“IPIC”), an IP policy advocacy organization, intervened in the appeal proceedings, affirming that the appeal raised a fundamental question of Canadian Patent Law.

Inventor Diversity Advocacy Group Launches ‘Patent Academy’ in Latest Effort to Reach Underrepresented Inventors

Earlier this month, IP diversity advocacy group Invent Together announced that it had launched an online learning platform known as The Inventor’s Patent Academy (TIPA), an e-learning course designed in collaboration with Qualcomm to educate inventors from diverse and underrepresented backgrounds about the benefits of engaging with the U.S. patent system. This online academy is the latest of several efforts by Congress and patent system stakeholders in recent years to unlock the innovative potential of women, people of color, LGBTQIA, and low-income inventors to benefit the U.S. economy.

Petitioner Distances Eligibility Case from American Axle, Imploring SCOTUS to Weigh in on ‘Quasi-Enablement’ Analysis

Interactive Wearables, the petitioner in yet another patent eligibility case that the U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to review, filed a reply brief on July 11 distancing its petition from that of American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc.’s, which was denied certiorari on June 30, 2022. The brief characterizes U.S. patent eligibility doctrine as being “perilously fractured” and narrows its arguments to focus on the third question presented in its petition, since the first two were addressed, and have now been rejected by the Court, in the American Axle case.

The Case for Patenting AI: U.S. Patent Laws Better Get Smart or Get Left Behind

The idea of patented inventions brings to mind machines fully realized – flying contraptions and engines with gears and pistons operating in coherent symphony. When it comes to artificial intelligence (AI), there are no contraptions, no gears, no pistons, and in a lot of cases, no machines. AI inventors sound much more like philosophers theorizing about machines, rather than mechanics describing a machine. They use phrases like “predictive model” and “complexity module” that evoke little to no imagery or association with practical life whatsoever. The AI inventor’s ways are antithetical to the principles of patent writing, where inventions are described in terms of what does what, why, how, and how often.

Federal Circuit Denies Thales’ Request to Bar Philips from Heading to the ITC

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today held in a precedential decision that Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GMBH cannot stop Philips from seeking an exclusion order at the International Trade Commission (ITC) to enjoin Thales from importing its products relating to wireless network technology into the United States.

Iancu to Receive 2022 Paul Michel Award at IPWatchdog LIVE in Texas

In consultation with Chief Judge Paul Michel, IPWatchdog is pleased to announce that Andrei Iancu, former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, and current partner at Irell & Manella, has been selected as the 2022 recipient of The Paul Michel Award. He will be presented with the award on Sunday evening, September 11, 2022, at IPWatchdog LIVE 2022. The Paul Michel Award, created with the blessing of Chief Judge Paul Michel (CAFC, ret.), is awarded annually to someone within the IP community who has selflessly served the best interests of the industry and its members as a respected leader, mentor, and advocate on behalf of fairness and for the best interests of the intellectual property system.

‘A Study in Scarlet’—Powers of Attorney and USPTO Rulemaking, Part I: A Hidden Guidance Document

This two-part article explains the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) practices with respect to powers of attorney. The pattern of neglect of administrative law identified here with regard to powers of attorney alone imposes a $30 to $40 million per year excess burden on the public. For the USPTO’s rules as whole, the costs are about $2 billion per year. Over the last 18 months, about 100 patent attorneys signed on to letters to ask the USPTO to do the simple right thing: conform its practices to the rule of law.

The PTAB Reform Act Will Make the PTAB’s Problems Worse

Recently, we submitted comments for the record to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s IP Subcommittee in response to its June 22 hearing on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), titled: “The Patent Trial and Appeal Board: Examining Proposals to Address Predictability, Certainty and Fairness.” The hearing focused on Senator Leahy’s PTAB Reform Act, which among other changes, would eliminate the discretion of the Director to deny institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition based on an earlier filed district court litigation involving the same patents, parties and issues. Here is the net of what we told them:

USPTO Mandates Official Form for PTA Information Disclosure Statements to Automate Assessments of Patent Term Adjustments

Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the Federal Register announcing that the agency would be revising its rules of practice to require that information disclosure statements related to patent term adjustments (PTAs) be submitted on Form PTO/SB/133. The use of this document is expected to streamline communications between the USPTO and patent applicants regarding delays in patent prosecution and also save agency resources by reducing manual review of PTA statements and leveraging information technology (IT) resources at the agency for automatically detecting and reviewing such statements.

Inventor Asks SCOTUS to Consider Patent Eligibility Again, Distinguishing Case from American Axle

Despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s rejection of the petition in American Axle v. Neapco just a few days earlier, inventor David Tropp on July 5 again asked the Court to unravel U.S. patent eligibility law. Tropp, who owns two patents relating to luggage lock technology that enables airport screening of luggage while still allowing the bags to remain locked, is asking the Court to answer the question: “Whether the claims at issue in Tropp’s patents reciting physical rather than computer-processing steps are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as interpreted in Alice Corporation Pty v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014).”

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.”