Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"

Panelists on day one of IPWatchdog’s Artificial Intelligence Masters 2024 program painted a sometimes-grim picture of the current state of generative AI (GAI) tools and the ways in which they are being deployed in the United States, but seemed convinced overall that the kinks would be worked out once lawmakers and courts catch up, as they have done with past disruptive technologies.

A large number of businesses trade through online platforms and marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay. Consumers may believe that because goods are listed on a well-known trusted platform, they are authentic, and the sellers have been approved in some way by the service provider. Unfortunately, as too many business owners are aware, e-commerce platforms offer counterfeiters and infringers a relatively easy way of offering their infringing goods for sale. A balance must be struck between forcing online marketplace providers to police intellectual property disputes themselves and allowing businesses to protect their intellectual property rights effectively when they are being exploited via online platforms.

In supreme irony, the U.S. Supreme Court lists the three exceptions to statutory patent eligibility in Chakrabarty, Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) — the case most famous for the observation that Thomas Jefferson’s statutory language from the 1793 Act (still in place today) covers “anything under the sun made by man.” Id. at 309. While construing Jefferson’s “broad” statutory language in 35 U.S.C. 101 with “wide scope,” the Court noted: “The laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas have been held not patentable.” Id. The Court tries to support this listing with a string citation to several cases — each standing for something different than an exception from statutory language. Still, to ensure clarity, the Court gives examples: “a new mineral discovered in the earth or a new plant found in the wild is not patentable subject matter.” Likewise, Einstein could not patent his celebrated law that E=mc2, nor could Newton have patented the law of gravity.”  Id. So far so good, but this classic example of the Court trying to sound informed and competent out of its comfort zone reemerges 30 years later to replace (and effectively overrule) the statutory rule that governed for over 200 years and remains in Title 35.

This week in Other Barks and Bites: a California district court rules a Chinese chipmaker was not guilty of stealing trade secrets; multiple news organizations sue OpenAI for using copyrighted material to train ChatGPT; and a writer accuses Amazon Studios of copyright infringement and using AI to work around the actor’s strike.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today published a Federal Register Notice (FRN) announcing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that would make permanent certain aspects of the Motion to Amend (MTA) Pilot program and revise rules around the burden of persuasion governing MTAs. The MTA pilot program for America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) stems back to March 2019, when the Office published a notice of pilot program in the Federal Register announcing that patent owners would have the opportunity to seek preliminary guidance on MTAs from the Board itself. The pilot program also offered the opportunity for patent owners to file revised MTAs following a petitioner’s brief in opposition to the original motion to amend. Since launching the pilot program, the USPTO has twice extended the date for terminating the program, which is currently set to run through September 16, 2024.

For better or worse, anyone can be sued for any reason—even reasons that are completely fictitious and based on allegations that are entirely false. Several cases have recently caused me to ask a simple question: Can something actually be evidence if it is false? I’ve had a few people respond, some thoughtful and others intentionally dense. “Of course, something that is false is evidence,” one person recently told me. “It is up to the trier of fact to determine what is false, and that which is false is clearly evidence to be considered.”

As an update to my previous posts from 2017, 2019, 2020, March 2021, August 2021, 2022, and 2023, it has now been almost a decade since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank decision. Yet the debate still rages over when a software (or computer-implemented) claim is patentable versus being simply an abstract idea “free to all men and reserved exclusively to none” (as eloquently phrased 76 years ago by then-Supreme Court Justice Douglas in Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co.).

On February 20, 2024, a Brazilian congress member, Antônio Luiz Rodrigues Mano Júnior (known as Júnior Mano), introduced a bill to amend the national IP Statute (Law #9,279/96) and regulate the ownership of inventions generated by artificial intelligence systems. Bill #303/2024 proposes the addition of a paragraph to Article 6 of the IP Statute, which regulates ownership of inventions, with the following wording: “in the case of inventions autonomously generated by artificial intelligence system, the patent can be requested in the name of the artificial intelligence system that has created the invention, being the artificial intelligence system considered the inventor and owner of rights arising from the invention.”

On February 27, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a notice in the Federal Register providing updated guidance for agency decision-makers on making proper determinations of obviousness under the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2007 ruling in KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc. While the USPTO’s examiner guidance doesn’t constitute substantive rulemaking, it traces 15 years of case law from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to clarify several areas of confusion stemming from the Supreme Court’s calls for a flexible approach to the obviousness analysis for patent validity.

Writing a useful and enforceable patent application is not an easy task. A number of articles show how to draft a patent application. For example, Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog published a series of articles with tips to avoid mistakes or pitfalls. Automated software and AI-assisted drafting tools have also become available, but there have been ethical and practical concerns about relying on AI. Instead of discussing the specific details of the steps in writing a patent application or the pros and cons of automated or AI tools, I will focus on the overall strategies or approaches.

There are many views on the significance of In re Chestek, No. 2022-1843 (February 14, 2024) to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rulemaking process. One question I have asked myself is what I would do differently after Chestek if I were still involved in rulemaking at the USPTO. The simple answer is almost nothing: I would cite Chestek instead of the other decisions in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) section of a proposed or final rule.

On February 26, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Freshub, Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc., affirming a ruling by U.S. District Judge Alan Albright of the Western District of Texas in the face of appeals from both parties to the case. The Federal Circuit left the lower ruling intact after finding that the record developed at trial did not establish clear error with regards either to Freshub’s patent infringement allegations or Amazon’s inequitable conduct defense.

When the Biden Administration unleashed its proposed march-in guidelines last December, it claimed they would be a powerful tool for lowering drug prices by allowing the government to “march in” to license copiers under the authorities of the Bayh-Dole Act. It did so despite previously joining every other Administration denying price control petitions as not authorized under the law. It should have known the proposal would have minimal impact on drug prices—but would have a devastating impact on American innovation. That’s because the guidelines apply to all federal R&D agencies—not just the National Institutes of Health — so they cover inventions across the spectrum, not just the life sciences.  Now the chickens are coming home to roost. Three Congressional letters illustrate the point.

In February 2023, an art dealer in Palm Beach, Florida admitted to selling millions of dollars’ worth of counterfeit artwork to unwitting buyers. Daniel Elie Bouaziz of Danieli Fine Art and Galerie Danieli in Palm Beach County purchased cheap reproductions online, forged provenance and authenticity paperwork, and resold the forged artworks for a hefty profit. Two months later, in April 2023, a Los Angeles-based auctioneer confessed to creating forged Basquiat pieces for display in the Orlando Museum of Art. Michael Barzman and an unidentified co-conspirator in the case created 20 to 30 of these fake paintings.

ChatGPT and similar generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools rely on large language models (LLMs). LLMs are fed massive amounts of content, such as text, music, photographs and film, which they analyze to discover statistical relationships among these inputs. This process, describe as “training” the LLMs, gives them the ability to generate similar content and to answer questions with seeming authority. The business community, and society at large, seems convinced that AI powered by LLMs holds great promise for increases in efficiency. But multiple lawsuits alleging copyright infringement could create a drag on development of LLMs, or worse, tip the competitive balance towards offshore enterprises that enjoy the benefits of legislation authorizing text and data mining. A lot seems to hang on the question of whether LLM training involves copyright infringement or instead is a fair use of copyrighted content.