Posts Tagged: "technology"

In an ideal world, issued patents would not contain errors. In reality, patent drafting is tedious and time-consuming work and perfection is not an attainable goal. The patent industry seems to be steadily getting better, though. In a recent study, we uncovered an 11.24% decrease in errors per patent over the past four years. We observed this decrease by reviewing every patent issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) since 2020 – nearly 1.4 million patents.

On February 12, the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) filed a lawsuit against streaming music company Pandora Media in the Middle District of Tennessee seeking unpaid royalty fees for blanket licenses under the Music Modernization Act (MMA). The case, prompted by recent final determinations on blanket license royalty rates, could prove an interesting test case on the level of interactivity and personal control required before a streaming service qualifies as a covered activity under the MMA.

The year 2023 marked another year of rapid advancements in quantum computing technology, showcasing significant progress in key areas such as scalable quantum computing and quantum error correction. Multiple physical realization approaches or modalities for creating quantum bits (qubits) are under development, offering different tradeoffs in performance metrics such as qubit count, error rate, decoherence time, and gate speed. Patenting activities are effective indicators of innovation speed and resource distribution in a technology field. As 2024 begins, this post explores the newest development focus and trends in the quantum computing industry through the angle of its patent landscape and discusses strategic considerations for patenting in this rapidly evolving field.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today released guidance for determining inventorship of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted inventions. As the Office has previously stated, the guidance clarifies that “while AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable, the inventorship analysis should focus on human contributions, as patents function to incentivize and reward human ingenuity.” The USPTO issued a call for comments on AI inventorship in February 2023. That Federal Register Notice (FRN) asked the public to respond to 11 questions, including “how does the use of an AI system [in the invention process]…differ from the use of other technical tools”; whether AI inventions may be patentable under current patent laws on joint inventorship by, for example, simply listing the natural person involved in inventions created by AI machines; and whether statutory or regulatory changes should be made to better address AI contributions to inventions.

For many legal professionals, artificial intelligence platforms are being adopted at a speed that they think is imprudent. Well-respected patent and intellectual property thought leaders have been very open about their concerns on this point. From client confidentiality to patentability, risks posed by the use of generative AI systems must be eliminated by AI companies themselves before they partner with the patent law profession.

One day before comments closed on the Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights, published by the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) and the Department of Commerce last month, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) denied an appeal of a decision not to march in on the blockbuster prostate cancer drug, Xtandi®.

The first software patent was granted in 1968. It’s now been three decades since the “Year of the Algorithm” in 1994, when cases such as In re Allapat, In re Lowry, and In re Beauregard initiated a wave of software patents. Well over half of U.S. patents granted annually are at least “software-related,” and even a cursory search of U.S. patents reveals software patents in fields ranging from encryption to speech recognition to network security. Why, then, do so many people continue to think that software cannot be patented at all? What explains the stark contrast between the long-standing legal reality and the beliefs of otherwise well-informed engineers, high-tech business people, and even some lawyers?

February 6 is the final day of the 60-day public comment period set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) request for information on its draft interagency framework for exercising march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. While lauded by drug pricing advocates, almost every other sector of the American economy has come out in opposition to the draft framework. Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Bayh-Dole Coalition have all publicly opposed NIST’s efforts to exercise legal authority for relicensing patent rights based on product pricing considerations.

A recent decision out of the Eastern District of Texas sheds further light on Judge Rodney Gilstrap’s interpretation of a patent owner’s commitment to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) pursuant to ETSI’s Intellectual Property Rights Information Statement and Licensing Declaration (“the ETSI Licensing Declaration”). The decision, however, also raises some questions for SEP owners. A little over a year ago, we considered how French and California law would interpret a patent owner ‘s commitment to ETSI pursuant to the ETSI Licensing Declaration. The in depth analysis can be found here, while a summary version published on IPWatchdog can be found here. At a high level, we considered the issue both from the perspective of performance being possible without implementer engagement, and from the perspective of performance requiring implementer cooperation.

The training of artificial intelligence models using copyrighted material continues to stir debate and prompt litigation. In the latest salvo, the New York Times Company sued Microsoft and OpenAI – the creator of ChatGPT – for infringement under the federal Copyright Act. As often is the case with claims like these, the merits will center on the fair-use doctrine, a well-recognized legal principle in copyright law that aims to balance the interests of copyright holders with the public benefit of free speech and creative works. Fair use is a defense to a claim of copyright infringement that must be affirmatively invoked by the accused infringer.

Innovation continues across industries at a rapid pace. Many companies maintain highly valuable trade secrets and private data that provide them with a competitive market advantage. The rapidly evolving technological landscape, however, leads to new and more sophisticated threats to a company’s trade secrets and other private information. Whether organizations are equipped to confront this challenge is an open question.  

With each new year comes an uptick in purchases of workout equipment, blenders, gym memberships and wearable devices of all shapes and sizes. Plans are made and uploaded to a wearable device—including smart rings, shoes and bands—and its accompanying app to track progress. These devices and apps share information with each other and across platforms, tracking a person’s diet, sleep or even sexual activity.

Both the Biden and Trump Administrations have made it abundantly clear that economic and technology security is now national security. In the latest National Security Strategy, the Biden Administration stated, “Technology is central to today’s geopolitical competition and to the future of our national security, economy, and democracy. U.S. and allied leadership in technology and innovation has long underpinned our economic prosperity and military strength. In the next decade, critical and emerging technologies are poised to retool economies, transform militaries, and reshape the world.”

The U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) announced today that it is launching the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource (NAIRR) pilot, as directed by President Biden’s Executive Order on AI in October 2023. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is one of 10 government agencies that are partnering with NSF on the pilot. Biden’s October Executive Order (EO) announced a series of new agency directives for managing risks related to the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, prioritizing risks related to critical infrastructure, cybersecurity and consumer privacy. The EO in part directed NSF to launch a pilot for NAIRR within 90 days, which it said was “consistent with past recommendations” of a task force on the subject.

When licensing standard essential patents (SEPs), the SEP licensor and the standard implementer (also known as the SEP licensee), go through two phases of negotiation. The first phase is the technical phase, followed by the second phase, the commercial discussion. In the technical phase, the SEP licensor must provide evidence that at least one patent of its portfolio is valid and standard essential. This is done by providing rigorously conducted claim charts that map claims against the standard’s sections, providing evidence that all claim elements read on the technical standard specification. Typically, only a few claim charts are needed in this first technical phase, since only one patent must be valid and essential to make the case that the standard implementing party is infringing. The second phase, the commercial discussion, is much more complex. Here, the SEP owner must provide evidence of the value of its SEP portfolio for a given standard supporting why the proposed royalty rate is FRAND (fair reasonable and non- discriminatory).