Posts Tagged: "technology"

In Part I of our year end summary of key developments regarding patents subject to a commitment to license on a Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) or Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) basis, we looked at various developments involving patent pools and reviewed some interesting damages awards and interlocutory decisions. In this installment, we consider a pair of antitrust cases dismissed in 2023 and explore what may come next on the policy front.

Another year of IP is behind us, and it is time to reflect on what mattered most—what decisions will affect practice for years to come and/or continue to play out in the courts as we move into 2024? Below are reflections on milestones from this past year—some positive, some negative, and some neutral–at least for now.

Copyright exits everywhere—from books on a library shelf to music playing on the radio, to the software running the electronic device on which you are reading this article. Copyright’s broad scope and extensive reach foster a varied and fascinating landscape of copyright cases. From cases involving the use of a celebrity photograph, animated dancing video game characters, to artificial intelligence (AI) infringement inquiries, the number and type of matters copyright touches is seemingly infinite. This provides an evergreen bounty of copyright cases to digest. The following highlights some of the top copyright decisions of 2023.

The patents granted by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) tell the story of society’s innovative future. While the true value of a technological advance develops over time, the following selection of patents of 2023 represent meaningful advances in several emerging areas of technology. From artificial intelligence (AI) systems for retail checkout to improved mRNA drug delivery, these innovations have been chosen for their likeliness to make a significant real-world impact in 2024 and beyond.

With respect to patents subject to a commitment to license on a Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) or Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (RAND) basis, 2023 saw many interesting developments. This includes several new pool-based licensing programs being launched, and others gaining traction, various interlocutory decisions, the dismissal of some antitrust suits, and, as always, the specter of possible government intervention.

Unsurprisingly, the UK Supreme Court today ruled that Stephen Thaler’s AI Machine, DABUS, cannot be granted patents for inventions it autonomously created. While the Court suggested that questions such as whether inventions like DABUS’ should be patentable and if the meaning of the term “inventor” should be expanded are important ones that should be considered at a policy level, the present case was concerned solely with the interpretation of the present law, which clearly does not contemplate non-human inventors.  

From SAG-AFTRA strikes to the class action lawsuit of McKernan against Stability AI, Stability Diffusion and Midjourney, the creative industries are concerned with the ability of AI systems to produce outputs in the likeness of their original works. Earlier this year, a class action lawsuit against popular generative AI developers Stability AI, Midjourney, and DeviantArt was filed in the United States alleging copyright infringement. McKernan and others claimed that generative AI outputs have reproduced a significant portion of their original work.

On December 11, the Review Board of the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) released a letter affirming the USCO’s refusal to register a work created with the use of artificial intelligence (AI) software. The decision to affirm the refusal marks the fourth time a registrant has been documented as being denied the ability to obtain a copyright registration over the output of an AI system following requests for reconsideration.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report today predicting that proposals by the Biden Administration to impose price controls on certain pharmaceuticals will reduce the number of clinical trials “by thousands across all categories of research examined and by up to 75% in some therapeutic areas,” eventually turning the United States into a “research desert.” The report comes on the heels of a Federal Register Notice last week that proposed a framework for expanding the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act to circumstances in which qualifying drugs are priced too high.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice decision alleges that “…merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” And the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) of 2023 alleges that “adding a non-essential reference to a computer by merely stating, ‘do it on a computer’ shall not establish such eligibility.” Clearly, it is assumed that “merely” doing something on a computer or “merely” saying “do it on a computer” is not a desirable thing in the eyes of some; a computer supposedly invalidates the inventive effort and “merely” doing something on a computer is undeserving of even consideration of a patent.

In September 2023, one man grabbed the authors’ attention with his astonishing story about defending his trademark registration from an opposition by professional trademark attorneys using ChatGPT. His months-long battle began in December 2022, less than a month after the public launch of the now infamous AI chatbot. Nine months later, Jamiel Sheikh — an entrepreneur, tech-guru, and adjunct professor — survived the pressure from formal proceedings and obtained a settlement from his opposer without spending a dime. As young trademark attorneys, we were horrified yet extremely curious about what he had done. This article is the result of speaking with Sheikh about his experience and the evolving needs and expectations of sophisticated legal service consumers.

On December 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in the ongoing patent battle between computer chip patent owner VLSI and major chipmaker Intel Corp. While the court affirmed the infringement findings underpinning the bulk of VLSI’s $2.175 billion jury verdict awarded back in March 2021, the panel ordered a retrial of damages award for one of two asserted patents and dismissed the doctrine of equivalents infringement finding for the other patent. The Federal Circuit also found that the district court abused its discretion by denying Intel’s motion for leave to add a license defense to its case.

Recently, Wen Xie argued on IPWatchdog that the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have reached different conclusions regarding “the creative and conceiving capabilities of machines,” which leads to intellectual property (IP) law being self-contradictory. According to Xie, the USCO presumes that artificial intelligence (AI) is creative, while the USPTO does not reach a similar conclusion regarding AI inventorship. I disagree.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it is launching a pilot program to help promote semiconductor innovation by expediting examination for qualifying patents. The program is meant to support the objectives of President Biden’s Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, which was signed into law in August 2022. The CHIPS and Science Act provided $280 billion in federal funding to encourage the domestic production of semiconductor products in the United States as well as to fund research and development projects in advanced technological fields like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The law also provides for a $10 billion investment into the development of regional innovation and technology hubs and establishes other programs supporting science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) educational programs.

Generative AI (“Gen AI”) is everywhere, with all sorts of promises about how it can help the world. Let’s say a company has created new confidential methods for cancer treatments, but they are not really effective. They ask a Gen AI to come up with a cure for cancer using these new methods.  The gen-AI (using the billions of words and images available to it beyond human comprehension) conceives of the cure, and it works, saving many lives. [Note: Generative AI (“Gen AI”) as used herein will refer to deep-learning models that can generate high-quality text, images or other content based on the billions of pieces of data they were trained on].