Posts Tagged: "U.S. government"

After a year-long process involving 38 state organizations and dozens of individual representatives, IP rights has been selected as the topic for the 2024-2025 debate competition by The National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS). “Should the U.S. strengthen intellectual property rights” was chosen over “Nuclear Weapons Reduction” by a 25-17 vote in the final balloting process. In addition to NHFS and state debate associations, those who helped to determine the outcome included the National Speech and Debate Association, the National Catholic Forensic League, the National Association for Urban Debate Leagues and the Nation Debate Coaches Association.

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.”

Reasonable compensation for standard essential patent (SEP) holders is crucial to create the incentives for adequate investments in standards. In particular, high-quality standards have underlain the development and proliferation of the global wireless technologies that have played such a central role in the innovation-driven growth of the internet economy. (For the key role of strong standards in technological innovation, see, for example, here, here, here, and here). It follows that the discriminatory reduction of compensation for SEP holders would reduce their incentives to participate and invest in standard setting. This in turn would reduce quality of future standards that will be key to economic growth and vitality.

In a laudable effort to curtail rampant corporate IP theft, a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators has called on a hesitant Department of Justice (DOJ) to step up its enforcement. As reported in Forbes, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), Chris Coons (D-DE), and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) recently issued a letter to the DOJ identifying the core gap in its prosecution habits. Their primary complaint was “the DOJ’s focus on individual, as opposed to corporate, offenders.” This is an oversight that must be corrected. 

I was not even aware of the issue below until a CPA friend of mine happened to mention it during a friendly telephone call. But unless Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code is restored to its previous state from prior to the 2017 Trump tax cuts, U.S. innovation will be greatly impacted. Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code has been around since 1954. It was enacted to eliminate uncertainty in the treatment of research and development (R&D) expenditures and to encourage businesses to carry on research and experimentation.

On August 28, officials from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce held a video call to discuss the trade organization’s legal action against the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), including a motion for preliminary injunction filed against the HHS last week in U.S. district court. The U.S. Chamber officials noted that the legal uncertainty looming over the HHS’ implementation of drug price control mechanisms under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) will cast a significant pall over the Biden Administration’s celebration of the program one year on.

President Joe Biden has announced that his nominee for the next Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC) will be Deborah Robinson, head of intellectual property enforcement at Paramount Global. The position has been vacant since Vishal Amin, who was confirmed to the post under President Donald Trump, left in 2021.

On March 2, U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the District of Delaware received several filings related to the impact of the U.S. government’s recent statement of interest filed in a patent infringement suit against Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. That statement argued that Moderna should be released from infringement liability under the terms of a government contract that “authorize[d] and consent[ed] to all use and manufacture” of any U.S. patented invention. The federal government’s statement of interest, filed on February 14, contended that the use of such authorization and consent clauses should eliminate Moderna’s alleged liability under 28 U.S.C. § 1498, the statute governing remedies for patent infringements by government use. While there’s nothing surprising about the positions taken by defendant Moderna or plaintiffs Arbutus Biopharma and Genevant Sciences, the relevance of Section 1498(a) to arguments surrounding government control of drug pricing could make Judge Goldberg’s next ruling an important moment in the drug pricing debate.

On January 23, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) published a report entitled Wake Up, America: China is Overtaking the United States in Innovation Output, which applies innovation and industrial performance metrics for comparing relative innovation outputs from foreign technological rivals China and the United States. The report, produced by ITIF’s Hamilton Center on Industrial Strategy, is the latest indicator that China is close to surpassing the United States in terms of innovation output per capita and calls upon U.S. policymakers to develop a national economic and technology policy to restore U.S. dominance in innovation.

With all of the problems besetting us, you might think that the last thing we need right now is another give-away of critical technologies, but that could be about to happen. Negotiations are underway in Geneva over a proposal from “developing countries” that negating patent protections for our COVID-19 vaccines wasn’t good enough. Now they want to extend that foolish concession we agreed to earlier this year to any COVID therapy. You’d think it would be well understood by now that appeasement doesn’t foster gratitude, it only encourages the other side to push for more. We’ll soon see if we roll over again or not.

Oshkosh Corporation has run through a $6.7 billion contract to produce the first 17,000 Joint Light Tactical Vehicles (JLTVs) in a Department of Defense (DOD) program that could produce 55,000 vehicles for the Army and Marines. Oshkosh won the low-rate initial production (LRIP) contract in 2015 to be the sole manufacturer of JLTVs by submitting an original, technologically superior design in a litigated competition with other, arguably, more dominant players in the defense market. Bids for the contract to produce the next tranche of over 15,000 vehicles are due later this year. Competitors for the $7.3 billion recompete contract, including GM Defense, AM General and Navistar, will have access to the proprietary design of the JLTV that Oshkosh used to win the LRIP contract. The U.S. Government has made available to interested bidders a Technical Data Package (TDP) covering the JLTV after purchasing an option in 2016. Oshkosh, however, maintains an intellectual property (IP) portfolio that could counter the sale of the TDP.

Nine months in, and we are still awaiting the Biden administration’s decision as to whether the law of patent eligibility should be clarified. This area of patent law has in recent years become increasingly unpredictable, and the consequences of that unpredictability have largely fallen on startups, whose primary assets are often inventions. On May 3, 2021, the Supreme Court invited the Solicitor General to recommend whether certiorari should be granted in American Axle v. Neapco Holdings, LLC—a case in which a method for manufacturing vehicle driveshafts was deemed ineligible under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to a law of nature.

It’s hard to believe that, not too long ago, alliances between the public and private sectors were unheard of unless the government was picking up the entire tab. After World War II, the policy was that if the government funded even a small percentage of the research, it would take any resulting inventions away from those who created them to make the discovery readily available to anyone and everyone. While that might sound noble, it was a death knell for commercialization because then, like now, these discoveries required significant private sector effort and investment to turn into commercial products. The result was that not only were few government funded inventions ever developed, but even worse, companies avoided alliances with government funded institutions.

In an appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) last week affirmed a decision granting summary judgment in favor of the U.S. government with respect to a nonexclusive trademark license between the Department of the Army and an apparel company (Authentic Apparel Group, LLC v. United States). In the March 4 opinion, the CAFC agreed with the Claims Court that a license agreement’s provision giving the Army broad approval discretion over Authentic’s requests to use the Army’s trademarks on proposed products or marketing materials was not at odds with the principles of trademark law. The CAFC also held that Authentic did not present any legal or factual reasons to deviate from a plain reading of the license agreement’s exculpatory clauses.