Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

There is a lot of focus—and rightly so—on China’s stealing of U.S. intellectual property (IP). Recently, Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow stated on CNBC’s Squawk Box that China has stolen at least $600 billion in American IP. Additionally, one in five North American-based corporations on the CNBC Global CFO Council said that Chinese companies have stolen their IP within the last year. In all, 7 of the 23 companies surveyed said that Chinese firms have stolen from them over the past decade. The annual cost to the U.S. economy for these actions is estimated to be greater than $600 billion. While this is a serious matter that must continue to be addressed, domestic theft of U.S. IP is just as bad if not worse. It is easy to point fingers at China, given their track record, but small U.S. companies and inventors are not having their dreams extinguished by the Chinese. They are being victimized by Silicon Valley’s big tech companies, which make billions of dollars using their stolen IP.

Later this year (likely in October), the United Kingdom’s highest court will hear arguments on questions arising in two disputes concerning standard essential patents (SEPs). The UK Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals in Unwired Planet International Ltd and another v Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and another UKSC 2018/0214 and the joined cases Huawei Technologies Co Ltd and another v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL UKSC 2019/0041 and ZTE Corporation and another v Conversant Wireless Licensing SARL UKSC 2019/0042. The arguments are likely to focus on one question: can a national court impose a global license in SEP cases? The closely watched appeal will be the culmination of years of litigation between the parties. In the Unwired Planet case, Mr. Justice Birss of the High Court heard five trials on the validity and infringement/essentiality of Unwired Planet’s patents. In April 2017, he then gave a mammoth judgment determining what a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) license would be, and setting royalty rates. Critically, he found that only a worldwide license would be FRAND in the circumstances of this case. The England and Wales Court of Appeal upheld this conclusion, in a judgment in October 2018. The Supreme Court will likely sit in a five-judge panel in a hearing that will last about two days and will be live streamed on its website (the date and panel details have not been confirmed yet). It will hand down judgment later this year or early in 2020. (Ironically, patent specialist Lord Kitchin is a member of the Supreme Court but will not be sitting in this case as it is his own judgment that is under appeal.) You might have thought that—after decades of legal debate and academic writing, dozens of judgments addressing questions such as what constitutes a FRAND license and what are reasonable royalties, and extensive discussions between technology companies—the questions around SEPs would be close to being resolved. But that is far from the case. The outcome of the UK Supreme Court hearing, for instance, will have an impact on negotiations between owners of SEP portfolios and implementers worldwide, at a time when standards are set to become critical to many more industries.

On August 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a jury verdict from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia finding a landlord liable for contributory trademark infringement . The jury ruled for Plaintiffs Luxottica Group, LLC and Oakley, Inc., holding that Defendants Airport Mini Mall, LLC (AMM); Yes Assets, LLC; Chienjung (Jerome) Yeh; Donald Yeh; Jenny Yeh; and Alice Jamison were liable for contributory trademark infringement under the Lanham Act for allowing their subtenants to sell counterfeit goods that infringed the plaintiffs’ trademarks.

Too often, engineering companies are in such a race to come up with the next big thing that they forget to consider the crucial step following their grand discoveries or inventions: patent protection. If a business is willing to spend years developing products and a considerable amount of money marketing, then it only makes sense to follow through and protect the accomplishment. Yet, many (unintentionally) don’t. Below are five risky ways tech companies often jeopardize their intellectual property rights, sometimes even before a product has been developed.

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has had a sordid history. Whether you are in favor of the PTAB allowing serial challenges that require patent owners to constantly fight dozens of petitions from a multitude of challengers or not, no one can or should excuse the PTAB from the egregious appearance of impropriety that continues to plague the institution. It is insulting and inappropriate. It is well past time for Director Iancu to put an end to Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) deciding petitions filed by former clients. We know direct conflicts where APJs are deciding petitions filed by former clients are still happening thanks to two orders entered on August 8, 2019 in IPR2019-00819 and IPR2019-00820. Through these orders, we learn that APJ Stacy Beth Margolies is sitting on a panel assigned to address inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by Apple, Inc. against patent owner MPH Technologies OY. The problem is Margolies, while she was an attorney, represented Apple.

A hashtag is a useful way to promote your brand on social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. When the name of a brand, a tagline or catchphrase is hashtagged in a post, other users of the platform can find the hashtag easily by simply searching for that particular tag. It’s become an essential part of every brand’s social media marketing strategy. It can be used to attract new customers and engage with them. IP Australia updated the Australian Trade Marks Office Manual of Practice and Procedure in 2016 to include a definition for a hashtag and offers some guidelines for businesses to follow. It also lists examples of what could be seen as ambiguous cases, which you can look at to see if they could also relate to the eligibility of your brand.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: The Federal Circuit has asked USPTO Director Andrei Iancu to brief the appellate court on deference that should be paid to precedential PTAB opinions; China announced that it will create a credit rating mechanism for patent agents; Russ Slifer Op-Ed revives 101 debate; the FCC will approve the proposed T-Mobile/Sprint merger; amicus briefs filed at the Supreme Court support the abrogation of state sovereign immunity against copyright claims; Nintendo ramps up copyright campaign against YouTube accounts using video game music; Guns N’ Roses settles trademark dispute over craft beer brand; and copyright troll entity Malibu Media faces investor lawsuit.

The Federal Circuit recently reversed the District of Minnesota’s denial of summary judgment and held claims related to paper check processing invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Despite the claims being directed to processing “physical” checks, the Court held that “the abstract idea exception does not turn solely on whether the claimed invention comprises physical versus mental steps.”  The Court also reasserted that novelty and/or non-obviousness does not obviate ineligibility under Section 101. See Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., Nos. 2019-1345, 2019-1460, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 22516 (Fed. Cir. July 30, 2019) (Before Chen, Hughes, and Stoll, Circuit Judges) (Opinion for the Court, Chen, Circuit Judge).

Perhaps the report on China’s strategy for eclipsing the U.S. lead in biopharma from the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) resonated so strongly with me because of several articles in The Wall Street Journal. Taken together, they present a sobering picture of what we’re up against. The first was a book review of “Leadership and the Rise of Great Powers” by Yan Xuetong, a prominent Chinese professor. Characterized as “a window into Chinese elite thinking about the world; it is as much a political manual as an international-relations text book.”  The thesis is the inevitable rise of China as the world’s dominant power at the expense of the United States.

Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued 23 institution-phase decisions in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, resulting in 14 IPR institutions and nine IPR denials. Two of the instituted IPRs were brought by Facebook, which is seeking to invalidate claims of a photo tagging patent asserted against it in district court by Blackberry. Apple saw two of three IPRs instituted against Firstface, but the consumer tech giant was still successful in challenging claims from both of the fingerprint authentication patents it was seeking to invalidate. Apple also saw two successful IPR institutions against Nartron after failing in a series of petitions challenging the same patent.

Upon receipt of the fateful “love” letter from its fictitious IP client, the fictitious law firm was speechless—momentarily. Feeling aggrieved and misunderstood, and yet hopeful that their relationship could be saved with an added measure of TLC (top-tier legal counseling), the firm summoned up the courage to prepare this reply letter. In an act of contrition (or maybe vindication?), the firm has taken the bold step of publishing it on IPWatchdog. Note to commenters habitually fed up with clients large and small: This one’s for you.

Just over 18 months ago, Andrei Iancu assumed control of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As the Director of the USPTO, Iancu has changed the tone of the conversation over patents in America. During President Obama’s second term the USPTO became aggressively anti-patent and anti-innovator. The speeches, policies and inaction of Director Michelle Lee led innovators and observers to correctly claim that the Obama Administration had come to champion the viewpoints of infringers, not the technology innovators. Director Iancu changed that almost overnight. Where Director Iancu has failed, however, is with respect to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). With great fanfare, Director Iancu created a Precedential Opinion Panel (POP) that we were told would result in more decisions of the PTAB being declared precedential on the entire PTAB. There was hope that the POP would address the most important issues, such as serial challenges to the same patent over and over again, the use of the same prior art over and over again, and once and for all require the PTAB to apply the Federal Circuit view of what it means to be a real party and interest. Unfortunately, real reform of the PTAB has not happened despite tinkering with the Trial Guide. In important ways the PTAB is worse, and the efforts that have been undertaken incorrectly form the appearance of reform.

Alternatives to patent litigation are desirable now more than ever. Arbitration can help to resolve patent disputes more easily than the much more complex, expensive and timely endeavor of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings. Patent litigators must deal with an overly complex Inter Partes Review (IPR) system as a result of the Supreme Court’s SAS Institute v. Iancu (138 S. Ct. 1348 2018) decision, new amendment process, and evolution of the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard. Costly and complicated PTAB proceedings and a lengthy appellate process make arbitration an appealing option to obtain a patentability ruling in a streamlined manner. Below are the top 10 reasons that arbitration can be a better route to follow than an IPR or other PTAB proceeding.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision in an appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York last Thursday that in part clarified that “a plaintiff prosecuting a trademark infringement claim need not in every case demonstrate actual consumer confusion to be entitled to an award of an infringer’s profits.” The Second Circuit court also remanded the case back to the District Court to apply the Octane Fitness standard for determining “exceptional” cases under the Lanham Act.

On October 25, the AIPLA Annual Meeting will host a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Inter Partes Review (IPR) trial to determine the fate of a pair of patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to Zaxcom for a Digital Recording Wireless Microphone. Zaxcom is a U.S. manufacturer of high-end, specialized wireless microphones and recording equipment for the film and television industries. The company was founded in 1986 by Glenn Sanders, the named inventor on the challenged patents. The Zaxcom case caught my attention for several reasons. First, this was not a patent troll asserting a stack of vague, overly broad patents, but was an inventor-owned company that was producing the invention. Second, Glenn was manufacturing his invention and creating jobs in the United States. Third, the technology has won Engineering Emmy Awards and has been honored by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences with a Technical Achievement Award. Finally, Chief Administrative Patent Judge Scott Boalick was on the panel. How could the USPTO grant a patent, the claimed invention earn Emmy and Academy awards, and then the USPTO decide the patent was likely to be invalid? Especially when Director Iancu is traveling throughout the country and testifying in Congress that it is a new day at the USPTO and that he has restored balance at the PTAB?