Posts in Business

This week my conversation is with Carlo Cotrone, who is a Chief IP Counsel and frequent contributor to IPWatchdog, both our online publication and at our in-person programs. During our conversation we discuss taking a holistic view that focuses on the IP strategy, the people, and the operational aspects of building and managing a team, which includes both in-house employees, outside law firms and service providers, all working together in coordination to deliver high impact for the company. We also discuss the need to guard against your in-house team falling into doing commoditized work, which gets in the way of your in-house team really partnering with the business and maximizing value for the company.

A 2024 Republican election victory marks the end of the four-year Neo-Brandeisian antitrust experiment at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Department Of Justice (DOJ). Spearheaded by FTC chair Lina Khan and DOJ attorney general for antitrust Jonathan Kanter, their movement sought to upend antitrust’s longstanding bipartisan consumer welfare-focused consensus. Instead, they focused on punishing businesses for bigness; opposing mergers and other business practices based on speculative rather than probable theories that of competitive harm; and orienting antitrust toward policy considerations outside economic competition, such as income redistribution, labor, and environmentalism.

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become central to business innovation, trade secret law is crucial for protecting the proprietary algorithms and datasets that drive them. However, AI presents unique challenges, requiring strategies to keep these competitive advantages secure in an increasingly digital landscape.

At a friend’s dinner party a few months ago, I sampled a craft whiskey from his collection. I loved it, so I took a photo of the bottle and decided I would buy one for myself. Yet when I eventually scanned the shelves at the store, the distinctive label was nowhere to be found. After searching multiple stores with no luck, I eventually resorted to Googling the name. That’s when I discovered: the brand I was looking for no longer existed.

Last week President-elect Trump announced that he would nominate Gail Slater as Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. Meanwhile, people with knowledge of the Trump Transition tell IPWatchdog that the front runner to be named Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) continues to be Vishal Amin, Intel’s head of IP policy. While it is true that Amin served as the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator during President Trump’s first term, the appointment of Amin to head the USPTO would be an extraordinary head-scratcher, if that in fact does come to pass.

IPWatchdog has previously reported on aspects of litigation financing, including a recent article on inventor groups being wary of asymmetrical demands for transparency in revealing funding sources. Last month, IPWatchdog invited a group of experts to LIVE to discuss their experiences with litigation financing, how it works for them, and how it is used to hedge risk.

Trademark rights flow from use. Continued use of a trademark keeps the trademark alive and makes the trademark right stronger. As per the Lanham Act, suspension of use for a consecutive three years may create a rebuttable presumption of abandonment. In the below case, we will analyze the nuances of trademark abandonment from nonuse.

Two recent petitions to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for Director Review of denial of post grant review institution decisions claim that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) approach to reviewing plant utility claims is deterring competition in seed markets. The petitions, filed by Inari Agriculture, Inc., ask the USPTO Director to reverse two denials of institution relating to U.S. patent Nos. 11,659,803 and 11,666,020, owned by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., both covering inbred corn plants.

I invited Walt to join us for our annual life sciences program this year. My pitch was that we would have a one-on-one conversation that would not only make up the final segment of the program, but which would also be used for our IPWatchdog Unleashed podcast. He graciously accepted my invitation, and we sat down for this conversation on Wednesday, October 30. Our conversation focused on the role of science, technology and innovation in U.S. competitiveness and for U.S. national security. We discuss the ongoing Bayh-Dole march-in rights drama being caused by his old agency—NIST, the diverging approach to commercialization between universities who can own and license patent rights and federal agencies, the upward trajectory of China vis-à-vis innovation and intellectual property, and the stagnation within the U.S. innovation ecosystem.

You’re embarking on a new business venture with a strong business plan. That’s exciting. A strong business plan can guide your business, define business goals, and outline objectives and risks. Part of those risks are unexpected expenses, which can be overwhelming and surprise founders who are not prepared. For venture-backed startups, there are intellectual property (IP) risks to start with, which is why it’s essential that the company, not individual founders or employees, owns the IP.

In the immediate wake of such an historic election, it is far too early to know what the intellectual property landscape will really be like under a second Trump Administration. However, IPWatchdog reached out to IP stakeholders for some initial comments, and their educated predictions and insights are included in full below.

As European medtech companies look to expand their presence in the U.S. market, understanding the intricacies of U.S. patent law becomes increasingly important. The U.S. market, being the largest for medical technologies, presents both opportunities and challenges. Many European companies may find that their current European-centric patent portfolio development strategy may not fully align with the expectations and requirements of U.S. investors, strategics, or other potential acquirers, nor align with U.S. patent practice in front of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) or U.S. patent law. 

During IPWatchdog’s Life Sciences Masters program, which is taking place this week from Monday to Wednesday, panelists on the one hand breathed a sigh of relief that certain rule proposals considered most destructive to the industry seem unlikely to move forward, but on the other, lamented the overall negative tenor of the public debate around pharmaceutical patents today.

As artificial intelligence (AI) technology continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace, it brings with it numerous questions regarding the application of intellectual property (IP) laws. The intersection of AI and IP raises critical considerations about the rights of creators and innovators, the interpretation and enforcement of established laws, and the potential impact on the future of creativity and innovation. As 2024 ends, and a new presidential administration prepares to develop and enact new policies, it is imperative to establish a framework of general principles that will guide policy development around AI, ensuring that the underlying goals of the IP system are upheld.

Cox Communications is the latest to file a brief in the battle between it and Sony Music Entertainment over whether an internet service provider (ISP) should be liable for infringement by its subscribers. According to Cox’s brief in opposition to Sony’s petition for certiorari, “[p]etitioners want to make a terrible situation even worse.” Music publishers including Sony, Arista Records, Warner Music and Universal Music Group filed copyright claims against Cox in July 2018, alleging that Cox was liable for the infringement of 10,017 musical works that were illegally distributed by the ISP’s subscribers. A 2020 jury verdict found that Cox liable for both vicarious and contributory infringement, leading to a $1 billion damages verdict against Cox after damages were increased for the jury’s willfulness finding.