Posts in Capitol Hill

An event held Monday by the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS), and moderated by former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu, featured a number of high-profile political and professional figures in the intellectual property space debating approaches to strengthening the U.S. patent system, with an emphasis on national security. Representative Deborah Ross (D-NC), who serves on the U.S. House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, first joined Iancu to discuss her reasons for supporting the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act.

This week in Washington IP news, the House is holding several meetings pertinent to IP-watchers, including an evaluation of the White House’s policy on AI. Elsewhere, CSIS will speak with to Representative Deborah Ross (D-NC) about the role of the United States in IP’s geopolitical importance.

This week in Washington IP news, the House and Senate are having a quieter week after the Thanksgiving break, but a House subcommittee delves into the critical software supply chain. Elsewhere, the USPTO celebrates Hispanic innovators, discusses fashion and IP and continues its tutorial series on Patent Center.

This week in Washington IP news, the Senate Committee on Small Business hears from entrepreneurs who served in the U.S. military, and the House Subcommittee on Communications discusses the implications of AI technology on U.S. communications. Elsewhere, the USPTO evaluates how women can be empowered to become entrepreneurs and holds a webinar to explain proposed rule changes at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

This week in Washington IP news, the Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property hears from stakeholders on proposed reforms to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Elsewhere, the Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) dives into a new report looking at Taiwanese IP strategies, and the Brookings Institution evaluates recent developments in U.S.-China relations.

This week in Washington IP news, a Senate Subcommittee holds a hearing on AI’s impact on the U.S. workforce and the “TRUMP TOO SMALL” trademark case heads to argument at the Supreme Court. Elsewhere, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) holds its last Trademark Public Advisory Committee (TPAC) quarterly meeting of the year and the Brookings Institution discusses who makes the rules in an online landscape dominated by big tech firms.

This week in Washington IP news, a House subcommittee holds a hearing on advances in deepfake technology. Elsewhere, the Peterson Institute hosts the launch of an OECD report that looks at how governments can spur growth in the green economy, and the USPTO holds a three-day event for newcomers to the patent application process.

In Part I of this article, I recalled the early years of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, when the court was working well, and how it all went wrong. In this second half, I recount how the America Invents Act (AIA) has fundamentally shifted the power in patent enforcement and policy. I close on a positive note, detailing the current legislative efforts that, if enacted, will restore balance in the U.S. patent system, which is necessary for continued innovation leadership, economic success, and national security.

Innovation has been the driving force behind our country since its inception. So much of our nation’s success has flowed from U.S. ingenuity and innovation. Yet much remains to be done on this front. Indeed, in a few short years, we will be celebrating the Semiquincentennial (also called the Sestercentennial)—250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence. We need the same approach moving forward, and we have the opportunity to do so with pending legislation, which brings me to a chance to reflect on some important questions of intellectual property and innovation policy.

This week in Washington IP news, Congress returns from its district work period with the House holding several meetings related to IP and innovation. The House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet holds a hearing on IP competition with China and another subcommittee discusses safeguarding data in the growing AI industry. Elsewhere, IPWatchdog is hosting its Life Sciences Masters™ program in Ashburn, VA, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office hosts a panel discussion for its ongoing Women’s Entrepreneurship (WE) program

Recently, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property released a draft of the ‘‘Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023” (“PERA”) for the purpose of addressing the judicially-created exceptions to patent eligibility plaguing the country. Among the Senate’s findings are that patent eligibility jurisprudence requires significant clarification, the judicial exceptions are rendering an increasing number of inventions ineligible for patent protection, and Alice/Mayo is confusing and inconsistent. None of this is surprising. Alice/Mayo has been a resounding failure. However, of particular importance, the Senate bill has declared “All judicial exceptions to patent eligibility are eliminated.”

California is poised to become the third state to enact a right to repair law aimed at making it easier for independent repair shops and consumers to repair electronic devices. This might sound well and good—until you think about what it actually means for IP owners. While repair advocates may not care about, or even acknowledge, the IP side of the equation, the not-so-hidden truth of the right to repair movement is that it expands repair opportunities for consumers by taking away the rights of copyright and patent owners. Indeed, the foundational premise of the repair movement is that there is something inherently wrong when an IP owner exercises its right to exclude and imposes a repair restriction. Of course, this lopsided view elevates access over incentives, and it ignores how IP law itself promotes the public good by rewarding creators and innovators for their individual efforts. But, more importantly, it’s not up to the states to second-guess Congress’s judgment.

This week in Washington IP news, Congress is wrapping up a district work period, but there are still a handful of interesting IP-related events. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recognizes the contributions of Hispanic Americans to the U.S. economy and innovation system. Elsewhere, the Brookings Institution compares and discusses the competing visions of the United States, the European Union, and China regarding international norms. The Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) meets with members of the U.S. Space Force and U.S. Space Command to talk through the threats posed to U.S. space interests.

Last week, the White House announced that the manufacturers of all ten of the drugs singled out by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and its drug price negotiation program (DPNP) have “agreed” to participate therein. The announcement concerns the manufacturers reluctantly agreeing to subject themselves to the sweeping drug price “negotiation” provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was passed last year. Those provisions empower CMS to essentially dictate whatever price it pleases for a set of prescription drugs, the first ten of which were announced at the end of August.

Judicial rulings have muddied the waters of patent eligibility, with judges themselves expressing uncertainty. In the case, Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judge Kimberly Moore openly shared the challenge of applying Section 101 consistently, explaining that “the majority’s blended 101/112 analysis expands § 101, converts factual issues into legal ones and is certain to cause confusion for future cases.” This haze has driven innovators to tread cautiously, often sidelining potential patents for fear of 101 rejections—stifling the American dream of groundbreaking innovation. Stakeholders craft tactics to dodge these pitfalls while lawmakers propose reforms.