Posts in Capitol Hill

This week in Washington IP news, Congress is back in session with a light week of hearings including a Senate Judiciary hearing on competition in live entertainment. Elsewhere, there is a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) training session on the patent appeals process, and a discussion about President Biden’s tech agenda from the ITIF.

This week in Washington IP news, following the federal holiday to celebrate Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Congress is not in session, but there are still some interesting events to put on your calendar, including the all-day listening session on United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)-U.S. Food & Drug Administration collaboration on Thursday; a panel discussion at the American Enterprise Institute about the near-term future for financial markets; and a discussion with IP experts at the USPTO about IP protection in China.

This week in Washington IP news, after a hectic week that saw the House take 15 rounds of voting to nominate new Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, both the House and Senate will not be holding any hearings this week. Events to look out for this week include the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office hosting a discussion on how companies can create a more inclusive culture, the Hudson holding a panel discussion on microelectronics in the U.S., and a talk on technological innovation from a former Google CEO hosted by Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Paul Morinville, Founder of US Inventor, recently published a response to my column criticizing RALIA, a bill in Congress that would abolish the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). I offer a few observations in reply. I argued in “The Made in China Act,” November 16, 2022, that juries are not an effective or reliable check on patent validity and that eliminating contested validity reviews at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) would be a disaster for U.S. manufacturing. As if determined to prove my point, the VLSI patent-assertion group recently obtained yet another monster infringement verdict against Intel based on a patent that probably shouldn’t have issued.

This week in Washington IP news, the USPTO is hosting an event on becoming an Administrative Patent Judge, and the Brookings Institute is hosting a debate on cryptocurrency regulation.

This week in Washington IP news, the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding an Executive Business Meeting in which they will discuss the Pride in Patent Ownership Act, while several Senate subcommittees hold hearings related to American manufacturing, diversity in entrepreneurship, and increasing access to capital in underserved markets. Elsewhere, IPWatchdog is hosting a webinar discussing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal’s tenure, the USPTO will host a virtual Boardside Chat with Deputy Director Derrick Brent, and the CSIS looks at the latest meeting of the U.S.-EU Trade and Technology Council (TTC).

As the Senate Judiciary Committee gears up for an Executive Business Meeting Thursday where members will in part consider S.2774, the Pride in Patent Ownership Act, co-sponsored by Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a number of patent advocacy organizations have sent a joint letter to the committee asking it to oppose the bill. The Pride in Patent Ownership Act (PPOA) is seemingly intended to ensure that the public has access to information about the true owner of a patent. But critics of the bill have noted that it focuses on ownership of patents, and does not seek to provide true transparency by identifying those funding and benefiting from Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) challenges, for instance. Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) last year questioned the bill’s approach, which  would entail penalizing patent owners who fail to record accurate ownership information within 90 days after the issuance date.

This week in Washington IP news and events, the House Judiciary Committee convenes a hearing Wednesday afternoon to mark up a new copyright bill that would require AM/FM radio stations to pay copyright royalties to music creators. Over in the Senate, the Agriculture Committee explores the research and innovation programs that could be funded through the next iteration of the Farm Bill that will pass Congress next year. Elsewhere, the Hudson Institute pushes back on misguided claims that patent licensing will prevent innovation in the Internet of Things, while the Center for Strategic & International Studies invites USC Gould School of Law Professor Jonathan Barnett for a discussion on patent licensing and enforcement policies in the People’s Republic of China.

Last September, a bipartisan pair of Senators introduced the Pride in Patent Ownership Act, which, if passed, would add greatly-needed transparency to our patent system. The legislation would require patent owners to disclose their identity to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) when a patent issues and whenever it changes hands so that members of the public have easy access to information about who the true owners of patents are. Right now, inventors, businesses, and other interested members of the public often have to undertake time consuming and expensive litigation to determine who owns a patent. As Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) rightly pointed out when introducing the legislation, “Patents provide a limited term monopoly against the public, and it’s in the public’s interest and benefit to know who owns that monopoly.”

On November 23, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the U.S. Copyright Office published a joint notice of inquiry in the Federal Register announcing that the two agencies would be collaborating on a study regarding intellectual property legal issues related to digital assets known as non-fungible tokens (NFTs). The announcement follows the dramatic rise in mainstream attention on NFTs due to their wildly fluctuating value, which has in turn created a great amount of confusion surrounding IP rights to NFTs and the underlying digital files used to create them.

This week in Washington IP news, the House Space Subcommittee takes a look at the first few images and scientific measurements that have been captured by the James Webb Space Telescope, while the Senate Judiciary Committee vets several nominees to federal judgeships including a couple of judges chosen for appellate courts seeing much of the country’s IP appeals. Elsewhere, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation releases the findings of a joint study on competitiveness and innovation in North America and Europe, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office hosts the latest regular meeting of the Patent Public Advisory Committee, and Brookings Institution discusses the role of state and local regulators in regulating digital assets and cryptocurrency.

On November 10, a group of Democratic members of congress sent a letter to United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai expressing concerns about extending a waiver of intellectual property rights under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement to therapeutics and diagnostics for the treatment of COVID-19. The letter comes as talks are heating up at the World Trade Organization (WTO) about such an extension, with the technical deadline for a decision being December 19. The letter poses seven questions for Tai to consider and respond to as she formulates the U.S. position on waiver extension, including whether the current waiver of IP rights for vaccine-related technology has been effective, how “diagnostics” and “therapeutics” will be defined, and that she provide a list of countries that have expressed interest in gaining access to American IP for COVID-related diagnostics and therapeutics.

Over the last 15 years, the United States Supreme Court has mutated patent eligibility into an impossibly complex and confusing mess. The Court’s current eligibility test strays far from Congress’s original intent, erodes trust in predictability, and has left many remarking that innovation in the United States is falling behind due to uncertainty of patent eligibility law. Even more troubling, the resulting uncertainty of patent ineligibility for large swaths of innovation in critical technology areas, including artificial intelligence, poses significant risks to U.S. competitiveness, economic growth and national security. The Court has had opportunities to rectify its patent sinkhole but recently declined another chance to mend the chaos. When the Court denied certiorari in American Axle v. Neapco—despite the Solicitor General’s plea to hear the case—it became clear that Congress must step in to rescue U.S. innovation.

Last week, the Bayh-Dole Coalition held a webinar titled “The Three-Pronged Attack on U.S. Innovation and Intellectual Property.” Before we consider each prong, it’s worthwhile reflecting on a larger point. Each would deal a body blow to American innovation just as we struggle to keep the economy on track. And each would be a self-inflicted wound that must have our foreign rivals shaking their heads at our folly.