Posts in Guest Contributors

Lyse Brillouet has been the Chief Intellectual Property Officer and Senior Vice-President, Licensing, for the Orange Group since 2018. In the latest episode of The SEP Couch, Brillouet describes why intellectual property (IP) matters within the Orange Group, which has over 130,000 employees worldwide. IP for Orange is an important outcome of various research and development projects. Orange is a technology company, with its main objective being to bring technology and related service to its customers. In some cases, Brillouet must balance the monetization of IP and the promotion of a new standardized technology. One example of this is Orange’s strategy regarding patent pools.

Tennessee’s recent legislative move, the ELVIS Act (Ensuring Likeness, Voice, and the Image Security Act of 2024), has garnered attention for its efforts to address the challenges posed by artificial intelligence in the music industry. Signed into law on March 21, 2024, the ELVIS Act represents a big step by a state with a huge music industry presence to prevent the unauthorized use of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated musician soundalike content. But is it enforceable?

Like most patent attorneys, I get multiple emails each month for artificial intelligence tools purporting to help patent attorneys draft patent applications. I have done demos, and I have no doubt that in five years almost all patent drafting practitioners will be using these generative AI tools in some capacity. But I am also convinced that these tools will not be especially helpful in drafting claims.

As the hit sitcom Young Sheldon comes to an end next month, a look back at the series offers an opportunity for young inventors to learn about inventorship. The coming-of-age show centers around a boy genius, Sheldon, who has run the gamut of growing up in expedited fashion—experiencing high school, college dorm life, and even a first (failed) kiss (attempt), all before being eligible to drive. Another milestone in Sheldon’s life—his first inventorship dispute—shows that it doesn’t take a boy genius to become a young inventor.

In patent litigation, damages issues are sometimes treated as an afterthought when compared to the issues of infringement and invalidity. However, achieving a client’s goals requires an attorney to place damages at the center of the litigation strategy from the very beginning. Damages, quite simply, can make or break a case. And it is a quickly evolving field, rife with inconsistent judicial decisions, vague standards, and new techniques for measuring damages. Below are some of the current hot topics in patent litigation—and tips for practitioners on both sides of the “v” on how to handle them.

It was a slow week for new patent filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in the district courts. This week saw only 18 new filings at the PTAB—one of which was a Post Grant Review, while the remaining were inter partes reviews (IPRs). Texas Instruments, Inc. continued challenging Greenthread LLC patents, filing four IPRs against  four patents (bringing the total number of IPRs Texas Instruments has filed up to seven). Amazon filed two IPRs against one Nokia Technologies Oy [associated with Nokia Corporation] patents; Apple filed five IPRs against three Resonant Systems Inc. (d/b/a RevelHMI) patents; and Micron filed two IPRs against two Yangtze memory Technologies Company Ltd.

While many see intellectual property merely as a shield, its greater power rests in its strategic use to spark innovation and propel business growth. In this article I describe a systematic approach for developing IP strategies that are tailored to the technology and objectives of each business, so that the resulting IP can be used to drive the achievement of those goals.

On Episode 2 of the Evolving IP podcast from LexisNexis® Intellectual Property Solutions, host Nigel Swycher speaks with Olivia Koentjoro, the Head of Global Legal Data Analytics at Applied Materials. Koentjoro’s discussion spans the spectrum of challenges and opportunities inherent in effectively harnessing IP data. She argues that analytics can revolutionize this data into a potent force for highlighting the strength of a company’s innovation.

Supermarkets compete aggressively for our custom. The entry of upstart discount supermarkets Lidl and Aldi into the market has created new pressures on the established brands, including Tesco— ironically, the original “pile it high and sell it cheap” operation. Supermarkets benchmark their prices against those charged by their competitors and offer loyal customers benefits, including, extremely attractive special offers when customers use their loyalty cards. They are no less aggressive when it comes to using and protecting their trademarks.

A spate of recent lawsuits is shining light on how some generative AI (GenAI) companies are using copyrighted materials, without permission, as a core part of their products. Among the most recent examples is the New York Times Company’s’ lawsuit against OpenAI, which alleges a variety of copyright-related claims. For their part, some GenAI companies like OpenAI argue that there is no infringement, either because there is no “copying” of protected materials or that the copyright principle of fair use uniformly applies to generative AI activities. These arguments are deeply flawed and gloss over crucial technical and legal issues. They also divert attention from the fact that it is not only possible but practical to be pro-copyright and pro-AI.

Independent Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s Vice-Presidential running mate, Nicole Shanahan, a mercurial patent analyst, intellectual property lawyer and incidentally rich entrepreneur, is in the position to influence declining patent reliability and increasing copyright abuse. But will she? This column is not intended to opine on Shanahan’s merits as an independent Vice-Presidential candidate, but to attempt to understand her motivation for running and its potential impact on IP rights, creators and assignees.

In a significant milestone for the preservation of biodiversity, Decree 11,865/2023, published in the Official Gazette on 12/28/2023, enacted the Nagoya Protocol in Brazil. The protocol, providing for access to genetic resources and the fair sharing of benefits arising from their use, is part of the renowned Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). The Nagoya Protocol, in force since October 12, 2014, relates to the international commitment of 140 countries, including Brazil, to implement the objective of the CBD on the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources and the traditional knowledge associated with them (TK).

In the latest episode of IP Practice Vlogs, it’s time for another design patent practical exercise. We previously did a design exercise on patenting Apple’s AirPods. This time we are going to patent the lightsaber. Specifically, as an example, we will be using a custom made lightsaber from Disney which was built by my husband at an experience at Galaxy Edge called Savi’s Workshop. The lightsabers that are assembled and sold at Savi’s workshop are all customizable in which the design or physical appearance actually vary depending on the customer’s design choice. I’m going to show you why this custom-made lightsaber is actually a very good candidate for design patent protection despite its variable design.

“Many believe the root cause of the patent system’s dysfunction is that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO] is issuing too many invalid patents that unnecessarily drain consumer welfare, stunt productive research, and unreasonably extract rents from innovators.” That quote from Professors Michael Frakes and Melissa F. Wasserman echoes a common complaint in patent policy conversations. The USPTO is widely perceived as issuing too many bad patents.