Posts in Guest Contributors

Latin American countries are not usually seen as a first line option when building a strategy to deploy global litigation campaigns to enforce patent rights. However, in 2022, developments in Colombian law highlighted it as a country with administrative and judicial systems that favor patent rights and provide for effective assertion of local patent assets.

Like all expert opinion testimony, an expert’s survey-based opinions in trademark cases are only admissible if they meet the standards set forth in Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Fed. R. Evid. 403. Rule 702 codifies the Daubert requirement for admissibility of scientific evidence. Rule 403 allows a court to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of, among other things, “unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, [or] misleading the jury.”

Responding to the patent term adjustment obligation under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) and to “streamline the patent examination process”, the Canadian government has registered major changes to the Canadian Patent Rules. The amendments will come into effect on October 3, 2022, and include notable modifications to the patent application examination process, such as establishing excess claim fees for over 20 claims, fees for continuing examination beyond three office actions, and offering conditional notice of allowance.

The Copyright Claims Board (CCB), established by the CASE Act passed in December 2020, is now up and running and taking cases. The CCB is an alternative to federal court. Just like patents, copyrights are bound by federal law. Previously, a copyright owner would have to take their case to federal district court to in order to seek damages or relief. But the CCB allows a claimant to bring a copyright suit before a tribunal at the Copyright Office instead.

This week on IP Goes Pop! co-hosts Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushue are joined by fellow intellectual property attorney and Volpe Koenig Shareholder, Randy Huis, to once again visit the town of Springfield in the fictional, but full of real fun, world of The Simpsons. Patents on candy, robots, and other inventions that may sound more like they are out of a writer’s room rather than based on an inventor’s technical notebook get filed with the Patent Office every day. In this episode listeners will get a taste of just how much intellectual property can come out of, or be inspired by, popular culture.

Everyone knows someone whose life has been impacted by cancer, be it a parent, a sibling, or a friend. But it is rarer, perhaps, to know a family touched by pediatric cancer. Yet, cancer is the second leading cause of death in individuals under 14, impacting nearly 10,500 children annually in the United States. Fifty years ago, a child diagnosed with cancer had a median five-year survival rate of only 58%. But, thanks to biopharmaceutical companies’ investments in discovery science, we’ve achieved medical breakthroughs that drastically improved the survival rate, with 85% of childhood cancer patients living five years or more.

The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) is set to hear Andy Warhol v. Lynn Goldsmith in October. It will be the latest in a series of cases the Court has taken on over the last decade-plus that promise to change U.S. innovation as we know it. The case will be heard on the heels of other controversial SCOTUS decisions that have drastically changed the legal landscape, with rulings that transfer power from the federal government to the individual states (Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization) or that reduce federal oversight altogether (West Virginia v. EPA). It has also put limits on specific executive powers and plans to rule soon on affirmative action. Not getting as much attention, but arguably equally important, are some recent and not-so-recent decisions that have changed the landscape of the rights of authors and inventors, and the upcoming Warhol case, which may effectively remove them altogether. Unfortunately, many people, including politicians and academics, don’t understand—or refuse to recognize the importance of—intellectual property rights for the advancement of civilization.

“How can I help?” Not even the mayor of Miami could have predicted the effect those four simple words would have on the city traditionally known for its palm trees and nightlife. But that tweet, sent by Mayor Francis Suarez in December 2020, caused a tech hurricane to touch down in the South Florida area. The tweet, shown below, was in response to a San Francisco venture capitalist who (likely somewhat facetiously) suggested that Silicon Valley be moved to Miami.

There were 33 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings (all inter partes reviews [IPRs]), with just 42 new district court patent filings this week. That, coupled with 67 terminations, suggests that either it’s the summer doldrums, or the Western District of Texas/Waco reshuffling order is having an immediate impact on filings, as would-be plaintiffs reassess venue choices—at least in the short term. Of the terminations, a large chunk are IP Edge (per usual); the IPRs represent mostly defendants in litigation challenging claims asserted against them, with a few notable exceptions. In the district courts, a new Jeff Gross entity was the biggest filer, with some other activity highlighted below. One entity, Alidouble, appears to have ties with both Israeli and Hong Kong-based predecessors-in-interests, with Hong Kong-based Keystone Intellectual Property Management recorded.

An “NNN” agreement is short for Non-Disclosure/Non-Use/Non-Circumvention agreement, which means the information cannot be shared with anyone, it cannot be used in any way, and “behind-the-back” or design around tactics are forbidden. In recent years, signing NNN agreements has become widely adopted and is now the standard initial step in dealings with Chinese companies, particularly original equipment manufacturers (OEMs). An NNN Agreement is much more than just a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). An NDA focuses narrowly on preventing secret information from being revealed to a third party or to the public, which is not sufficient for OEMs in China. In contrast, an NNN agreement not only contains confidentiality provisions, but also prevents misuse of confidential information.

Intellectual property (IP) provides us a front row seat to the cutting-edge of technology. The legal questions arising at this frontier are often as complex as the resulting inventions and creative works. The Federal Circuit’s recent Thaler v. Vidal opinion clarifies an important patent law concept, specifically whether an artificial intelligence (AI) may be listed as the inventor of a patent. The current industrial revolution powered by blockchain and crypto continues to raise issues about how it meshes with our current IP legal framework…. The latest question at the cutting-edge of “who, or what may, be an inventor” begs whether a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO), a new type of digital blockchain-based organization, can participate in IP-related activities, including the invention, ownership, licensing, and enforcement of patent rights.

A Certification Mark is a name, symbol and/or logo used by groups (associations, unions, organizations, trade groups, etc.) to show that the product or service to which it is attached complies with industry or associations standards. A Certification Mark can be used to indicate that a product claiming to be from a region, is in fact from that region (Roquefort Cheese). A Certification Mark can be used to indicate that a product is in fact made with the materials it claims to be (Wool). A Certification Mark can be used to assure that certain standards a product boasts of are true (Energy Efficiency, 100% Recycled). A Certification Mark can be used to help parents decide whether to take their children to a certain motion picture (The Rating System). The purpose of a Certification Mark is therefore, to certify and not to own or indicate source.

On August 3, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling in McGucken v. Pub Ocean Ltd. that reversed a Central District of California’s sua sponte grant of summary judgment to Pub Ocean on McGucken’s copyright infringement claims. The case involved Pub Ocean’s unauthorized use of photos of a lake that formed in Death Valley, California, in March 2019. The Ninth Circuit found that all of the fair use factors weighed against a determination that Pub Ocean’s unlicensed use of the photographs were transformative.

The August 2019 announcement that two patent applications had been filed naming an artificial intelligence (AI) algorithm as an inventor in the United States and a dozen other countries was regarded as disruptive and profound at the time. It was one of the hot topics in patent law during those last few months before the pandemic. But since then, given all the other crazy and disorienting stuff that has happened in the world, we have become desensitized to the question, even if it is just as radical and important today. To be sure, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s August 5 ruling that an “inventor” must, under the Patent Act, always be a human being, would seem to definitively resolve the question. As a matter of existing and clearly settled law, Stephen Thaler’s AI machine, DABUS, cannot be a named inventor on his applications for a fractal-shaped beverage container and a neural flame, like we always thought in the Before Times. It’s time to relegate this parlor-game discussion to the same recycle bin as Beeple’s non-fungible token (NFT), The Tiger King, and so many other viral distractions. Or, perhaps, not so fast.

In U.S. government, setting public policy is the sole and exclusive domain of Congress. The laws they pass effectuate the public policy positions that Congress alone has the power to set. In law, words are everything. The precise meaning of the words in law determines whether the public policy is implemented as intended by Congress. Altering the meaning of just one word can change the entire public policy set by Congress, even turning the public policy on its head. Anyone following the debate on patent eligibility can attest to how the Supreme Court’s redefinition of the word “any” in 35 U.S.C. § 101 to have an exception called an “abstract idea” caused a significant public policy change and that change destroyed countless startups, especially those in tech. Senator Tillis’ Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2022, S.4734, wrongly puts the courts in charge of defining public policy because it leaves key words completely undefined.