Posts in Guest Contributors

Jamie L. Simpson is the Chief Policy Officer and Counsel for the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) and has previously served as Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, and in various roles at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In the latest episode of The SEP Couch, Tim Pohlmann spoke with Simpson about  how IP is dealt with in the United States and, in particular, the topic of standard essential patents (SEPs), and explained that the situation is certainly more complicated than is appreciated from the outside.

Reasonable compensation for standard essential patent (SEP) holders is crucial to create the incentives for adequate investments in standards. In particular, high-quality standards have underlain the development and proliferation of the global wireless technologies that have played such a central role in the innovation-driven growth of the internet economy. (For the key role of strong standards in technological innovation, see, for example, here, here, here, and here). It follows that the discriminatory reduction of compensation for SEP holders would reduce their incentives to participate and invest in standard setting. This in turn would reduce quality of future standards that will be key to economic growth and vitality.

The intellectual property regime of the International Trade Commission (ITC) made mainstream news this year with its ban on Apple Watch importation and sales in the dispute between Masimo Corporation and Apple. While that dispute is ongoing and the subject of much coverage already, here are five other key IP cases with a variety of important rulings for parties at the ITC—particularly some outside of the typically patent-centric docket.

Being able to quantify risk probabilities for a trade secret helps owners make strategic decisions in intellectual property management, such as choosing the type of intellectual property protection, considering opportunities for M&A, licensing, and improving the reliability of protection. As a result, this quantification enables the extraction of more value from intellectual property, particularly when managing middle- and large-sized IP portfolios. Let’s explore one possible approach to quantification by modeling an example case, quantify probabilities for risks derived from both the competitor and owner and its influence on Expected Monetary Value (EMV), and then discover some non-trivial suggestions for improving the efficiency of trade secret management.

Section 311(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA) provides that a patent can be challenged in an inter partes review (IPR) “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” A published U.S. patent application that never issued as a patent can be used as the basis for an IPR challenge because it’s printed and it’s a publication, right? Not so fast.

In Vidal v. Elster, No. 22-704, the United States Supreme Court has heard argument and is expected to decide in the next several months whether Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act can prevent the federal registration of TRUMP TOO SMALL as a trademark for shirts and hats. Section 2(c) prohibits, inter alia, the registration of the name of a particular living individual without his consent. The issue in Elster is whether the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression transcends Section 2(c)…. To the extent that Section 2(c) survives, in whole or in part, and apart from weighty constitutional concerns which the Court is expected to resolve, there are numerous other problems lurking in this old, dark and dusty subsection—which  are not particularly “small” at all—which only Congress can fix.

In the dynamic landscape of the legal industry, the winds of change are blowing stronger than ever, and the eye of the storm is centered on intellectual property (IP) practices. The catalyst for this transformation is the rapid diffusion of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) across industries. If we liken this to historical breakthroughs, the emergence of the internet 30 years ago pales in comparison, as GenAI’s impact is a staggering 100 times faster. The legal industry, once considered somewhat sheltered from disruptive forces, now finds itself at the epicenter of a tornado of change. This is particularly true for IP practices, where the intricacies of patent prosecution have long relied on intensive human involvement. As a partner entrusted with steering the strategy of your firm over the next decade, understanding the seismic shifts brought about by GenAI is paramount.

The first week of 2024 was a light one for patent filings. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) had a slightly below average 21 new petitions—all petitions for inter partes review (IPR), while there were only 34 new filings in district court. The PTAB saw new IPRs filed against Advanced Coding (filed by Samsung), XR Communications (filed by Ericsson) and Semiconductor Design (filed by Cadence Design Systems). Four new IPRs challenging three Senko Advanced Components Inc. [associated with Senko Group Holdings Co, Ltd.] patents were filed by US Conec Ltd. After low activity throughout 2023, Askeladden has filed three new IPRs challenging three Calabrese Stemer LLC patents and four new IPRs challenging three Intercurrency Software LLC patents.

In the book / movie “The Shining”, the Overlook hotel is haunted by ghosts involved in past wrongs committed on the property, presumably to make the current inhabitants atone for such sins. Notwithstanding this transcendental precedent, Judge Rodney Gilstrap recently declined to extend such a notion to patents subject to Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing related obligations.

Last term, the U.S. Supreme Court did something strange: the Court unanimously affirmed a circuit decision, which had unanimously affirmed a trial court decision. Little about the law seemed ripe for dispute or change, nevertheless, in Amgen v. Sanofi the Supreme Court spoke. Seven months later, innovators and patent practitioners are still scratching their heads. What impact, if any, does Amgen have? Is there a sign lower courts are interpreting Amgen as signaling a change in American patent law or did it merely ratify what already existed?

As we enter 2024, major policy initiatives are pending at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and in Congress aimed at overhauling certain aspects of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice. These initiatives—the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and PREVAIL Act, respectively, are at a critical point, with elections less than a year away. This article discusses the current state of both.

The Federal Circuit basically confirmed in In re Cellect that terminal disclaimers can knock out patent term adjustment (PTA). If you have patent term extension (PTE) and you filed a terminal disclaimer to overcome an obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) rejection, you can get the PTE term tacked onto the disclaimed date. However, in the case of PTA, the court says that PTA term gets added to the life of the patent first and then the terminal disclaimer goes into effect so that you have disclaimed the PTA term and any extended term such that the two patents now expire on the same date regardless of the PTA. In effect, terminal disclaimers may knock out PTA term.

Recently, amendments to the Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law were issued and will take effect from January 20, 2024. The Regulations align with the revisions made to the Patent Law in 2020 and provide further guidance. The main changes to the new Regulations, as compared with the 2010 version of the Regulations,  can be summarized as follows.

On December 8, 2023, provisional agreement was reached between the European Union (EU) Parliament and the EU Council on the basic content of the new AI Regulation (the “AI Act”) to be implemented as legislation in the EU. The text is still not publicly available as it is subject to certain further refinement over the coming weeks. However, there is information available in the public domain (including press releases issued by the European Union) as to the likely format of the AI Act. Additional background on the legislative process towards the AI Act is available here.

Looking back over the final few weeks of 2023, patent filings were typical at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and slightly above average in district courts, with the last weeks of the year seeing 68 district court complaints filed and 25 new PTAB petitions [December 11-17]; followed by 57 district court complaints filed and 29 new PTAB petitions [December 18-24]; and wrapped up with 24 district court complaints filed and 13 new PTAB petitions [December 25-31].