Posts in International

Arbitration, including international arbitration, can be a beneficial tool for the enforcement of patent portfolios, license agreements and infringement disputes. When entering into agreements/licenses (including commercial supplier, distributor and partnership agreements), parties may deem it useful to include an arbitration provision to resolve any disputes arising from those agreements. As such, parties can take advantage of the numerous benefits of international arbitration in the event of a dispute relating to intellectual property, in contrast to relying on district court proceedings.

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) stayed the International Trade Commission’s (ITC’s) October 26 Limited Exclusion Order (LEO) against certain Apple Watches that the ITC found infringed on two Masimo patents that covered technology related to reading blood-oxygen levels. The CAFC does not appear to have published the order on its public website but it is widely available online.

The most significant development in IP in Europe in 2023—indeed arguably the most significant in nearly 30 years—was the launch of the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court on June 1. The full implications of this are explored here. Beyond the UP and UPC, however, there were a number of. important developments in Europe affecting all the main IP rights.

Unsurprisingly, the UK Supreme Court today ruled that Stephen Thaler’s AI Machine, DABUS, cannot be granted patents for inventions it autonomously created. While the Court suggested that questions such as whether inventions like DABUS’ should be patentable and if the meaning of the term “inventor” should be expanded are important ones that should be considered at a policy level, the present case was concerned solely with the interpretation of the present law, which clearly does not contemplate non-human inventors.  

On June 1, 2023, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) opened, providing a new venue for patent litigation across all 17 ratifying European Union member states. The court represents a significant shift in patent litigation in the EU, which is poised to impact the global patent strategy of U.S. and multinational companies. Through the European Patent Office (EPO), inventors have long been able to obtain patent protection across most of the EU through a single application. Once the EPO grants a European Patent, inventors have the option of obtaining local patent protection in any member state that they select without the need for further examination or review. However, historically, once the EPO granted a patent, there was no single enforcement or invalidation mechanism, leaving it up to the member states to enforce patent rights.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report today predicting that proposals by the Biden Administration to impose price controls on certain pharmaceuticals will reduce the number of clinical trials “by thousands across all categories of research examined and by up to 75% in some therapeutic areas,” eventually turning the United States into a “research desert.” The report comes on the heels of a Federal Register Notice last week that proposed a framework for expanding the use of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act to circumstances in which qualifying drugs are priced too high.

Nearly 50 former government officials and other well-known figures in the IP space signed onto a letter today penned by the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) urging President Biden to oppose the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) proposed extension of the COVID-19 IP waiver to therapeutics and diagnostics. The WTO announced a deal on waiver of IP rights for COVID-19 vaccine technologies under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in June 2022. The final text made almost no one happy and was much narrower than the original proposal by South Africa and India. The waiver is limited to “patented subject matter required for the production and supply of COVID-19 vaccines” only.

On November 16, innovation intelligence firm Patsnap published the results of its 2023 Global Innovation Report, which measures a range of patent metrics to determine the most innovative companies in the world. This year’s Global Innovation 100 listing represents about a quarter of the globe’s entire patent filing activity. The report also includes a Global Disruption 50 listing of actively growing and young companies, reflecting the strength of both the United States and China in emerging technology fields.

The Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (EPO) on October 10 issued its (consolidated) decision G1/22 & G2/22, which promises to significantly reduce priority issues for applicants—U.S.applicants in particular. When the applicants for a European patent application differ from the applicants on the priority application, the EPO employs the well-established “joint applicants approach” to evaluate the priority claim’s validity. For the priority claim to be valid, and assuming there’s been no transfer of the priority right, all applicants of the priority application must also be among the applicants of the subsequent European patent application. The table below outlines various scenarios and indicates whether the priority claim is valid according to the joint applicants approach.

The world is increasingly connected, and semiconductors are essential to enabling this connectivity. Specialists project the semiconductor market to become a trillion-dollar industry by 2030 (McKinsey & Co., 2022). The term “semiconductors” covers a large amount of embedded technology that is advancing rapidly in its development. Semiconductor companies are highly innovative and rely on innovation to maintain their market share and expansion objectives. An indicator of innovation in this sector is, of course, patents. Of the 10 largest semiconductor companies, according to a ranking published by Investopedia in April 2023, five companies filed between 2,000 to 5,000 patent families between 2019 and 2022

On  April 27, 2023, the European Commission published its proposal for how the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs) should be governed in the EU. The draft regulation states that the initiative aims to incentivize participation by European firms in the standard development process and the broad implementation of such standardized technologies, particularly in IoT industries. The developments are of interest to any business that develops, implements or markets connective technologies.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) released a sprawling report on Tuesday analyzing market dynamics surrounding the question of whether to extend the waiver of IP rights for COVID-19 technologies under the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to diagnostics and therapeutics. The report stopped short of making any recommendations, but ultimately did not find any definitive evidence that IP rights present a barrier to access in the context of COVID diagnostics and therapeutics. However, it largely amounts to a reiteration of talking points on both sides and seemingly does little to further the debate.

A trademark lawsuit filed by popular grocery store chain, Trader Joe’s, against a cryptocurrency platform called “Trader Joe”—which the complaint alleges is a deliberate reference to the supermarket—has come to light this week. Trader Joe’s claims that the crypto firm buried its origin story in order to win international litigation over the domain name, traderjoexyz.com. Trader Joe’s has offered grocery services under the mark TRADER JOE’S for more than 50 years. According to the lawsuit, a co-founder of the crypto company Trader Joe, going by the handle “cryptofish,” admitted in a Substack publication that the company’s name originally derived from the name of the Trader Joe’s supermarket chain.

Recent cases in the European Patent Office (EPO), the UK, and United States illustrate substantive differences between these jurisdictions as they continue to develop their inventive step/nonobviousness frameworks. In particular, the EPO and UK have recently provided guidance on a concept known as “plausibility,” i.e., whether the scope of the patent must be justified by the patentee’s technical contribution to the art in solving an identified problem. “If it is not plausible that the invention solves any technical problem then the patentee has made no technical contribution and the invention does not involve an inventive step.” Sandoz Limited v. Bristol-Meyers Squibb Holdings [2023] EWCA Civ 472. That standard, however, is quite dissimilar from the United States’ statutory standard of whether “the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious…”

Digital video company, DivX, scored a win in a Brazilian court after a judge ratified its expert report and enforced a previously-granted preliminary injunction against Netflix. DivX sued Netflix for infringement of its Patent No. PI 0506163-6, which is directed to a “deblocking” tool implemented in High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC)-encoded files. According to DivX, Netflix’s streaming in HEVC infringes the patent.