Posts in Licensing

On July 31, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) hosted a virtual workshop titled Transforming Discoveries into Products: Maximizing NIH’s Levers to Catalyze Technology Transfer. Public comments submitted to the NIH ahead of the event reflect current tensions between advocates supporting either private commercialization or government pricing control of federally-funded medical breakthroughs commercialized by private companies.

On Friday, July 28, President Biden announced a new Executive Order titled “Federal Research and Development in Support of Domestic Manufacturing and United States Jobs.” Rumors that the Administration was considering extending the deeply flawed Department of Energy (DOE) policy (see “More DOE Bureaucracy Equals Less Innovation” to all agencies had been swirling for months. Luckily, the new Executive Order doesn’t do that, but how it will be applied is subject to a convoluted interagency process, so it will be months before we see if it’s meeting its intended goal or not.

On Wednesday, July 5, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) released a summary of the responses it has received to its request for views on whether the country’s system for standard essential patents (SEP) is functioning properly. The goal of the request for comments and the subsequent report is to determine whether the UK government needs to make policy changes in this area. The Office received comments on a variety of topics related to SEPs, including the balance of the system, competition, transparency, patent litigation, and more. While both SEP holders and implementers reported problems in the system, the UKIPO found that there was little consensus among stakeholders as to the efficiency of the system and whether government intervention was needed.

Imagine setting sail on a vast ocean, marked by established sea routes governed by mighty, seasoned mariners. These old sea dogs, with their extensive map collections (akin to patents), dominate the waters, leaving little room for new explorers. This is the situation young companies often find themselves in when chartering into territories monopolized by a few dominant players. The networking industry, ruled by giants like Cisco, Huawei, Juniper, Nokia, and Ericsson, mirrors this vast ocean. The waters are thick with “patent thickets” – tangled masses of patent claims, making it hard for fresh-faced voyagers to navigate without infringing on existing patents. Moreover, the sea is marked by “standardization” lighthouses, which while guiding ships towards interoperability and quality, impose limitations on the course of innovation. These beacons can also increase the cost of compliance, posing as formidable reefs blocking the path of emerging vessels.

The UK High Court today issued an Approved Judgment in Interdigital Technology Corporation & Ors v Lenovo Group Ltd [2023] EWHC 1578 (Pat). While Lenovo was declared the “overall winner,” InterDigital was awarded interest, increasing their previous award by $46.2 million. In March, the Hon. Mr Justice Mellor issued a judgment ordering Lenovo to pay InterDigital a lump sum of $138.7 million for a global FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory) license covering sales of cellular devices from 2007 to December 31, 2023. It was the second full FRAND trial to be decided by the UK courts, following the landmark Unwired Planet case.

On June 14, a series of 17 music publishers, members of the National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA), filed a lawsuit in the Middle District of Tennessee against the social media platform, Twitter. The music publishers’ suit alleges claims of direct, vicarious and contributory copyright infringement by Twitter involving about 1,700 copyrighted songs, many of which continue to remain accessible in…

What is at the intersection of name, image likeness rights (NILs), non-fungible tokens (NFTs), artificial intelligence (AI) creations, big data, blockchain and the metaverse? Intellectual property, of course, because IP is connected to everything. New technologies necessitate updating intellectual property laws and regulations to address these advancements. Digital computing is advancing at warp speed, including AI, big data, transformative multi-media platforms and social media platforms. Governing laws and regulations are often obsolete, among them data privacy, but at the center of the intersection are intellectual property rights—copyrights, patents, trade secrets, rights of publicity, data rights, and trademarks.

Previously, we wrote about how alleged concerns of “hold-up” and a lack of “transparency”, two non-legal terms without accepted definitions, are being used to advocate for special rules applicable to patents subject to declarations regarding Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing. These vague concepts are specifically chosen to obfuscate the real issues impacting FRAND licensing and used in an effort to shift traditional burdens of proof, regulate behavior previously found not to violate antitrust / competition law, and rewrite the express language of the commitment made by patent owners to the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). The European Commission (EC) is the latest bull to enter the FRAND licensing China shop.

On April 27, a pair of legal measures were advanced within the European Union that promise to greatly impact the state of technological commercialization within Europe for both standardized and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. While political leaders in the EU maintain that either proposal addresses consumer safety and competition concerns, multiple commentators have pointed out issues that could slow the rate of technological commercialization to the detriment of Europeans across the continent.

The European Union is reportedly considering sweeping new regulations for the licensing and litigation of standard essential patents (SEPs), which make fair-minded observers wonder whether any sane adults are in charge at the European Commission (EC). The EU’s proposed new regulatory regime is scheduled to be released on April 26 by the Directorate for the Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs (DG GROW) of the European Commission (EC). And recently leaked drafts suggest that proposal will contain sweeping new regulations that will effectively put an end to the licensing and litigation of SEPs as it exists today.

There are often situations where a company has come into contact with intellectual property that it cannot allow to spread to a product in development. One example is a joint development project between two companies where the IP for the jointly developed product cannot seep into other products but where each company must develop products that interface with the jointly developed one. This situation can occur when groups create standards that involve IP from various sources.

In late March, news broke that the European Commission was drafting sweeping regulations on the licensing of standard essential patents (SEPs). Commentators predict the draft will be released in late April and, although this is an early draft that will likely evolve, below we offer the following initial observations. In its current form, the new regulatory framework would encourage increased transparency in SEP licensing through several new policies and procedures. In particular, the regulations would establish a “competence center” at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) to act as a sort of clearinghouse for SEP issues (both technical and economic). The EUIPO does not currently have patent expertise; EP patents are the purview of the European Patent Office (EPO), which is separate from the European Union and includes non-EU members.

Just when you think you have enough things to worry about, you stumble  upon  one more. In its wisdom, Congress enacted a “Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Plan” as part of the Inflation Reduction Act. The program kicks in by imposing “maximum fair prices” for drugs as determined by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). In setting these prices, Congress included such factors as the R&D costs for each drug and whether they have been recovered and the current cost of producing and distributing the drug in question. But it was the third criteria which caught my eye—“Prior Federal financial support for novel therapeutic discovery and development with respect to the drug.”

The European Union is considering a new regulatory regime for the licensing and litigation of standard essential patents (SEPs) that will destabilize the global telecommunications market. This proposed regulatory regime is unbalanced in favoring implementers over innovators, and thus it threatens to hamstring the explosive technological and economic growth in this vital sector of the modern innovation economy. Although the EU has finally awoken to the competitive and geopolitical threat posed by China, this regulatory proposal undermines efforts by the EU and the United States to sustain their global technological leadership.