This week in Other Barks & Bites: OpenAI faces another lawsuit, this time from two journalists alleging copyright infringement; the International Trade Commission (ITC) makes its case before the CAFC to reimpose an import ban on Apple Watches; and OpenAI tells the UK government that it could not make ChatGPT without copyrighted material.

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.

Relish Labs LLC and the Kroger Company (who own the “Home Chef” brand and mark) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court this week, asking the Justices to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that held Home Chef had not proven consumers were likely to confuse their marks with Grubhub and Takeaway.com’s logo.

Today, U.S. Representatives María Elvira Salazar (R-FL) and Madeleine Dean (D-PA) introduced the No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications (No AI FRAUD) Act of 2024 to create legal mechanisms by which Americans can prevent unauthorized uses of their likenesses and voices by generative AI platforms. The bill seeks to provide for intellectual property (IP) rights in an individual’s voice and likeness as well as remedies including statutory damages and disgorged profits.

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.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) sent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on January 9 to the Department of Commerce and the National Institutes for Standards and Technology (NIST) regarding the Biden Administration’s recent Request for Information Regarding the Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights. The proposed framework was published in the Federal Register in December by NIST and the Department of Commerce and included suggestions on whether and when to exercise “march-in rights” under the Bayh-Dole Act that would arguably significantly broaden the criteria for compulsory licensing of patented technology developed with federal funding.

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.

The dominance of Asian tech companies in the U.S. patent space and the impacts of growing backlogs in patent examination were major takeaways from the Top 50 U.S. Patent Assignees and Global 250 Lists, published by IFI CLAIMS on January 9. The patent database developer also released a Top 10 Fastest Growing Technologies list reflecting the strong global popularity of smoking, whether via electrical device or in traditional cigarette form.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published guidelines for examiners today on the topic of enablement in light of the Supreme Court’s May 2023 decision in Amgen v. Sanofi. The Office’s view seems to largely mesh with what our guest authors concluded earlier today—Amgen isn’t getting rid of In re Wands and—at the USPTO at least—the decision has seemingly maintained the status quo.

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?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in a precedential decision today affirmed two decisions of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that invalidated some claims and upheld others of a patent owned by Personal Genomics Taiwan, Inc. Based on the PTAB’s claim construction, which the CAFC agreed with, the decision held that Pacific Biosciences had failed to prove the prior art taught the limitation of the preamble phrase of claim 1 in one inter partes review, (IPR) but did prove a different prior art reference taught the limitation in the other proceeding.

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 U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition asking the High Court to clarify patent eligibility jurisprudence under Section 101 since its 2014 ruling in Alice Corp. Pty Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l. Realtime Data, LLC asked the Court specifically to address the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) August 2023 decision holding 211 of its patent claims ineligible as abstract.

On January 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit published an amended opinion and order denying rehearing and rehearing en banc, thus upholding its August reversal of the Northern District of California’s dismissal of a qui tam whistleblower action under the False Claims Act (FCA). The FCA claim was brought by patent attorney Zachary Silbersher against Valeant Pharmaceuticals, predecessor to Canadian drugmaker Bausch Health. The appellate court’s decision turned on the application of the FCA’s public disclosure bar, finding that inter partes review (IPR) proceedings did not trigger the statutory bar to qui tam actions based on evidence previously disclosed during adversarial agency proceedings “in which the Government or its agent is a party.”

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in Intel v. Vidal, a case that asked the Court to overturn a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) ruling concerning the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) so-called Fintiv framework. The CAFC’s March 2023 decision said appellate review of whether the PTAB’s discretionary denial rules for inter partes review (IPR) are “arbitrary and capricious” was precluded by Section 314(d) of the patent statute.