Posts Tagged: "Congress"

In early November, the University of Illinois Chicago (UIC) School of Law held its 65th Annual Intellectual Property Law Conference. The program consisted of five plenary sessions and ten breakout sessions featuring candid discussions and networking sessions with judges, senior government officials, and leaders of supranational IP offices, multinational corporations, law firms, academia, and nonprofit organizations. IPWatchdog’s Founder and CEO, Gene Quinn, moderated the second plenary session, “Global Patent Issues.” The program kicked off with a featured panel consisting of Andrei Iancu, Partner at Irell & Manella, Former Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, and Former Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; the Honorable Paul R. Michel (ret.), former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; and Brad Watts, Minority Chief Counsel for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property. Professor Daryl Lim, Director of UIC’s Center for Intellectual Property, Information and Privacy Law, moderated the discussion.

This week in Washington IP events, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the current Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, announces that he will not seek reelection in 2022; the Joint Congressional Economic Committee gears up for a hearing on demystifying both cryptocurrencies and the federal government’s role in regulating those digital assets. Over in the House of Representatives, the House Energy Committee hosts a mid-week hearing to discuss the potential impacts of supporting research and development in the field of nuclear fusion technology, while the House Oversight Committee explores efforts that U.S. law enforcement officials have been taking to curb the rising threat of ransomware. Elsewhere, The Brookings Institution hosts a conversation with U.S. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh to discuss the impact of 21st century innovations on the American workforce, while the Center for Data Innovation discusses the impact of decisions by major Internet browser providers to end third-party cookies for tracking browser activity.

Following four letters sent by Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) to United State Trade Representative (USTR) Katherine Tai regarding the proposed waiver of intellectual property rights under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, Tai on November 8 replied to a July 14  letter sent by Tillis and Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR). That letter referred Tai and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo to a May 19 letter in which Tillis, Cotton and 14 other senators requested responses to 10 questions on the proposal to waive IP rights for COVID-19 related technology. The May 19 letter had requested Tai and Raimondo’s responses by July 19, 2021.

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) on November 5 introduced a bill, titled the Restoring America’s Leadership in Innovation Act of 2021 (RALIA), HR 5874, that would repeal the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), return the patent system to a “first-to-invent” model, rather than first-to-file, and would end automatic publication of patents. Inventor groups such as US Inventor and conservative groups are supporting the legislation.

On November 2, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) sent a pair of letters regarding issues in district court patent litigation—one addressed to Drew Hirshfeld, performing the functions and duties of the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), and another letter co-written with Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) addressed to Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court. While never mentioned by name, U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright is unmistakably the subject of both letters, which expressed serious concerns about “unrealistic trial dates” and “open solicit[ation]” of patent cases from a single judge in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas.

The full Senate Judiciary Committee convened today for a hearing titled, “Cleaning Up Online Marketplaces: Protecting Against Stolen, Counterfeit, and Unsafe Goods,” in which witnesses explained the continuing challenges of policing stolen and counterfeit products in online marketplaces. The panelists included small business owners, internet platform advocates, academics and retail store representatives.

In response to intense lobbying for patent litigation reform, Congress was convinced that a substantial amount of district court patent litigation involved “poor quality” patents that were clearly invalid. Images of extortionist patent trolls were widely portrayed as a primary threat to U.S. innovation. The high cost of patent litigation, years to reach a judicial resolution and reliance on lay juries to determine highly technical issues were cited as evidence of a broken system. In response, Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011…. The current IPR system as implemented has caused severe damage to an important segment of our innovation community. Congress instructed the USPTO Director, in 35 USC§ 316(b), to “consider the effect of any such regulation on the economy, the integrity of the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings instituted under this chapter.” It is time for the Director to reevaluate the effect of IPRs.

This week in Washington IP news, the Senate Judiciary Committee hosts a hearing Tuesday morning to discuss various legislative efforts designed to address the rampant issue of counterfeit goods sold online by third-party sellers on major e-commerce platforms. Over in the House of Representatives, the House Select Committee on Economic Disparity takes a closer look at technological automation and its likely impacts on the future of work in America, while the House Financial Technology Task Force examines issues with the growing “buy now, pay later” fintech sector. Elsewhere, the Center for Data Information examines how online advertising has helped grow the European economy, while the Center for Strategic & International Studies provides a critique of the EU’s Digital Markets Act and unintended economic consequences that may come from the EU’s passage of that bill.

Following yesterday’s announcement of Kathi Vidal as President Joe Biden’s nominee to head the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), IP professionals largely expressed their congratulations and support based on her strong credentials. However, many acknowledged the hard road she has ahead of her—first before the Senate Judiciary Committee and, once confirmed, tackling the many challenges facing the USPTO. Here is what some stakeholders had to say about her nomination.

As predicted by IPWatchdog, Kathi Vidal has now been officially nominated by President Joe Biden as the next Under Secretary for Intellectual Property and Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office at the Department of Commerce. Vidal is one of five nominations announced today. She would replace Drew Hirshfeld, who has been serving under the title, Performing the Duties and Functions of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

This week in Washington IP events, the U.S. House of Representatives hosts a pair of committee hearings on tech subjects, including a joint hearing of the House Biotechnology Subcommittee and the House Livestock Subcommittee to look at how the current market approval process for agricultural biotechnology products could be made less cumbersome to encourage commercialization. Elsewhere, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office hosts an event exploring the intersection of copyright law and artificial intelligence, while the Hudson Institute takes a look at studies by the USPTO and the U.S. Copyright Office on state sovereign immunity from IP infringement suits.

On October 5, the Senate Judiciary Committee considered the nomination of Judge Lucy Koh, currently of the U.S. Federal District for the Northern District of California, to an appointment by President Biden to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. After that hearing, several Senators submitted written questions, which Judge Koh responded to last week. There is no indication that Judge Koh’s nomination to the Ninth Circuit is in jeopardy, but it is noteworthy, and at least somewhat unusual, numerous Senators asked Judge Koh virtually the same questions regarding her decision in FTC v. Qualcomm. This level of overlapping interest by multiple members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which IPWatchdog.com has learned was not coordinated and developed organically, is normally reserved for nominees to the Supreme Court, and even then, typically reserved to social or constitutional issues. So, even though it is believed Judge Koh can and will easily receive a favorable confirmation vote, the questions relating to the intersection of antitrust and patent law demonstrate a keen awareness and interest in these issues on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

During a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s IP Subcommittee today, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) were the only senators present to question the Pride in Patent Ownership Act’s (PPOA’s) approach to penalizing patent owners who fail to record accurate ownership information within 90 days after the issuance date. The hearing included testimony from four witnesses on the topic of the PPOA introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) in September. Leahy explained in his introduction that the same fundamental principle of disclosure that underpins issuance of a patent should extend to patent ownership information. There is presently no requirement that ownership information be publicly available after a patent issues.

Several weeks ago, Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the Restoring America Invents Act, which would reverse the reforms of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) introduced by former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Andrei Iancu. The Senators claim that the legislation is necessary, among other reasons, to prevent undermining the Congressional intent in enacting the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA). According to Senator Leahy specifically, Director Iancu’s reforms politicized inter partes review (IPR) decisions by exercising discretion not to institute every IPR challenge filed by petitioners. “[Andrei Iancu] took actions that were designed to undermine the IPR process,” Leahy explained at a ceremony in September commemorating the 10th anniversary of the AIA. “[The Iancu reforms] hamstring the ability of the public to challenge poor-quality patents.”

This week in Washington IP events, the Senate IP Subcommittee convenes a hearing on Tuesday afternoon to debate the Pride in Patent Ownership Act, which would increase requirements on patent owners to disclose changes in patent ownership. NASA’s role in space, including the growing commercial space sector in low-Earth orbit, as well as in developing nuclear propulsion systems for deep space exploration, will be the focus of hearings by other Senate subcommittees. Modernization efforts at the Library of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office will also be explored by the Senate Rules & Administration Committee. Elsewhere, the House Energy Subcommittee discusses opportunities for growing the domestic offshore wind industry, while ITIF closes the week with a look at President Biden’s executive order on promoting competition as part of the institute’s Dynamic Antitrust Discussion Series.