Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

It was an overall below-average week for patent filings at both the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and district courts. The PTAB had only 15 new PTAB petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs), while the district court had only 24 new complaints filed. There were two more Fintiv discretionary denials this week, with the Board denying institution of two IPRs filed by IBM against inventor-controlled DigitalDoor Inc. [funding unknown] patents broadly related to various aspects of data security technologies.

In March 2023, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) addressed in Penumbra, Inc. v. Rapidpulse, Inc.,  IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 (Mar. 10, 2023), a key issue in inter partes reviews: how to establish a reference patent as prior art based on the filing date of an earlier-filed application, such as a provisional. The Board held that the requirements of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Dynamic Drinkware, LLC v. Nat’l Graphics, Inc., 800 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015), do not apply for post-America Invents Act (AIA) patents. Penumbra, IPR2021-01466, Paper 34 at 29-35. On November 15, 2023, U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director Kathi Vidal designated the Penumbra decision precedential. This article explores the evolution of the law on this issue.

In September 2023, one man grabbed the authors’ attention with his astonishing story about defending his trademark registration from an opposition by professional trademark attorneys using ChatGPT. His months-long battle began in December 2022, less than a month after the public launch of the now infamous AI chatbot. Nine months later, Jamiel Sheikh — an entrepreneur, tech-guru, and adjunct professor — survived the pressure from formal proceedings and obtained a settlement from his opposer without spending a dime. As young trademark attorneys, we were horrified yet extremely curious about what he had done. This article is the result of speaking with Sheikh about his experience and the evolving needs and expectations of sophisticated legal service consumers.

It seems likely that Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi 598 U.S. 594 (2023) will be one of the most significant, if not the most significant Supreme Court patent decision of 2023. Its holding that a claim to a genus of antibodies must be enabled to the full scope of species within that genus was emphatic and—coming from our highest court—about as final as stare decisis can guarantee. Forty years ago, I was knee deep in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and court proceedings on behalf of laser pioneer, Gordon Gould. A 1983 decision in Gould’s favor by an appellate court effectively shut down efforts by the USPTO and laser manufacturers to derail Gould’s patent portfolio, ultimately leading to widespread licensing of Gould’s patents. But there was one point in that 1983 decision that might be viewed as inconsistent with Amgen’s holding.

Recently, Wen Xie argued on IPWatchdog that the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) have reached different conclusions regarding “the creative and conceiving capabilities of machines,” which leads to intellectual property (IP) law being self-contradictory. According to Xie, the USCO presumes that artificial intelligence (AI) is creative, while the USPTO does not reach a similar conclusion regarding AI inventorship. I disagree.

On September 13, the Global Innovation Policy Center of the U.S. Chamber published its “IP Principles” paper declaring the Chamber’s “Beliefs about Intellectual Property.” It was promptly endorsed and signed by 32 external IP thought leaders, including the heads of nearly all major IP associations and organizations, and individual experts such as a former Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), two retired judges (including myself), and leading IP academics…. In my view, the Chamber was exactly right to call for a “reset” in the policy debate over IP rights.

Tightening your grip on a company’s trade secrets can actually lead to losing them. Stay with me here; this kind of excessive protection is more widespread than you might think, and most companies don’t appreciate the risks that they are taking by overdoing it. The first category is legal risk. Recall that courts require, as part of any case for misappropriation of trade secrets, that you prove you have taken “reasonable measures” to maintain control over the information. Because most trade secret loss happens through employees, you might assume that judges want you to have strong confidentiality agreements. And you would be right; in fact, if you don’t have them, you are statistically likely to lose. But here’s the hidden problem: if your employee non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) are too broad, courts could throw them out.

Generative AI (“Gen AI”) is everywhere, with all sorts of promises about how it can help the world. Let’s say a company has created new confidential methods for cancer treatments, but they are not really effective. They ask a Gen AI to come up with a cure for cancer using these new methods.  The gen-AI (using the billions of words and images available to it beyond human comprehension) conceives of the cure, and it works, saving many lives. [Note: Generative AI (“Gen AI”) as used herein will refer to deep-learning models that can generate high-quality text, images or other content based on the billions of pieces of data they were trained on].

In 2017, screenwriters Lee Alfred and Ezequiel Martinez Jr. embarked on what would be a five-year journey for their copyright infringement claim against Walt Disney Pictures over the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise. Now, one year after it resolved, their legacy lives on through a new era of copyright litigation in Hollywood. Courts continue to rely on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in the Pirates case to allow screenwriters and other artists to proceed past the pleading stage. With that pendulum swing, litigants in copyright cases over Hollywood films will face a range of undeveloped issues. This article provides a brief recap of the impact from the Pirates case and identifies several open issues that litigants are likely to address in future cases as a result.

The only thing that moves quicker, disseminates further, and is repeated more often than the truth is misinformation. The more misinformation is repeated, the more challenging it becomes to distinguish truth from falsehood. A groundbreaking 1977 study termed this the “illusory truth effect”. According to the study, if “people are told something often enough, they’ll believe it.”  Simply repeating a statement makes it more likely to appear to be truthful. The impact of the illusory truth effect can be particularly harmful when those responsible for setting policy are unable to differentiate fact from fiction.

It was a typical week for patent filings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) with 25 new Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitions—all inter partes reviews (IPRs). Meanwhile, the district courts had a somewhat above average week with 76 new complaints filed.Meanwhile, the district courts had a somewhat above average week with 76 new complaints filed. At the PTAB, Hyundai filed two new IPRs against Mel Navip LLC [associated with Ni, Wang & Massand, PLLC] patents; Fortinet Inc. filed two IPRs against one Lionra Technologies [associated with Magnetar Capital] patent; and Apple filed two IPRs against DoDots Licensing Solutions [Strategic Intellectual Solutions] patents.

The Lanham Act provides for special remedies in cases of trademark infringement “involving” the use of a “counterfeit” mark. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b), (c); 15 U.S.C. § 1127. Absent “extenuating circumstances,” if the use of a counterfeit mark is intentional and knowing, the Act requires entry of judgment of three times the amount of actual damages or profits found, as well as an award of attorney’s fees. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(b). Alternatively, in any case of infringement “involving” a counterfeit mark, the Act provides for awards of statutory damages of up to $200,000; it provides for statutory damages of up to $2,000,000 if the use of the counterfeit mark was willful. 15 U.S.C. § 1117(c)…. In our view, a straightforward interpretation of the Act allows access to the special remedies in cases that involve knock-off products, as well as cases where an identical logo or word mark is used on the same type of product that is in the plaintiff’s trademark registration, even if the defendant’s products and/or their packaging do not resemble the plaintiff’s products.

Most patent prosecutors err on the side of caution when deciding whether to cite prior art references to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Indeed, the consequence of not citing known prior art can be a finding during patent litigation that there was a violation of the USPTO’s duty of disclosure amounting to inequitable conduct, with the patent thereby being deemed unenforceable. But the United States Court of Appeals the Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Elekta Limited v. Zap Surgical Systems (Case 2021-1985, September 21, 2023) suggests that patent prosecutors should think about ways that the fact that references are being cited could be used against the patent owner, and prosecutors might consider clarifying the record to negate potential inferences being drawn based on the citation of references.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued its one millionth design patent on September 26, 2023. U.S. Patent No. D1,000,000 claims the ornamental design for a dispensing comb. This milestone comes during a particularly prolific period for design patents. In 2022 alone, the USPTO received more than 50,000 design patent applications. The Office has seen a 20% growth in design patent applications over the last five years. It is not hard to understand why inventors are seeking design patent protection at previously unseen levels. In an age of complicated technologies, design patents can protect marketable appearances of products in the same manner generally as trademarks identify source. Understanding design patent benefits underlying the recent growth in application numbers is a good lesson for businesses seeking to distinguish a brand—but keep an eye out for further developments and be prepared to adjust business and IP strategies.

The President’s recent Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence instructs the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director and Copyright Registrar to collaboratively issue recommendations to the President on further actions for advancing AI innovation through intellectual property, particularly with respect to AI inventorship and AI authorship. But the two offices currently regard AI differently in terms of assessing the creative and conceiving capabilities of machines, which poses a potential contradiction in how intellectual property law treats AI.