Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

It was a relatively average week for patent filings in the district court with 59 new complaints. New filings included multiple filings associated with high-volume plaintiffs such as Jeffrey Gross, Leigh Rothschild, as well as a slew of filings from Pueblo Nuevo in a banking campaign. Meanwhile, XR Communications settled three inter partes reviews (IPRs) and filed two new cases against wireless carriers.

Claims are the fundamental building blocks of a patent. There simply is not a more important concept to grasp in all of patent strategy. As former Chief Justice of the Federal Circuit, Giles Rich, once famously said, “The name of the game is the claim.” And in terms of what game you’re playing, the claims are where you separate the patents playing checkers from the patents playing chess.

Recently, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property released a draft of the ‘‘Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2023” (“PERA”) for the purpose of addressing the judicially-created exceptions to patent eligibility plaguing the country. Among the Senate’s findings are that patent eligibility jurisprudence requires significant clarification, the judicial exceptions are rendering an increasing number of inventions ineligible for patent protection, and Alice/Mayo is confusing and inconsistent. None of this is surprising. Alice/Mayo has been a resounding failure. However, of particular importance, the Senate bill has declared “All judicial exceptions to patent eligibility are eliminated.”

California is poised to become the third state to enact a right to repair law aimed at making it easier for independent repair shops and consumers to repair electronic devices. This might sound well and good—until you think about what it actually means for IP owners. While repair advocates may not care about, or even acknowledge, the IP side of the equation, the not-so-hidden truth of the right to repair movement is that it expands repair opportunities for consumers by taking away the rights of copyright and patent owners. Indeed, the foundational premise of the repair movement is that there is something inherently wrong when an IP owner exercises its right to exclude and imposes a repair restriction. Of course, this lopsided view elevates access over incentives, and it ignores how IP law itself promotes the public good by rewarding creators and innovators for their individual efforts. But, more importantly, it’s not up to the states to second-guess Congress’s judgment.

Last week, the White House announced that the manufacturers of all ten of the drugs singled out by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and its drug price negotiation program (DPNP) have “agreed” to participate therein. The announcement concerns the manufacturers reluctantly agreeing to subject themselves to the sweeping drug price “negotiation” provisions of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which was passed last year. Those provisions empower CMS to essentially dictate whatever price it pleases for a set of prescription drugs, the first ten of which were announced at the end of August.

In recent months, two U.S. government executive initiatives have reshaped the landscape concerning intellectual property and the domestic production of products resulting from federally funded research. These initiatives are poised to bring substantial changes to the dynamics of academic-industry collaborations as inventions are brought to market.

Judicial rulings have muddied the waters of patent eligibility, with judges themselves expressing uncertainty. In the case, Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit judge Kimberly Moore openly shared the challenge of applying Section 101 consistently, explaining that “the majority’s blended 101/112 analysis expands § 101, converts factual issues into legal ones and is certain to cause confusion for future cases.” This haze has driven innovators to tread cautiously, often sidelining potential patents for fear of 101 rejections—stifling the American dream of groundbreaking innovation. Stakeholders craft tactics to dodge these pitfalls while lawmakers propose reforms.

On September 6, OpenAI faced its second invasion of privacy lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Northern California, for allegedly stealing private information from millions of internet users. While the Plaintiffs acknowledge in their complaint that Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to create life-saving technologies and herald discoveries that could improve our daily lives, they claim OpenAI crossed the line of using altruistic means of reaching its objective when it abruptly restructured itself into a for-profit business. Following this restructuring, the Plaintiffs allege OpenAI scraped private information from millions of users to train their Large Language Models. Here are five key allegations from the privacy suit against OpenAI.

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…”

The Supreme Court decided Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi on May 18, 2023, nearly nine years after its decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Amgen was concerned with the enablement statute of the patent law, 35 U.S.C. § 112. In comparison, Alice was concerned with the eligibility statute of the patent law, 35 U.S.C. § 101, and has been highly criticized for creating a mess of patent eligibility. At first glance, these cases are distinguishable from one another, since they deal with different aspects of the patent laws. However, statutory interpretation and analysis should be the same in both instances.

Last week, the Writers Guild of America (WGA) reached a tentative three-year deal to resolve a writer’s strike following a labor dispute with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). The deal was reached on September 27, 2023, after a 148-day strike, which was the second-longest in the union’s history. According to USA Today, the WGA’s leadership board has lifted the restraining order barring writers from returning to work, and its members will vote to officially ratify the agreement between October 2 and October 9. In a storyline that at one time would have been considered science fiction, a major point of contention between writers and producers was the use of artificial intelligence in the screenwriting process.

As I was participating in a recent conference of trade secret nerds (yes, we often refer to ourselves that way), I found myself thinking about the Titanic. More specifically, about the legend of the missing binoculars. It seems that on that tragic night in 1912 the lookout was unable to find a pair of binoculars that he thought had been stowed in the crow’s nest. According to the story, they were in a locked box in the quarters of the former second officer, who had been transferred to another ship just before departure (lucky guy) and apparently took the key with him.

PERA is no doubt an ambitious bill. In terms of its design, the proposed legislation attempts to deal with each of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Alice, Mayo and Myriad, plus all of their progeny applications thereafter engendered by the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), all the way down to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examining corp. In a nutshell, the bill, if passed, would return us to a time when Bilski was the law of the land, which will no doubt be welcomed by many innovators.

The single best tool available to increase patent value and decrease patent costs is not directed to application drafting or patent prosecution or law firm selection. Instead, it occurs much earlier in the process. The best tool is meeting with inventors. When I was outside counsel and I received a new application to draft, the very first thing I did was set up a meeting with the inventors. As in-house counsel, when I receive a new invention submission, I do the same. It does not matter if the invention is simple, non-enabling, or incomplete. It does not matter if the inventor is familiar, experienced, or knowledgeable. It does not matter if we meet in person, by phone, or by video. For every invention, we meet.

Recently, Humans of Bombay (HOB), a storytelling platform, filed a suit seeking an injunction to prevent the unauthorized use of their copyrighted material by another organization, People of India (POI). This includes alleged infringement of content created by HOB, literary works, materials, films, and various creative expressions. HOB connects with individuals willing to share stories or experiences and creates audio-video content. This is subsequently shared on their website and Instagram account in various formats, such as interviews, written pieces, and posts. The current suit centers around the complaint that POI have launched a nearly identical Instagram account, featuring content that closely resembles what’s found on HOB’s account.