Posts Tagged: "Guest Contributor"

When licensing standard essential patents (SEPs), the SEP licensor and the standard implementer (also known as the SEP licensee), go through two phases of negotiation. The first phase is the technical phase, followed by the second phase, the commercial discussion. In the technical phase, the SEP licensor must provide evidence that at least one patent of its portfolio is valid and standard essential. This is done by providing rigorously conducted claim charts that map claims against the standard’s sections, providing evidence that all claim elements read on the technical standard specification. Typically, only a few claim charts are needed in this first technical phase, since only one patent must be valid and essential to make the case that the standard implementing party is infringing. The second phase, the commercial discussion, is much more complex. Here, the SEP owner must provide evidence of the value of its SEP portfolio for a given standard supporting why the proposed royalty rate is FRAND (fair reasonable and non- discriminatory).

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is global, and copyright laws are national. Thus, some countries will have strict laws on making copies of copyrighted content to “train” an AI system while others will be more relaxed. Laws are about economics, and countries with more relaxed laws are likely to be countries with smaller creative industries and which wish to use the relaxed legal regime to attract AI investment. AI companies will use these jurisdictional differences as leverage to lobby for the relaxation of legal standards in countries with stricter laws.

As reported on IPWatchdog, the UK Supreme court recently ruled that a trained neural network (an Artificial Intelligence known as DABUS) could not be listed as the inventor on two patent applications filed by Dr. Stephen Thaler at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). As a result, the two applications were treated as withdrawn for failing to comply with the requirements of the UK Patents Act 1977. This not a surprising decision for reasons that will be set out below, and it is consistent both with the earlier UK court decisions, and with the decisions of other jurisdictions around the world where Dr. Thaler has argued his case. The decision has, however, sparked interest in the questions of artificial intelligence and its ability both to “autonomously” devise inventions and to subsequently own them.

In the spirited world of whiskey, legal battles ferment in the form of trademark litigation. In the vast realm of whiskey production, where brands are as carefully crafted as the spirits themselves, clashes over trademarks have become common. The legal complexities swirling within the whiskey industry encapsulate the struggles of renowned manufacturers to protect the unique identities they have painstakingly cultivated for their whiskey brands. From the nuances of trade-dress like labelling and branding, to shape marks for detailed bottle designs, whiskey companies engage in multifaceted litigations to safeguard their trademarks.

At the end of 2023, Law 14,785/2023 was published in Brazil’s official gazette, creating a new regulatory framework for chemical pesticides and environmental control products. The result of decades of discussions in the National Congress, the new law brings provisions that represent improvements to the system, such as the mandatory use of risk analysis in the process of granting registration of products and the requirement to harmonize with internationally established standards.

When I was in law school, my business associations professor began the semester by telling the class that debt and equity are essentially the same thing. In her view, both involve money going from one organization to another (i.e., the parties exchange “capital” or “debt”). And both are concerned with how the receiving organization will ultimately compensate its counterparty (i.e., do they get a fixed payment or a share of profits). From this perspective, debt and equity exist along the same continuum, with the primary difference lying in the allocation of risk between the parties through the distribution of control and economic rights. Litigation finance and insurance are quickly approaching a similar moment of conceptual and practical unity in which the dividing line between the two products is blurring and they are increasingly used together.

Jamie L. Simpson is the Chief Policy Officer and Counsel for the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP) and has previously served as Chief Counsel for the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet, and in various roles at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In the latest episode of The SEP Couch, Tim Pohlmann spoke with Simpson about  how IP is dealt with in the United States and, in particular, the topic of standard essential patents (SEPs), and explained that the situation is certainly more complicated than is appreciated from the outside.

Reasonable compensation for standard essential patent (SEP) holders is crucial to create the incentives for adequate investments in standards. In particular, high-quality standards have underlain the development and proliferation of the global wireless technologies that have played such a central role in the innovation-driven growth of the internet economy. (For the key role of strong standards in technological innovation, see, for example, here, here, here, and here). It follows that the discriminatory reduction of compensation for SEP holders would reduce their incentives to participate and invest in standard setting. This in turn would reduce quality of future standards that will be key to economic growth and vitality.

The intellectual property regime of the International Trade Commission (ITC) made mainstream news this year with its ban on Apple Watch importation and sales in the dispute between Masimo Corporation and Apple. While that dispute is ongoing and the subject of much coverage already, here are five other key IP cases with a variety of important rulings for parties at the ITC—particularly some outside of the typically patent-centric docket.

Being able to quantify risk probabilities for a trade secret helps owners make strategic decisions in intellectual property management, such as choosing the type of intellectual property protection, considering opportunities for M&A, licensing, and improving the reliability of protection. As a result, this quantification enables the extraction of more value from intellectual property, particularly when managing middle- and large-sized IP portfolios. Let’s explore one possible approach to quantification by modeling an example case, quantify probabilities for risks derived from both the competitor and owner and its influence on Expected Monetary Value (EMV), and then discover some non-trivial suggestions for improving the efficiency of trade secret management.

Section 311(b) of the America Invents Act (AIA) provides that a patent can be challenged in an inter partes review (IPR) “only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.” A published U.S. patent application that never issued as a patent can be used as the basis for an IPR challenge because it’s printed and it’s a publication, right? Not so fast.

In Vidal v. Elster, No. 22-704, the United States Supreme Court has heard argument and is expected to decide in the next several months whether Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act can prevent the federal registration of TRUMP TOO SMALL as a trademark for shirts and hats. Section 2(c) prohibits, inter alia, the registration of the name of a particular living individual without his consent. The issue in Elster is whether the First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression transcends Section 2(c)…. To the extent that Section 2(c) survives, in whole or in part, and apart from weighty constitutional concerns which the Court is expected to resolve, there are numerous other problems lurking in this old, dark and dusty subsection—which  are not particularly “small” at all—which only Congress can fix.

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.

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.