Posts Tagged: "innovation"

This week in Washington IP news, while Congress continues its summer recess, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) hosts several events, including on how to protect your IP in Southeast Asia. The Office also continues its #WEWednesday series, this week with an installment on how to increase the number of women in the STEM field. Elsewhere, the Peterson Institute for International Economics will look at what preventative policy measures are needed to prevent repeat bank failures in the United States.

The PREVAIL Act addresses current rules that enable gamesmanship at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) by huge corporations against small inventors, startups and other patent owners, and that increase invalidation rates. It introduces standing requirements, establishes a clear and convincing evidence standard to invalidate a patent, ensures a code of conduct is put in place for administrative patent judges (APJs), and more. While these changes are well-intended, due to the PTAB’s perverse incentive structure, the PREVAIL Act will only be marginally effective, and may have no real effect at all.

On August 2, inventor advocacy group US Inventor held a webinar on provisions of the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act that are intended to curb abuses impacting small business patent owners at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While most panelists on the virtual call acknowledged that the PREVAIL Act wouldn’t solve every problem threatening the U.S. innovation ecosystem’s most vulnerable members, there was widespread agreement that the bill would have beneficial impacts if enacted. The webinar was US Inventor’s second on the PREVAIL Act following a virtual call last week with law professor Adam Mossoff and C4IP General Counsel Jamie Simpson.

On July 31, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) hosted a virtual workshop titled Transforming Discoveries into Products: Maximizing NIH’s Levers to Catalyze Technology Transfer. Public comments submitted to the NIH ahead of the event reflect current tensions between advocates supporting either private commercialization or government pricing control of federally-funded medical breakthroughs commercialized by private companies.

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in a decision published Monday, denied the defendants’ motions to vacate asset freezes in a case brought by Gilead alleging a massive HIV drug counterfeiting ring that involves “hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth” of fake medications. In January 2022, the court unsealed documents in the suit against a slew of defendants who Gilead said sold, marketed, and distributed counterfeits of its HIV medications. Gilead’s complaint sought immediate monetary and injunctive relief, including seizure at certain of the defendants’ premises, as well as relief for trademark and trade dress infringement and trademark dilution, among other alleged violations.

On July 7, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Cameron Elliot issued a Notice of Initial Determination in favor of computer and graphics processor maker AMD. See In the Matter of Certain Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Digital Televisions Containing the Same (No. 337-TA-1318). This puts AMD one step closer to preventing TCL and Realtek from importing smart TVs and components containing infringing graphics processors in its patent infringement case at the International Trade Commission (ITC).

On Friday, July 28, President Biden announced a new Executive Order titled “Federal Research and Development in Support of Domestic Manufacturing and United States Jobs.” Rumors that the Administration was considering extending the deeply flawed Department of Energy (DOE) policy (see “More DOE Bureaucracy Equals Less Innovation” to all agencies had been swirling for months. Luckily, the new Executive Order doesn’t do that, but how it will be applied is subject to a convoluted interagency process, so it will be months before we see if it’s meeting its intended goal or not.

This week in Washington IP news, even though Congress is not in session, there are still some interesting events taking place in Washington, DC. The Brookings Institution holds a talk on the state of the global economy, and the Hudson Institute hosts a conversation on China with a former national security advisor. Elsewhere, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) celebrates the LGBTQIA+ community’s contributions to the economy.

The Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property today held a hearing on Oversight of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), with USPTO Director Kathi Vidal as the sole witness. Only a handful of senators questioned Vidal, and only one significantly challenged her in questioning. The hearing differed considerably from the House IP Subcommittee’s Oversight Hearing in April, where Vidal was repeatedly taken to task on the Office’s then-recently issued Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM).

Today, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF) published a white paper titled Innovation Wars: How China Is Gaining on the United States in Corporate R&D showing that, while the United States continues to enjoy a lead in several key sectors when surveying the world’s largest corporate investors in research and development (R&D), its largest economic rival is gaining and could achieve parity with the U.S. in about a decade.

The European Patent Office (EPO) today launched a dashboard on Unitary Patents, which will be updated daily and breaks down data on requests for Unitary Patents by technology field, country of origin, language of translation, proprietors’ profile and status of registration. According to an EPO press release, there have been 670 requests filed on average per week since the Unitary Patent went into effect on June 1, “demonstrating high interest in the new system.” 

In Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, a unanimous Supreme Court sided with Jack Daniel’s and sent dog toy maker VIP Products scurrying away with its tail between its legs. The decision held that VIP’s commercial use of a dog toy, designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey, complete with droll variations on Jack Daniel’s trademarks, is not entitled to First Amendment protections for artistic expression under the “Rogers test.” Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F. 2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989). Instead, it is subject to the Lanham Act’s likelihood-of-confusion test to determine if consumers would be likely to confuse VIP’s dog toy with Jack Daniel’s, no matter how parodic. While the justices felt that artistic expression versus trademark use was cut and dried in this instance, that is not always the case in litigation focused on NFTs and the Metaverse.

On Thursday morning, the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) held a legislative markup hearing to debate amendments to S. 2333, the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Response Act (PAHPARA), the reauthorization bill to extend the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA). If enacted as currently drafted, PAHPARA would direct federal agencies to study alternative models for funding biomedical research, including prize systems that have been routinely rejected as a viable model by pro-innovation advocates.

I was told that elected officials count on—in fact, they need—constituent input to be effective legislators. After my patents were unjustly cancelled at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), I started the journey to do this very thing. Since January of 2022, I have visited Congress and the Senate two dozen times. I have visited over 200 offices telling my story and advocating for the “little” inventors, like me.

On July 17, inventor advocacy organization US Inventor and conservative interest group Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund filed a joint amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court urging the nation’s highest court to grant the petition for writ of certiorari filed in Killian v. Vidal. US Inventor and Eagle Forum ELDF’s brief is the latest call upon SCOTUS to address the “dire consequences” flowing from the dramatic expansion to judicial exceptions to patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.