Posts Tagged: "innovation"

A 2018 amendment to the Indian Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 (“Commercial Courts Act”) makes it mandatory for a party to exhaust the remedy of mediation before initiating court proceedings under the Commercial Courts Act, with the limited exception of cases where urgent relief is being sought. Patent infringement disputes, being disputes of a commercial nature, are governed by the Commercial Courts Act and, therefore, the mandatory pre-institution mediation provision applies to such disputes. The time bound mediation procedure envisaged in this provision allows a patentee to not only bring a possible infringer to the negotiation table under the threat of future litigation but also allow patentees to resolve disputes in a timely manner by avoiding long-drawn litigation in Indian courts. Patentees can now consider a different strategy when considering steps for enforcement of patent rights in India in view of the possible advantages of such mediation proceedings discussed in this article.

This week in IP news: the CASE Act, which would create a small claims system for copyright claims, is reintroduced in both houses of Congress; Qualcomm earns a massive $4.5 billion payment from its settlement with Apple; the U.S. Supreme Court seeks input from the Solicitor General on Oracle v. Google; and China amends its trademark law, increases copyright actions, and earns more than one-third of all 5G SEPs.

In yesterday’s article, we discussed patent trends in the Internet of Things (IoT) industry, as part of our patent-trends study (performed in a collaboration between Kilpatrick Townsend and GreyB Services). Today’s article pertains to the Financial Technology (FinTech) industry, which is defined as technology used to support banking and financial services. In June 2014, the Supreme Court decided Alice v. CLS Bank, which nearly immediately made it much harder to patent a FinTech invention. This resulted in fewer FinTech patent application filings. Nonetheless, the use of bank accounts, credit/debit cards and money-transfer systems is ubiquitous, and protected innovations in this area offers a high potential value. Thus, it is essential to understand the industry and the patenting prospects, which can inform both R&D investments and patenting strategies.

In yet another pathetic result of the U.S. government crashing the patent system, Amazon announces it is a patent infringement court. I guess we can call it the District of Amazon Federal Court (DAFC). They claim a cheaper, faster alternative to traditional patent lawsuits. Ring a bell?  The last time I heard that we got the PTAB. This irony is judiciously served. First, Amazon used the patent system to differentiate themselves from their competitors with the one-click patent, thus gaining market share. Then the U.S. government crashed the patent system so that no small inventor or startup could challenge Amazon with improved technologies. With no challengers, Amazon monopolized.  

USPTO Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property Andrei Iancu believes that “to a large extent … if they want to, the Federal Circuit can fix the problem” with patentable subject matter under Section 101. Speaking at the 27th Intellectual Property Law & Policy Conference at Fordham Law School on April 25, Mr. Iancu said the interpretation of Section 101 is “the most important issue of substantive patent law currently.” He added: “This issue must be addressed now in the United States.” The USPTO Director said there is consensus that the state of the law is unworkable: “Recent case law has created significant confusion in this regard.” But he added: “If you look at the Supreme Court cases by themselves, those cases are not the ones necessarily that have caused the problem. In the way those cases have been interpreted in the lower courts or at the USPTO itself, we have deviated from the core message of the Supreme Court to some extent.”

In yesterday’s article, we introduced our patent-trends study (performed in a collaboration between Kilpatrick Townsend and GreyB Services) and provided high-level data across industries. Today’s article pertains to the Internet of Things (IoT) industry. With the prevalence of WiFi, cellular modems and devices configured for short-range connections, IoT systems are becoming all the more ubiquitous and exciting. No matter how powerful and sophisticated a single device is, its efficiency and usefulness will very often remain capped if it cannot “talk” to other devices. Only through these communications can the device gain a more comprehensive view (e.g., corresponding to where users are, what computations or controls may be helpful, what computations or actions other devices are already performing or coordinating). Thus, we can begin to start thinking about specifications (e.g., efficiency, speed, memory, accuracy) of a device and instead think about specifications of a system. This presents a large number of important use cases.

Now that Apple and Qualcomm have made peace it would be easy to allow the case and the issues to recede into the background. That is likely what Apple would prefer, and almost certainly why Apple made the decision to settle with Qualcomm rather than proceed with trial. The case presented an existential threat for Qualcomm, which would have required the San Diego tech company to fight as if the company depended on victory–because it did.  What is most shocking is how successful Apple was in its coordinated effort to manipulate the licensing market and effectively extinguish any reasonable notion of a fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory rate (FRAND) in the process. Meanwhile, fabricated licensing rates wholly unrelated to the Qualcomm portfolio were used by Apple to dupe regulators into chasing Qualcomm across the world for committing phantom antitrust violations.

This is the first in a thirteen-part series of articles authored by Kilpatrick Townsend that IPWatchdog will be publishing over the coming weeks. The series will examine industry-specific patent trends across 12 key patent-intensive industries. Companies are frequently faced with high- and low-level decisions concerning patenting. What should an annual patent budget be and/or how many new applications should be filed each year? Which technologies should be emphasized in the portfolio? For a given innovation, should a patent application even be filed? These questions are frequently evaluated by looking at internal factors, such as recent enterprise-wide profitability, executive sentiments towards patenting, and/or the perceived importance of individual projects. However, the effect of a patent is to exclude others from a given innovation space. If no other entity was or would be interested in making, using, selling, or importing a patented invention, one could argue that the patent was valueless. Conversely, if many others are actively developing technology within a space, a patent portfolio in that area may be particularly valuable. Thus, patenting decisions should factor in the degree to which others have interest in a given technology is trending-up or -down. Patenting data can serve as one indicator for this type of interest. However, it is difficult to collect patenting data at an industry level. While the patent office assigns an art unit and a class to each patent application, using one or more art units and/or classes as a proxy for an industry is both under- and over-inclusive. For example, a patent application related to an Internet of Things (IoT) industry may also relate to traffic lights, such that, even if there were art units specifically and only associated with either IoT or traffic lights (which there is not), statistics would be inaccurate: statistics pertaining only to an IoT art unit would not account for data corresponding to applications and assigned to the hypothetical traffic-light art unit, while statistics pertaining to both art units would be based on non-IoT applications assigned to the latter art unit.

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court invited the United States Solicitor General to file a brief expressing its views in the long-running case of Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc. The case highlights the complexities of protecting software via IP rights. As with patents, the courts often struggle to apply copyright concepts to software, leaving companies bleeding time and resources. Determining what can be protected and what can’t be is complex—even for appellate courts.“ These software piracy cases are convoluted because there can be both literal and nonliteral copying, as shown by the Google v. Oracle case,” said Brian Darville, chair of the trademark and copyright practice group at Oblon. “It’s critical for companies to legally safeguard their software and ensure they’re not infringing on their competitors.”

This morning’s edition of the Wall Street Journal carried a front-page article describing how the once mighty and untouchable online-advertising operation at Google has begun to struggle thanks to increased competition. With a disappointing revenue report that shows Google ad revenue slowing, and an inability or refusal to answer questions yesterday on the earnings call, Alphabet stock is currently heading for its worst trading day. Google accounts for over 99.5% of Alphabet revenue, so a slowdown in advertising revenue should be and is alarming. Online advertising revenue is where Google, and therefore Alphabet, derives its revenue.

On April 25, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) released both its annual Special 301 Report and an updated Notorious Markets List, each of which highlights international issues facing U.S. intellectual property owners living in the United States and abroad. The Special 301 Report this year includes 36 countries that have been placed on watch lists for either inadequate IP protections or denying IP rights to U.S. rights holders. Similarly, the Notorious Markets List includes a non-exhaustive collection of online and physical markets that are alleged to have contributed to piracy and counterfeiting activities around the world. The Special 301 Report makes it clear that China is the source of greatest concern for U.S. owners of all types of intellectual property. The report’s executive summary notes that China remains on the USTR’s Priority Watch List for various reasons, including forced tech transfer, discriminatory licensing practices and high-volume counterfeit manufacture. Other countries included on the Priority Watch List are India, where the national government has restricted transparency on state-issued pharmaceutical manufacturing licenses and expanded patentability exceptions for rejecting pharmaceutical patents; Indonesia, where concerns have been raised over patentability criteria and compulsory licensing; and Saudi Arabia, which has failed to address concerns involving lack of IP protection for pharmaceuticals and the illicit pirate service BeoutQ.

Recently, I met with a potential client to discuss key points that developers and management should keep in mind in taking the first steps to begin developing a patent portfolio. One aspect of the presentation was public disclosures that began the one-year grace period for filing for patent protection. As I was preparing examples, a practical concern emerged; specifically, whether storing source code in a third-party code repository amounted to a public disclosure or a printed publication. My research revealed that there are certain instances where uploading source code to a third-party repository amounted to a public disclosure or a printed publication, but there were precautions that developers and companies could take to prevent the inadvertent public disclosure of their code.

This week on Capitol Hill, both the House of Representatives and Senate are back in full action after the conclusion of two weeks of work periods. Tuesday is an especially busy day for technology and innovation hearings at both houses of Congress. Hearings at the House that day will focus on stopping robocalls, carbon reduction technologies and 2020 fiscal year funding for a couple of government research and development agencies. Tuesday hearings in the Senate will look at American leadership in nuclear energy, cybersecurity concerns related to the Internet of Things and the Senate IP Subcommittee observes World Intellectual Property Day, with a look at IP in sports. The Information Technology and Innovation Foundation will also host an event on Capitol Hill this week to look at the prospects of blockchain technology adoption in various industries.

High prescription drug prices and their impact on costs borne by the government in Medicaid, Medicare Part D and other federal programs, is a front burner topic in Washington. The President has committed to reducing the price of prescription drugs, and pressured drug companies to hold the line. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed two regulatory initiatives—price disclosure in drug advertising and foreclosing rebates from manufacturers to pharmacy benefits managers (PBMs)—aimed at pushing prices down. Some Democrats have urged more sweeping actions, such as having the government negotiate Medicare drug pricing as a single buyer or regulating drug prices by reference to an international index based on government-negotiated drug prices abroad. These proposals cannot solve the drug pricing problem. The Administration’s proposals merely tweak the status quo and put no effective restraint on new drug prices. Jawboning by the Executive has had a minimal impact. Disclosure of manufacturers’ list prices, unless accompanied by numerous and inherently confusing caveats highlighting the difference between those prices and the co-pay an insured consumer must bear at retail, is potentially misleading and, in any event, has no direct impact on prices. Eliminating rebates, as HHS’s rulemaking acknowledged, will inevitably raise health insurance costs now partly paid for by rebates while manufacturers’ pricing power remains unabated. The Democrats’ call for government power buying or price regulation would impact drug prices but also require politically sensitive government determinations about the “worth” of prescription drugs to patients—a significant step on the road to government-allocated health care. 

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court of India set aside an order of the division bench of the Delhi High Court that revoked a patent granted on genetically modified cotton, holding that the single bench of the High Court should assess the patentability of the invention after hearing arguments from both sides. The Indian Patent Office granted Patent No. 214436 to Monsanto Technology LLP on genetically modified cotton. In 2016, Monsanto filed a suit before the single judge bench of the Delhi High Court [Civil Suit (Comm) No. 132 of 2016] alleging infringement by Nuziveedu Seeds Ltd., which responded with a counterclaim for invalidity of the patent, among other claims. The single judge ruled in favor of the petitioner and granted an injunction. On appeal, the division bench of the Delhi High Court vacated the injunction and invalidated the patent. That decision was set aside by the Supreme Court, which held that the matter at hand was the injunction and that patentability issues must be dealt with separately by the High Court. This suggests a changing mindset by the Indian courts regarding patentability of genetically modified living organisms. India may now be set to join the league of various other nations that respect biotechnological inventions.