Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"

From the Google v. Oracle arguments to Congress’ year-long discussion around reform of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 2020 was a big one for copyright law. A discussion draft of the DMCA reform bill was released on December 22 by Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Thom Tillis (R-NC), and was meant to solicit comments from stakeholders and other interested parties. Chances the bill will be signed into law anytime soon are slim, but proposed changes such as lowering the specificity with which copyright owners must identify infringing material in certain cases and replacing the notice-and-takedown system in existing law with a “notice-and-staydown” system, would mark a new era in the U.S. copyright regime.

Novel and non-obvious can be easily used to describe the events of 2020, both here in the United States and around the world. Despite all the challenges, there have been positive developments in the way we conduct business—and that certainly was true at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Below we recap some of the most significant developments at the USPTO in 2020 and topics to keep an eye on in 2021.

On December 28, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), Chair of the Senate IP Subcommittee, and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), Ranking Member of the Senate IP Subcommittee, sent another letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey expressing disappointment over the company’s continued refusal to cooperate on hearings around copyright reform. Tillis and Coons were joined by Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI), as they often are on IP issues. The letter reiterated the senators’ frustration that Twitter refused to provide a witness for the IP Subcommittee hearing on December 15 focused on the role existing technology plays in curbing online piracy. In an all too kind characterization, the letter sent by Senators Tillis, Coons and Hirono also expressed disappointment with the “incomplete responses to written questions sent by Chairman Tillis in advance of the hearing.” Frankly, the “answers” to the questions presented by Chairman Tillis by Dorsey for the record were completely non-responsive. Indeed, Dorsey demonstrated complete disinterest in substantive engagement, an absolute lack of good faith, and conscious disregard—near contempt really—for the duty of candor owed by witnesses to the Subcommittee.

Earlier today, Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the United States Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a temporary restraining order against Samsung in a FRAND (fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing rates) lawsuit filed by Ericsson on December 11, 2020. The Order gives Samsung until January 1, 2021 to file any opposition to the continuation of the temporary restraining order, and gives Ericsson until January 5, 2021 to respond if, or more likely when, Samsung, files an objection. At first glance to the trained eye this seems shocking, but as is so often the case in the world of standard essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND, there is much more than meets the eye.

If you’re looking for some positive patent news from 2020, count the heightened civic awareness of our intellectual-property/innovation policies, as a result of the global pandemic, as a silver lining. But our present task is to report on the 2020 highlights from the Federal Circuit; unfortunately, it’s all downhill from here. If 2019 had Section 101 law as its defining issue, given the Federal Circuit and
Supreme Court’s slate of rulings and non-rulings, 2020 only seemed to make the Section101 exclusions even broader. The capstone was AAM, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, 966 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2020), the Federal Circuit’s denial of en-banc consideration (again) of Section 101 rulings that, all judicial protests aside, seemed to plainly expand a reviewing court’s power under Section 101 (again). And in ways many would’ve thought unimaginable just six-to-eight years ago, when Mayo-Alice emerged from the Supreme Court with only “inventive-concept” tests ringing about. Neapco’s panel ruling in the fall of 2019 was the proverbial shot across the Section112 bow.

The week before Christmas brought the biggest post-grant review (PGR) bulk filing to date, with 10 matters all stemming from a pharmaceutical dispute between Allergan and BTL Medical Technologies (and one other, unrelated). That’s a steady average of 30 inter partes reviews (IPRs) propped up by the glut of 11 PGRs stemming from that dispute, discussed below. The 81 district court cases were again propped up by WSOU adding their usual dozen or so complaints and a new defendant, this time adding Salesforce to their ever-growing campaign asserting some of their 4,000 or so Nokia patents against seemingly the entire world.

In Part I of this series, the authors reviewed the law behind subsequent patent applications. In Part II, we reviewed the different types of subsequent applications. Part III discussed some of the implications of these for prosecution and litigation, and Part IV will examine some further implications. In the fifth and final installment in this series, we will distill all of the information covered to provide concrete practice tips for practitioners.

While China is becoming an increasingly attractive patent filing destination for foreign companies, foreign counsels are often confused by the country’s inventive step requirement. Indeed, Chinese patent examiners often use abstract legal terms, such as “prominent substantive features” and “notable progress,” in their inventive step analysis. This article provides an overview of the inventive step requirement in China, in comparison with the non-obviousness standard in the United States.

Christmastime is here again, and IPWatchdog is back with the 2020 edition of our Christmas list for patent attorneys. If you have a patent attorney in your life and you have no clue what to get them, the following options should provide you with a few good ideas for gifts—from smaller stocking stuffers to very practical gifts that will show your patent attorney that you’re serious about helping them succeed in their professional life. Merry Christmas!

In a previous piece, we covered the top five patent developments of the year in Europe. Here, we review some of the key cases and legislation that shaped 2020 in other areas of IP, including trademarks, copyright, design and legislative actions. At number one, in its judgment in Sky v SkyKick (Case C-371/18) in January, the CJEU said that an EU trademark cannot be invalidated for lack of clarity and precision, and provided guidance on what constitutes bad faith. The decision reassured owners of trademarks in Europe, who had feared that many marks would be invalidated if the Advocate General’s Opinion were followed.

This year saw its fair share of high profile trademark cases: the Second Circuit vacated Tiffany & Co.’s $25 million summary judgment win against Costco Wholesale Corp. in a dispute over Costco’s use of the word “Tiffany” to identify a specific type of six-prong diamond ring setting in Tiffany and Co. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 74 (2d Cir. 2020);* the District Court for the Southern District of New York held that the First Amendment protects the use of Humvees in the acclaimed video game Call of Duty from claims of trademark infringement and dilution, and unfair competition in AM General LLC v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 450 F. Supp. 3d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2020).; and the District Court for the Western District of Texas refused to grant a “Brizzy” hard seltzer brand a preliminary injunction against Molson Coors over a competing “Vizzy” product because both names were based on the common descriptive term fizzy in Future Proof Brands, LLC v. Molson Coors Beverage, 2020 WL 3578327 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2020), aff’d, 2020 WL 7064607 (5th Cir. Dec. 3, 2020). But among all of the cases, a select few stand out as ones that have shaped trademark law and are already having an impact that may last for years to come.

Greek philosopher Heraclitus is credited with saying “the only thing that is constant is change.”  In 2020, life for everyone changed, including for those in the intellectual property (IP) sphere. There were changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), in IP litigation, client activities and business development. Looking into the crystal ball, we believe some of those changes are here for good, while others are not.

It’s the time of year to reflect upon the cases and trends that have shaped IP over the past 12 months. Here are our picks for the top five in patents from Europe. First, it’s been a year of ups and downs for the EU’s attempt to create a Unitary Project and Unified Patent Court. (UPC) In March, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court said that the Act of Approval of the UPC Agreement in the country was void as not enough members were present at the vote. Following the UK government’s decision that it would withdraw from the project, the Court’s decision was seen as potentially a terminal blow.

What intellectual property (IP) rights achieve, and for whom, is a mystery to most people, including heads of state. President-elect Biden’s ambitious plan to support all of America’s workers through R&D investment, inclusion and by combatting IP theft from China, ‘Made in All of America,’ is well-timed. But it is unlikely to have the desired impact without the backing of reliable IP rights. Biden’s initiatives will require capital and non-contentious licensing to succeed. Good intentions aside, without support from a fully functioning IP system, do not expect America’s workers to be in a position to cash in on research and startups or to challenge China’s stated goal to dominate in areas of innovation and technology by 2025.  

One of the uniquely fascinating aspects of trade secret disputes is that they are laced with unbridled emotions, accusations of treachery, and actors who angrily disagree over basic facts. In other words, they provide a perfect metaphor for the year 2020. Let’s take a look back at the cases this year that are worthy of comment, either because they involved some unusual set of facts or because they provide useful guidance for behaving better in 2021.