Posts Tagged: "intellectual property"

District court patent filings remained unusually high this week (97), with 40 Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cases filed (one Covered Business Method, one Post Grant Review, and 38 Inter Partes Reviews). This week’s spike was driven in part by suits brought by Rothschild subsidiaries, but almost entirely (and this is true throughout this year) by the superlatively aggressive filing strategies of WSOU, who refiled or newly filed 35 suits this week in the Western District of Texas. Controlling for those 35 file/refile complaints, this week looks like a much more reasonable 65 or so new patent suits. That said, if we continue to see 100 weekly suits (or even a little less), that’s more than 4,000 projected suits in 2020.

For the past 60 years, scientists have been able to utilize artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and other technological advances to “promote the general science …”. U.S. courts have increasingly come under pressure to not only allow AI-directed applications as patentable subject matter, but also from a small yet determined and growing contingency of IP professionals, to recognize the AIs themselves as the inventors. The EPO recently handed down guidance that AI could not be recognized as inventors on patent applications. The purpose of this piece is not to debate the merits of whether or not AI should be given inventor status on applications which, it has been argued, they are rightly due—nor should it be. It is important, however, to peek beyond the looking glass into a future where AI are given status in the United States that has, as of the writing of this piece, been reserved for human beings. Let’s explore a few main issues.

The case of the “garage door opener,” The Chamberlain Group v. Techtronic Industries, Inc., has received its share of attention. Rightly so. The case, after all, spotlights not only the breadth of the Supreme Court’s Mayo-Alice test for assessing patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101; but also the Federal Circuit’s particular “directed to” definition for that test and the dissection of patent claims that has followed.
And it fairly asks, in a petition to the Supreme Court, that if a claim on a garage door opener is “directed to” an “abstract idea” and thus ineligible for patent protection—is any patent, or any technology, safe from the Mayo-Alice ineligibility test? Chamberlain says no. From the outset, its petition declares that its case therefore presents a “patent emergency,” one that the Supreme Court must review to stop the Mayo-Alice test—and the Federal Circuit’s “directed-to” version of it—from expanding into, and negating, claims in every subject imaginable.

On June 3, independent foundation Bertelsmann Stiftung published a study titled “World class patents in cutting-edge technologies – The innovation power of East Asia, North America and Europe,” which examined how individual countries have advanced in the development and filing of “world class patents” between 2000 and 2019.  The study considered “world class patents” to be the most important 10% of patents filed in 58 cutting-edge technologies grouped into the following ten categories: environment, energy, nutrition, infrastructure, digitalization, security, materials, health, mobility, and industry.

For months now, the news has been plastered with updates on COVID-19, the novel coronavirus that has upended lives and trickled into near every facet of the modern experience. Across the political aisle, consumers and producers are questioning the current level of reliance on Chinese production for drugs, ventilators, and masks. Despite these concerns, most manufacturing alternatives, including India, are still working to reestablish normalcy, making China even more indispensable. Realistically, China is and will remain the dominant player for outsourcing production for at least the next five years. Now that Chinese factories are producing close to their full capacity, foreign investors should refocus their attention to newfound legal issues that may complicate the supply chain.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today reversed a district court decision awarding attorney’s fees to Luv n’ Care Ltd. (LNC) against Munchkin, Inc. The Federal Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion in granting LNC’s motion for attorney’s fees as “LNC’s fee motion insufficiently presented the required facts and analysis needed to establish that Munchkin’s patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement claims were so substantively meritless to render the case exceptional.” The Court also pointed to its recent ruling in Amneal Pharmaceuticals v. Almirall regarding attorney’s fees with respect to Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) proceedings, though it did not reach that issue in the present case. The opinion was authored by Judge Chen.

The COVID-19 pandemic and widespread shelter-in-place orders have hit every corner of the country’s economy, including tech companies of all sizes. Many tech companies have traditionally maintained large patent portfolios to enhance company value and for defensive reasons—i.e. to dissuade competitors from filing suit. But monetizing these dormant patent assets—which can cost a great deal to simply maintain—may provide a solution during these difficult economic times. We of course do not recommend asserting any IP right that could hinder a coronavirus cure or treatment. But for companies with large patent portfolios in computer, server, software, and other hardware-related technology, the economic times may be right to monetize those assets, and luckily, the law is trending in favor of patent holders both in district courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

On June 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) denied a request by Almirall for attorney fees incurred for work on an inter partes review (IPR) and for work done in connection with a motion before the Federal Circuit in Amneal Pharmaceuticals v. Almirall…. The CAFC explained that it does not appear that it has ‘had occasion to consider to what extent section 285 applies to IPR appeals’ and said that the plain meaning of section 285’s reference to “the court”, suggests that fees should only be awarded if they ‘were incurred during, in close relation to, or as a direct result of, judicial proceedings,’ which did not include USPTO proceedings.

Earlier this week, the Senate IP Subcommittee met to hear from two panels of witnesses about whether and how to reform the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for the 21st Century. In the first panel, representatives for big tech and academia were juxtaposed with successful artist Don Henley of the Eagles and prolific author and Authors Guild President Douglas Preston—with tech arguing that changes to the DMCA to strengthen copyright protections would cripple the internet as we know it, and Henley and Preston painting a grim future for musicians and authors if the system is not significantly overhauled. The second panel was divided along similar lines.

On May 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Odyssey Logistics and Technology Corporation v. Iancu in which the appellate court affirmed the Eastern District of Virginia’s dismissal of claims filed against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The Federal Circuit agreed with the lower court that Odyssey’s challenges to the USPTO’s rules and procedures governing ex parte appeals at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or were barred by the six-year statute of limitations for actions against the U.S. governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2401.

In a follow-up to a decision earlier this month blocking an attempt by Palomar Technologies, Inc. to bar new prior art references based on IPR estoppel, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on May 28 has now granted a motion for summary judgment by MRSI Systems, LLC (MRSI), holding U.S. Patent No. 6,776,327 invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. The district court concluded that the ’327 Patent was directed to the abstract idea of placing an item at an intermediate location before moving it to a final one in order to increase the accuracy of the final placement and is applicable to an ‘almost infinite breadth of applications.

In part one of this series, I outlined the preliminary steps I took on behalf of my client “Bill” to initiate Amazon’s Neutral Patent Evaluation Process. In part two, I will describe the substantive procedure of the evaluation process and its successful resolution…. Overall, Bill and I were extremely pleased with the speed and efficiency of the evaluation process and delighted with the outcome. Moving forward, Bill requested that my firm monitor Amazon for additional infringing products. Because we have already participated in the Neutral Patent Evaluation Process and obtained a favorable outcome, Bill and I will simply report any future infringers to Amazon without having to initiate the evaluation process for a second time.

In the first part of a two-panel hearing today on whether the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is working for the 21st Century, Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Ranking Member Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) said he was struck by the conclusion of a recent Copyright Office report that found that Congress’ original intended balance for section 512 “has been tilted askew.” Subcommittee Chairman, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), added that fixing the problems may require designing an entirely new system, as “the grand bargain of the DMCA is no longer working and not achieving the policy goals intended.”

Intellectual property (IP) is a “bridge to collaboration” between companies, and not just a “weapon of competitive warfare.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) launched an IP licensing marketplace, “Patents 4 Partnerships” (P4P), on May 4 that is a platform furthering this ideology. The P4P platform is initially being limited to technologies related to COVID-19 to address the ongoing pandemic. However, USPTO Director Andrei Iancu seems prepared to expand the platform to include other technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI) innovations and cancer treatments, based on interest and engagement during this pilot phase.

On May 26, Zaxcom filed an appeal brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) requesting review of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision in which the PTAB invalidated claims directed to Zaxcom’s award winning wireless microphone technology.  Zaxcom appealed the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding, which was filed by Lectrosonics, Inc., arguing that the PTAB misconstrued the patent claims and failed to properly consider evidence of industry praise.