Posts Tagged: "legislation"

On March 4, the European Commission announced that it had levied a fine of more than €1.8 billion ($1.95 billion USD) against American consumer tech giant Apple over app restrictions employed by Apple’s App Store. The massive fine, which the Commission increased to ensure it was sufficiently deterrent to Apple’s anti-competitive practices, is the latest in a series of legal actions within the European Union (EU) to target dominant Internet platforms under competition law.

Panelists on day one of IPWatchdog’s Artificial Intelligence Masters 2024 program painted a sometimes-grim picture of the current state of generative AI (GAI) tools and the ways in which they are being deployed in the United States, but seemed convinced overall that the kinks would be worked out once lawmakers and courts catch up, as they have done with past disruptive technologies.

On February 20, 2024, a Brazilian congress member, Antônio Luiz Rodrigues Mano Júnior (known as Júnior Mano), introduced a bill to amend the national IP Statute (Law #9,279/96) and regulate the ownership of inventions generated by artificial intelligence systems. Bill #303/2024 proposes the addition of a paragraph to Article 6 of the IP Statute, which regulates ownership of inventions, with the following wording: “in the case of inventions autonomously generated by artificial intelligence system, the patent can be requested in the name of the artificial intelligence system that has created the invention, being the artificial intelligence system considered the inventor and owner of rights arising from the invention.”

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made its initial offers to pharmaceutical companies pursuant to the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA), which allows the U.S. Government to “negotiate” Medicare drug prices under a set framework based upon the amount of time a drug has spent on the market. Opponents of the program, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is suing the government over the plan, argue it cannot be characterized as a voluntary negotiation since the affected companies would be subject to onerous excise taxes for refusing to participate and because it would have devastating consequences for patients if companies were to actually pull the affected drugs. The amounts of today’s initial offers were not revealed.

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.

Today, U.S. Representatives María Elvira Salazar (R-FL) and Madeleine Dean (D-PA) introduced the No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications (No AI FRAUD) Act of 2024 to create legal mechanisms by which Americans can prevent unauthorized uses of their likenesses and voices by generative AI platforms. The bill seeks to provide for intellectual property (IP) rights in an individual’s voice and likeness as well as remedies including statutory damages and disgorged profits.

Recently, amendments to the Implementing Regulations of the Chinese Patent Law were issued and will take effect from January 20, 2024. The Regulations align with the revisions made to the Patent Law in 2020 and provide further guidance. The main changes to the new Regulations, as compared with the 2010 version of the Regulations,  can be summarized as follows.

On December 8, 2023, provisional agreement was reached between the European Union (EU) Parliament and the EU Council on the basic content of the new AI Regulation (the “AI Act”) to be implemented as legislation in the EU. The text is still not publicly available as it is subject to certain further refinement over the coming weeks. However, there is information available in the public domain (including press releases issued by the European Union) as to the likely format of the AI Act. Additional background on the legislative process towards the AI Act is available here.

Throughout 2023, a number of legislative initiatives impacting intellectual property rights were introduced in the United States Congress or signed into law by the President. In some instances, these efforts are meant to try and re-balance the various, sometimes competing, interests of the public and the innovators. In other instances, the legislation is aimed at weaponizing the intellectual property right procurement process to reward some and punish others. Various pieces of legislation as well as Executive Directives directed at artificial intelligence also have been introduced at different levels. This piece, however, leaves those AI issues for others to address. Below is a summary of some of the key legislative efforts in 2023 touching on U.S. IP rights.

If you’re reading IPWatchdog, you probably have some familiarity with intellectual property rights, such as patents, copyrights and trademarks. However, one distinct type of intellectual property is often left out and misunderstood. It’s called the right of publicity. While publicity rights are often confused with other types of intellectual property or privacy rights, or mistakenly associated only with famous individuals, they are incredibly important, far-reaching, and deserve much more attention.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice decision alleges that “…merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” And the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) of 2023 alleges that “adding a non-essential reference to a computer by merely stating, ‘do it on a computer’ shall not establish such eligibility.” Clearly, it is assumed that “merely” doing something on a computer or “merely” saying “do it on a computer” is not a desirable thing in the eyes of some; a computer supposedly invalidates the inventive effort and “merely” doing something on a computer is undeserving of even consideration of a patent.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced today that it is launching a pilot program to help promote semiconductor innovation by expediting examination for qualifying patents. The program is meant to support the objectives of President Biden’s Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science Act, which was signed into law in August 2022. The CHIPS and Science Act provided $280 billion in federal funding to encourage the domestic production of semiconductor products in the United States as well as to fund research and development projects in advanced technological fields like quantum computing and artificial intelligence. The law also provides for a $10 billion investment into the development of regional innovation and technology hubs and establishes other programs supporting science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) educational programs.

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court denied inventor Jeffrey Killian’s petition for a rehearing in his case asking the Court to provide clear guidance on – or else throw out – the Alice/Mayo test for patent eligibility. The Supreme Court denied Killian’s original petition in early October, but Killian filed a request for rehearing several weeks later. Killian first filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in April, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB)’s ruling rejecting claims of his U.S. Patent Application No. 14/450,042 under Section 101.

California is poised to become the third state to enact a right to repair law aimed at making it easier for independent repair shops and consumers to repair electronic devices. This might sound well and good—until you think about what it actually means for IP owners. While repair advocates may not care about, or even acknowledge, the IP side of the equation, the not-so-hidden truth of the right to repair movement is that it expands repair opportunities for consumers by taking away the rights of copyright and patent owners. Indeed, the foundational premise of the repair movement is that there is something inherently wrong when an IP owner exercises its right to exclude and imposes a repair restriction. Of course, this lopsided view elevates access over incentives, and it ignores how IP law itself promotes the public good by rewarding creators and innovators for their individual efforts. But, more importantly, it’s not up to the states to second-guess Congress’s judgment.