Posts Tagged: "Licensing"

Hopefully, you’ve been fortunate enough—at least once in your life—to work for someone you really admired. That happened to me as a Senate Judiciary Committee staffer for Senator Birch Bayh (D-IN), who gave me the opportunity that changed my life. He turns 91 today… Bayh-Dole not only cut through the bureaucratic red tape strangling the development of federally-funded R&D; it marked a turning point in how patents were viewed in Congress. When I first joined the Committee, patents were considered tools for big business to stifle competition. Intellectual property fell under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopolies. The Senate Small Business Committee was a hot bed of anti-patent sentiment.

The U.S. Copyright Office recently published a Notice in the Federal Register regarding Title I of the Orrin G. Hatch – Bob Goodlatte Music Modernization Act (MMA). This section of the law created a new blanket licensing system that governs the licensed uses of musical works by digital music providers. In this recent notice, the Copyright Office is seeking input to identify entities which are appropriate for inclusion in the Mechanical Licensing Collective (MLC) that will manage the new blanket licensing system.

As the new year begins, I’ve been reflecting on what makes patent practitioners highly valuable to their clients. In a prior IPWatchdog article, I asserted that one should aspire to practice as an intellectual property counselor—who leverages patent prosecution as one strategic tool among many, rather than narrowly conceptualizing his or her role. What about the day-to-day acts of preparing and prosecuting a patent application? Here are ten concrete steps IP counselors can take to advance their clients’ interests and distinguish themselves from their peers.

The Qualcomm decision is unique in that it appears to be the first decision to require a SEP holder to license its patented technology to its competitors, and not just its downstream customers, on FRAND terms.  This decision casts doubt on the longstanding practice, common in industries such as the telecommunication and automotive industries, in which SEP holders seek to secure “FRAND” licenses with downstream companies that make finished products, while refusing to license (or licensing on non-FRAND terms) those same SEPs to their competitors or other companies further up the supply chain (such as component suppliers).  The decision also emphasizes U.S. courts’ focus on the express language of SSOs’ IPR policies and the willingness to review the SSO guidelines in interpreting the agreements SEP holders enter into with SSOs.  In this regard, the decision may bode well for SEP implementers, given the court’s broad understanding of what it means to “practice” a relevant standard and its view that SEP holders’ FRAND obligations extend to all potential licensees, irrespective of their position in the supply chain.

When it comes to gathering information prior to settling on a prospective licensee, less is certainly not more. For this reason, companies angling to license software must not be shy about asking the questions presented here. Without a doubt, by learning as much as possible about potential partners before finalizing agreements, software licensors can significantly minimize downside risk. Appropriate due diligence is the means to that end. Whether by way of a thorough licensing application or more in-depth background investigation conducted by legal counsel, a licensor’s complete grasp of a licensee’s work, reputation, experience, reach, financial condition, litigation history and potential conflicts of interest will go a long way to ensure a successful licensing relationship.

The US Patent Office – of which the PTAB is a part – issues patents.  That’s why it exists.  So if the PTAB finds an error in a granted patent, fix it.  Maybe that fix renders the patent so narrow it’s worthless in the market.  If so, that’s the applicant’s issue.  The point is that all the components of the Patent Office should be resources for inventors, not adversaries, working to issue valid patents.  As Director Iancu says, “It is a new day at the PTAB! All these enhancements advance Dir. Iancu’s underlying theme, forcefully emphasized at numerous venues over the last months:  Cherish our patent system’s enabling capabilities, and as necessary, propose narrowly-tailored solutions that address actual shortcomings.  In other words, ex ante, would anyone have seriously proposed the Alice decision as the most surgical way to deal with abusive demand letters sent to coffee shops?

University discoveries are recognized as critical national assets because Bayh-Dole gave academic institutions the ability to own and manage inventions made with federal funding. The law helped lift the economy out of the doldrums of the 1970’s, re-establishing America’s leadership in every field of technology…. While the critics argue that Cohen-Boyer would have had the same impact without patent protection, there are other more likely scenarios. It could have languished on the shelf as did many other published, but not patented, discoveries. It took a lot of work from Reimers before U.S. companies recognized its potential. That effort would not have been made to promote a scientific paper.

It would be a tragic mistake to blame federal tech transfer underperformance on Bayh-Dole. Bayh-Dole needs no amending. Bayh-Dole demonstrates how secure patent rights are the lynchpin to society’s getting the greatest benefit from federal research dollars.

It continually amazes me that many business folks who negotiate tons of IP license agreements, fail to understand the difference between covenants, representations, and warranties that are “standard” in many such agreements.  Well, that is not too surprising.  What is very surprising, however, is that many of their lawyers fail to appreciate the differences as well!  Many think the terms are synonymous and thus use them interchangeably. They are not.  So, for those of you tired of faking the funk, here is some (either fresh or refresher) Contracts 101!

On Thursday, August 9th, San Diego, CA-based semiconductor developer Qualcomm Inc. announced that it reached a mutually agreed settlement with the Taiwan Fair Trade Commission (TFTC) which greatly reduces the financial penalty assessed to Qualcomm by the TFTC for antitrust issues. Although the TFTC will retain about $93 million USD in fines which have been paid by Qualcomm through July, the settlement eliminates the remainder of the original fine valued at $773 million USD and issued by Taiwan’s fair trade regulator last October.

Some circuit courts have held that a work is “registered” and the copyright owner can sue an infringer as soon as the applicant files the application, deposits a copy of the work and pays a fee.  This is known as the “application” approach.  Other circuit courts follow the “registration” approach which requires the Copyright Office to act on the application—by examining it and either approving or refusing it—before the copyright owner may file suit. So, which approach is correct? We should soon have an answer as the United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corporation v Wall-Street.com, LLC to resolve this issue and finally decide what it means to be “registered.”

The latest television technology (4K) contains four times the number of pixels as 1080p (full HD). Without HEVC, broadcasters wanting to transmit programs in 4K quality face the challenge of needing high quality broadband reception to make 4K broadcasts a reality. A benefit of HEVC is that it makes broadcasting 4K more feasible – reducing both the cost and time it takes to deliver high quality programming. While the technology is anticipated to be used in almost all video processors and display devices in the future, adoption remains slow because of a complex licensing scenario.

Certain innovations—known as enabling technologies—provide the foundation for progress across a range of industries. Enabling technologies include mobile wireless, the laser, CT scanners, the microprocessor, artificial intelligence, and freight containerization. Such technologies drive wealth creation throughout the economy. However, the difficulties associated with monetizing this type of IP, which I explore in this article, mean that private enterprise tends to underinvest in new enabling technologies. Public policy needs to be more supportive, and firms need to be willing to support more blue-sky projects. As a nation, we are harvesting the fruits of old enabling technologies without investing sufficiently in new ones. We are eating our seed corn.

iPEL announced its Initial License Offering, available only through the end of 2018, which provides all companies an opportunity to secure a license to iPEL’s entire worldwide patent portfolio, through one of two licensing programs: (1) free licenses for small businesses and startups, and (2) paid licenses for larger businesses.

Corephotonics allegedly first informed Apple that it intended to pursue patent protections for its dual-aperture camera technologies as early as June 2012 during a meeting involving representatives of both firms. In June 2013, Apple camera engineers visited Corephotonics’ Tel Aviv headquarters and were presented with technical details and architectures regarding Corephotonics’ camera technology as well as pending patent applications which the Israeli startup had already filed. In October of that year, a larger team of Apple engineers visited Corephotonics in Tel Aviv to engage in discussions surrounding dual camera processing methods.