Posts Tagged: "technology"

This week on Capitol Hill, the House of Representatives is in recess but in the Senate, committee hearings will focus on the rescheduled oversight hearing for the U.S. Copyright Office, regulatory frameworks for cryptocurrencies and blockchain, and implementation of positive train control technologies. Elsewhere in Washington, D.C., the Brookings Institution will look at international threats to American space security while the Center for Strategic and International Studies will host an event with multiple panels exploring innovation and security issues in 5G networks. Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office also hosted an event in Alexandria, VA, discussing the agency’s trademark auditing program.

In recognition of China’s increasing importance in the global IP landscape, patent applications in China by U.S.-based applicants have steadily increased in recent years. Data compiled by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in its World Intellectual Property Indicators 2017 and 2018 reports show the number of regular patent applications in China filed by U.S.-based applicants increasing by about 14% from 2016 to 2017. Over the same period, the number of U.S. utility patent applications filed by U.S.-based applicants fell by about 0.5%. Whatever the story is behind these numbers, U.S.-based applicants are clearly interested in obtaining patent protection in China, and China is courting that interest. Most U.S.-based applicants will naturally gravitate toward protecting their inventions using China’s so-called “invention” patent. This is China’s counterpart to a U.S. utility patent. But China also has the world’s most active utility model system. In many cases, a U.S. patent application could be filed as either a utility model application or an invention application in China. In recent years, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) has been quietly updating its utility model system by increasing the degree to which utility model applications are substantively examined.

In the final installment of my interview with three examiners at the European Patent Office (EPO), we wrap up our conversation about their approaches to examining computer implemented inventions, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), and how the EPO system compares with the U.S. patent examination system.

In Part II of my interview with three examiners at the European Patent Office (EPO), we continue the conversation about their advice, pet peeves, and approaches to examining computer implemented inventions, particularly in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), and how the EPO system compares with the U.S. patent examination system.

On July 15, retired Federal Circuit Chief Judge Paul Michel filed an amicus brief in Qualcomm’s appeal of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) antitrust case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The following day, the United States government filed a statement of interest with the appellate court as well. Both parties filed in support of Qualcomm’s request for a partial stay of an injunction handed down this May in the Northern District of California, which requires Qualcomm to license its standard essential patents (SEPs) to modem-chip suppliers after determining that the company’s “no license, no chips” policy violated U.S. antitrust law.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: Senators Rubio and Cornyn introduce a bill to prevent Huawei from buying and selling U.S. patents; the CASE Act to create a small claims system for copyright claims is voted onto the Senate floor; the USPTO releases an updated trial practice guide for America Invents Act trials at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; IBM increases its blockchain patent filings, while carbon mitigation patent filings have dropped around the world; Google faces patent lawsuit for “brazen” infringement; a settlement in a trademark case allows historic Yosemite sites to resume use of their names; and Microsoft boost in cloud sales in the latest quarter leads to a big beat on revenue.

I recently visited Egypt as part of a team led by the Departments of State and Agriculture, supported by the good folks at the AUTM Foundation. Egypt, like many countries, is looking at our model for integrating research universities into their economy. I was asked to speak about the Bayh-Dole Act and thought it was important to emphasize that there were many factors required beyond enacting a law to reverse an entrenched national policy. On returning, I was struck by Gene Quinn’s article “It May Be Time to Abolish the Federal Circuit.” After leaving the Senate staff, I became Executive Director of the Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO). Our highest priority was creating the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to restore confidence in the U.S. patent system. Framed in my office is a very gracious thank you note from Judge Howard Markey, who inspired this effort and went on to become the first Chief Judge of the new court. Judge Markey was the only person I ever met with an unending supply of funny patent jokes, but that’s another story. Unlike Bayh-Dole, that effort appears to have gone off track. So why did one change stick and one not?

Last week, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued 39 decisions regarding petitions for inter partes review (IPR) patent validity proceedings, instituting 26. Eight of those proceedings involve major tech firms Samsung, ZTE, Huawei and LG Electronics, all of which won on motions to join previous Google IPRs filed to challenge a pair of Cywee Group patents. Qualcomm also faces a trio of IPRs brought by Intel to challenge the validity of a patent involved in the now-settled legal battle with Apple.

Case filings at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), a popular venue for resolving intellectual property disputes, reached record levels in 2018, and 2019 appears likely to be another busy year. In fact, there have already been a number of important decisions, including one in Qualcomm’s high-profile battle with Apple relating to the public interest, one making it clear that the ITC has jurisdiction over those only indirectly involved in infringement, and an opinion addressing the overlap between the ITC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as well as  the ITC’s ability to police misleading advertising and labeling of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and dietary supplements.

Management of trade secrets is fraught with competing interests. There is the tradeoff between security and inconvenience—for example, the annoying wait for a special code to allow “two-factor identification” when you already have your password handy. There is trusting your employees while knowing they might leave to join a competitor. And there is the tension between corporate secrecy and the public interest, such as when the fire department insists on knowing what toxic chemicals are used in your facility. And now we have the cloud (like “internet,” its ubiquity merits lower case), which offers unparalleled convenience and flexibility to outsource corporate data management to others. But moving IT functions outside the enterprise creates new vulnerabilities for that data, which happens to be the fastest growing and most valuable category of commercial assets. So understanding this environment has to be a high priority for business managers.

A hearing of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law held yesterday examined whether big tech companies—Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple—are becoming too powerful and deterring innovation. In “Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 2: Innovation and Entrepreneurship,” Subcommittee Chair, Representative David Cicilline (D-RI), said that Google controls search, Amazon controls nearly half of all online U.S. commerce, Facebook captures over 80% of global social media revenue, and Apple has total power over their customers’ devices. In his opening statement, Cicilline took issue with the 30% commission Apple charges on every developer sale in the first year, and 15% thereafter, pointing to this year’s Supreme Court decision in Apple v. Pepper which held that iPhone owners can sue Apple for monopolizing the retail market for the sale of apps, thereby raising prices for consumers. “A former Apple executive who oversaw app store approvals for seven years has also described Apple as having ‘complete and unprecedented power over their customers’ devices and using this power as a weapon against competitors,’” Cicilline said.

With more dissents than any other Federal Circuit Judge in history,  Judge Pauline Newman is driven by a need to safeguard our national system of innovation. Judge Newman has argued throughout the years that the Federal Circuit was created to rebuild and renew the patent system to encourage and incentivize industry, which is precisely the purpose both the Carter and Reagan Administrations had in mind when advocating for the creation of the Federal Circuit, which ultimately took form in 1982. Judge Newman has no qualms about speaking out in dissents when the objective of the Federal Circuit to bring certainty to U.S. patent laws is being hindered, in her view, by the majority, regardless of the complexities or dollar-values at stake in the case. In fact, in one interview she declared, “I have not hesitated to comment when I think that a panel isn’t going in quite [the] appropriate direction. Others have felt that perhaps I haven’t gone in quite the appropriate direction . . . . [A]ll in all it seems to me that it’s quite healthy to present a certain amount of turmoil to practitioners in the short run. But in the long-run I think the law is better for it.” George C. Beighley, Jr., “The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit: Has It Fulfilled Congressional Expectations?,” 21 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 671, 675–76 (2011). Clearly, she is interested in getting the law right for the greater good as she sees it, regardless of the impact her dissent may have on relationships or status quo.

The United States is looking to antitrust law to break up big tech. Later today, for example, the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law will be meeting for a hearing on “Online Platforms and Market Power, Part 2: Innovation and Entrepreneurship.” Unfortunately, this may have become necessary, but it will not solve the problem of big tech monopolies. That can only be solved by understanding how big tech creates megamarkets and how they use shadow patent systems to regulate and perpetuate their monopolies—a power traditionally reserved for sovereigns. A patent is nothing but an exclusive right. All it can do is remove an infringer from the market. That incredible power enables startups to attract investment, commercialize new technologies, and challenge incumbents. The value of a patent is dependent on demand and market size. Since national borders establish the market size, the larger the country, the larger the market, and the more valuable a patent can become. But big tech markets are not restricted to national borders, so they get larger. Apple has 1.4 billion active devices reaching four times the 327 million population of the United States.

The extent to which the existence of a patent system will promote “the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to … inventors the exclusive rights to their … discoveries” depends on whether patent applications are examined in an unbiased manner and without undue delay. Some patent applicants and some patent practitioners have been fortunate and have generally observed reasonable timeliness and action by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Others have had a very different experience with the agency. Documents from a pending case at the Federal Court in the Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) illustrate one of those circumstances. The story outlined in this case may help shape patent practitioners’ and applicants’ strategies with respect to monitoring for unreasonable examination behaviors and identifying strategies to confront any such situations—both with respect to individual patent applications and to policy-level approaches.

This week features a busy schedule of hearings on Capitol Hill involving technology, innovation and intellectual property topics. In the House of Representatives, the House Financial Services Committee will get their chance to vet Facebook’s Libra cryptocurrency, while other hearings focus on wireless spectrum policy, antitrust issues posed by Internet platforms, as well as issues facing the U.S. trademark system, including counterfeits and register cluttering. In the Senate, Google censorship, oversight of the U.S. Copyright Office and NASA’s plans to send a manned mission to Mars will be under the microscope. Elsewhere, the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation explores the current state of robotics and how they can help American productivity.