Sustainability, while not a new concept, has gained significant traction in recent times. However, amidst the overwhelming amount of data available globally on this topic, extracting meaningful insights for a data-driven strategy has become increasingly challenging. Numerous corporations have made voluntary commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, which is a commendable step toward decarbonizing their respective industries. Nonetheless, monitoring the actual progress made through these commitments presents a formidable challenge.
Regime change is upon on us! You two [Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy] have been identified among those who will have considerable influence on policy and procedure for various government enterprise in the coming presidential administration. Hence, I write this letter in the hope it may affect your thinking as to the patent system and its current implementation in the United States. I write on behalf of a culture that has, for 200-plus years, believed a better tomorrow is made possible by the innovation of today.
Part I of our summary concluded with a discussion about the potential impact of the recent U.S. Federal elections on the regulation of patents relating to industry standards, including with respect to the availability of injunctive relief. We pick up our discussion on a related note, by turning to the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), where the primary remedy is an exclusion order.
For Christmas Day—and this year the start of Hanukkah as well!—IPWatchdog is back with its annual list of top technologies from patents issued this year by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This time around, the list features a host of semiconductor technologies, reflecting the critically important nature of computer chips to today’s international economy. Artificial intelligence is another recurring theme that often intersects with microprocessor innovations, as this year’s list underscores. A few of this year’s selections also reflect the still uncertain nature of patent validity law, which may or may not wind up threatening some of the patent rights featured below.
Cox Communications is the latest to file a brief in the battle between it and Sony Music Entertainment over whether an internet service provider (ISP) should be liable for infringement by its subscribers. According to Cox’s brief in opposition to Sony’s petition for certiorari, “[p]etitioners want to make a terrible situation even worse.” Music publishers including Sony, Arista Records, Warner Music and Universal Music Group filed copyright claims against Cox in July 2018, alleging that Cox was liable for the infringement of 10,017 musical works that were illegally distributed by the ISP’s subscribers. A 2020 jury verdict found that Cox liable for both vicarious and contributory infringement, leading to a $1 billion damages verdict against Cox after damages were increased for the jury’s willfulness finding.
Over the last six months, only 6.3% of Federal Circuit actions have been precedential patent decisions. If so little of what the Federal Circuit is doing relates to patents, why do we need or want a “patent court”? Meanwhile, what decisions the Federal Circuit does issue are panel dependent and show not a care in the world about the court’s original mandate, which was to create a unified national patent law and recognize that at least some patents have to be valid and enforced. And now, over the last two years, we have an inexplicable usurpation of authority with the virtual impeachment of Judge Newman. If these judges are so unfamiliar with basic due process and the opportunity to be fairly heard, why should anyone believe they are themselves competent to be judges on any level? The Federal Circuit is a mess.
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we have a special episode. At the end of September we held our annual all-topics conference, which we call IPWatchdog LIVE. This conference brings together some of the top thought leaders and newsmakers from the entire industry, with a variety of different backgrounds and people who focus on various different niche verticals within the IP community. So, while the conference was ongoing, Eileen McDermott, our editor in chief, asked some of the industry leaders in attendance what they thought was the most important issue facing the intellectual property industry.
Our conversation this week focuses on Spaceport Technologies, which is a technology company that enables brand owners to monetize their IP and game platforms to offer content creators the ability to license the use of those brands within their game environment. To provide these licensed in-game experiences Spaceport uses innovative technology that reduces transaction costs and allows for the monetization of intellectual property assets. In fact, through the use of Spaceport protocols and apps the acquisition of rights and payment for those rights through numerous small dollar value transactions is not just faster and easier, the deals actually become possible.
With the process for requesting Director Review formally codified as of October 31, 2024, the evolving landscape of intellectual property law continues to be shaped by another avenue of decision-making from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Among the developments in the second half of 2024, USPTO Director Review decisions addressed issues ranging from obviousness determinations and claim construction to procedural considerations under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). These decisions not only refine the parameters of inter partes review (IPR) but also illuminate broader implications for patent practitioners and stakeholders navigating the patent system. This article explores Director Review decisions from the second half of the year, providing insights into their practical consequences for practitioners.
This year was an eventful one for trademark law—from reiterating the importance of “association” under the Lanham Act, to dispelling the notion that foreign conduct can create liability, to re-working the protection of expressive works after Jack Daniel’s. Below outlines a few of the important trademark decisions from 2024 and cases we are watching in 2025.
This week we explore small and medium sized enterprises, often referred to simply as SMEs. And in particular, we take a look at how two different countries are working with their own small businesses to assist them with respect to innovation and intellectual property. To accomplish this, I turned to two friends – Mike McLean and Joe Doyle, who work to assist SMEs in Canada and Ireland respectively. Both Mike and Joe were in the United States at the end of September to speak at IPWatchdog LIVE 2024, on a panel titled Empowering SME Growth by Leveraging IP. During our conversation we learn about the ways both the Canadian and Irish governments are supporting SMEs, which is something that we in the United States should be doing to a much greater and coordinated degree.
András Jókúti is an intellectual property lawyer, former Director-General for Legal Affairs of the Hungarian Intellectual Property Office, and he is a former Fulbright Scholar. Since January 2022, András has served as the Director of the Patent and Technology Law Division at World Intellectual Property Organization. András came to the United States last week to speak at IPWatchdog LIVE 2024, which was hosted at the Renaissance Capitol View hotel in Arlington, Virginia.
This week in Other Barks & Bites: OpenAI explains its defensive patent strategy in a short blog post; GlaxoSmithKline sues Moderna for patent infringement related to the COVID-19 vaccine; and patent offices from the European Union, Japan, and the United States meet to discuss collaborative strategies for sustainable innovation.
This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.
Get Email UpdatesNo Upcoming Industry Events
Check back later or promote your own!