IP-protected innovation is now the principal driver of corporate value and is driving economic growth nationally. Developing an IP portfolio is now a basic requirement even for tech startups that hope to raise early stage financing… A large portion of the market cap of Silicon Valley companies can be directly attributed to intangible – or in other words intellectual property – assets. IP law is the primary tool used to protect the value of that innovation, and as we see from countries without meaningful IP laws there is simply no way to protect innovation absent a strong intellectual property system.
Patent filings relating to 3D printing have increased 23-fold over the last five years, and trademark filings for businesses involved in 3D printing have increased 300 percent over the same time. Obviously, there is great excitement over the promise of 3D printing, but there is also concern about how 3D printing could make it too easy to copy a patented product with a push of a button… Traditionally, it is more important to have patent claims that protect products, components of products, arrangements of products, etc. Future IP will weigh more heavily on ideas and designs, rather than methods, which will be increasingly become difficult to police. These files will serve as proof of an owners’ pre-established rights, and could prove to be a major profit-making source in the future. And while copyrights are susceptible to fair use claims in a way patents are not, copyrights last for an extremely long time (e.g., 70 years beyond the death of the author).
“I am not a robot. My intonation is always different.” — “Donald Trump” “I am not a robot. My intonation is always different.” —”Barack Obama” Presidents Donald Trump and Barack Obama never actually uttered the line, or at least those 10 words in that order. But over at the website Lyrebird.ai, you can play recordings […]
[ed note to students: use the BU lib subscription to WSJ to access this article.]
The current extraterritorial reach of U.S. trade secret law may seem ironic given trade secret law’s “local” roots. In the United States, common law trade secret principles emerged through a diverse patchwork of state court decisions addressing local commercial disputes. These local common law principles were first distilled in the Restatement of Torts and the Restatement of Unfair Competition and then codified in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in 1979. Underscoring the local prerogative of trade secret law, state legislatures modified and tailored the Uniform Trade Secrets Act to reflect their state-specific concerns and needs. For many years, despite a push for national uniformity, a number of states chose not to adopt a statutory scheme at all (some still haven’t).
It’s safe to say that most sectors will undergo significant disruption as a result of artificial intelligence (AI) technology. AI will not only disrupt our business models but it will also disrupt our legal framework for the creation and exploitation of intellectual property (IP) rights, giving rise to new IP challenges for those seeking to develop and deploy new AI systems.
Virtual reality and augmented reality are catching on, and the fashion industry has taken notice. Many of today’s fashion brands are seeing their work being used in this disruptive technology. But, this has caused trademark issues for both fashion companies that want to protect their brands and fashion technology companies that want to bring those brands into the virtual reality world. Moira Lion and Jeff Greene, with the Intellectual Property Group at Fenwick & West, recently sat down with IPWatchdog to discuss how to approach VR innovations as they develop brand protection.
As you may recall, the FTC is pursuing 1-800 Contacts for antitrust violations based on 1-800 Contacts having sued and then settled with competitors who bought keyword ads on 1-800 Contacts’ trademarks. Recently, the FTC filed its “Complaint Counsel’s Corrected Pre-Trial Brief and Exhibits” in the Matter of 1-800 Contacts, Inc. This 90 page document, unfortunately swiss-cheesed by numerous redactions, lays out the FTC’s case. It’s a fascinating read, and I encourage you to read the whole thing. In this post, I’ll flag some of the highlights.
Unlike previous years where we had near unanimity on the biggest moments, this year we see wide variety of thought, from SCOTUS to Capitol Hill to the DOJ… Steve Kunin focus primarily on the Supreme Court patent cases, which Bob Stoll also mentions but then goes on to discuss the lack of momentum for more patent reform and the nomination of a new Director for the USPTO as key moments. Paul Morinville also mentions the political on Capitol Hill, but focuses on Members of Congress not buying into the patent troll narrative like they once did. Erik Oliver focuses on a rebound in the patent market, Alden Abbott sees a pro-innovation, pro-patent Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust as a dramatic shift for the DOJ. Ben Natter, Jess Sblendorio and Alexander Callo focus on the Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam, which declared the prohibition against registering disparaging trademarks unconstitutional.
An exclusive right is more than a mere right of remuneration – it is the right to control the use and disposition of one’s property, and to deny others access to it. Without the fundamental attribute of exclusivity, we lurch toward a system of compulsory licensing, or a private right of individuals to take another’s property on the promise of mere monetary compensation. Under our Constitution, and particularly the Fifth Amendment, or the Takings Clause, even the government does not possess that right except that it be for some demonstrable public – rather than private — use. Thus, to be true to the express language of our Constitution, and respectful of the limits imposed on the Fifth Amendment, the rights inherent in intellectual property necessarily must include a right to exclude others from the enjoyment of that property.
If you’ve read our coverage of the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s “Stupid Patent of the Month” series, you know America has a patent quality problem. People apply for patents on ideas that are obvious, vague, or were invented years earlier. Too often, applications get approved and low-quality patents fall into the hands of patent trolls, creating headaches for real innovators.
Why don’t more low-quality patents get rejected? A recent paper published by the Brookings Institution offers fascinating insights into this question. Written by legal scholars Michael Frakes and Melissa Wasserman, the paper identifies three ways the patent process encourages approval of low-quality patents:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is funded by fees—and the agency gets more fees if it approves an application.
Unlimited opportunities to refile rejected applications means sometimes granting a patent is the only way to get rid of a persistent applicant.
Patent examiners are given less time to review patent applications as they gain seniority, leading to less thorough reviews.
None of these observations is entirely new. For example, we have covered the problems created by unlimited re-applications in the past. But what sets Frakes and Wasserman’s work apart is that they have convincing empirical evidence for all three theories.
