Archive | Litigation RSS feed for this section

AST’s 2018 patent purchase program is open July 9 – July 20

July 9, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

Patent holders, this year’s version of Allied Security Trust’s Industry Patent Purchase Program, “IP3,” is a good indication of where the demand is highest.

The 2018 fixed price, time-limited program AST and its members are searching for patents primarily in the following categories:

  • Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning
  • Augmented Reality / Virtual Reality
  • Automotive / Transportation Services
  • Blockchain
  • Internet of Things / Connected Devices
  • Smart Home
  • Software / Web Services

Most technologies are no surprise, but others, like Augmented Reality/ Virtual Reality, may encourage lawyers and their clients to revisit portfolios. It is also good to see interest in Software Patents, as well.

The window for submitting patents for sale will be open from July 9 through July 20.

For complete IP3 2018 program details and to submit your patents for sale, go here.

Image source: ast.com

Litigation, News, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Authors to DOJ: “Strong patent rights are vital to U.S. economic and security interests”

June 25, 2018 by Bruce Berman 2 Comments

The United States Supreme Court and the Congress have moved to weaken patents over the past seven years without realizing the inherent danger to national interests.  

“Strong patents rights are vital to the economic and national security interests of this country,” say James Rill and David J. Teece in an article published last week, “The DOJ must Exalt Intellectual Property Rights,” in RealClear Markets.

The article states that the U.S. Department of Justice must use its power to move intellectual property rights like patents into mainstream acceptability, and prevent them from being undermined “under the guise of anti-competitive behavior.”

Authors James Rill, Senior Counsel at Baker & Botts, served as Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust at the U.S. Department of Justice; David J. Teece is Professor in Global Business and director of the Tusher Center for the Management of Intellectual Capital at the Walter A. Haas School of Business UC Berkeley and a renowned economist.

“Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim’s recent policy statements and enforcement actions have re-asserted the historical value of intellectual property rights,” say Rill and Teece.

“He has suggested that the value of these rights have been inappropriately curtailed by the misapplication of antitrust principles, which could threaten the future of U.S. innovation efforts. As a result, AAG Delrahim has begun to restore the balance between antitrust and intellectual property rights, and has moved this important issue to the forefront of antitrust discourse.”

For the full article, go here.

Better Incentives Needed

Also published last week by Professor Teece in Competition Policy International, is a related in-depth article, “Enabling Technology, Social Returns to Innovation, and Antitrust: The Tragedy Of Depressed Royalties.” 

“Empirical studies show that almost all classes of R&D activity are under-supported,” argues Professor Teece. “Two in particular are grossly under-compensated: (a) basic research and (b) enabling (or general purpose) technologies… consideration needs to be given to amplifying, not diminishing, incentives for upstream investment in R&D. Such investment is perhaps among the most precious that society makes.”

Teece cites Nobel Laureate economist Douglass North on the impact of innovation incentives:

Throughout man’s past he has continually developed new techniques, but the pace has been slow and intermittent. The primary reason has been that the incentives for developing new techniques have occurred sporadically. Typically, innovations could be copied at no cost by others and without any reward to the inventor or innovator.

Recent efforts to enlist antitrust as a lever against patents, says Professor Teece, “have threatened to undermine incentives for R&D in several important areas.”

Subtle, theory-based antitrust arguments around patent “hold up” are a handy disguise for implementers and antitrust agencies to use to under-reward and thereby under-incentivize legitimate innovators.

Image source: cjnotebook.com; wsj.com

 

Litigation, News, People, Research, Transactions
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Responsible deal-making is the focus of SF IP conference, 9/18

June 14, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

Responsible IP deal-making – where parties enter into licensing and other agreements mutually – has become something of a lost art. Not long ago, it was a best-practice.

Many companies need to in-license to practice the inventions that cover their products. Similarly,  not every business has the capital to make products from its inventions. Those that do not, may need to out-license. Once a symbiotic relationship that could be effected without the need for litigation, much patent licensing has turned contentious and patent holders who wish to license are seen as bad actors.

“Patent Licensing: The Business of Responsible Licensing” hopes to change that. The location is the Golden Gate Club in San Francisco on September 18.

Post-“Troll” Environment

The day of the so-called “troll,” where licensing businesses armed with nuisance suits forced businesses to settle, is long gone, the victim of increased patent uncertainty and the high cost of litigation.

What is responsible licensing in today’s environment? What are fair and reasonable terms? This conference will examine various sides of the issue.

IP CloseUp readers receive a 15% discount with a promo code or mention they saw this article. (Service providers may not be eligible.)

Participating in the day-long event are licensing executives from Dow, Nokia, Visa, Samsung, Cisco, Intel, among others. Panels include:

  • Building a successful patent licensing strategy
  • The good, the bad, and the ugly of licensing transactions
  • Defining FRAND
  • International licensing
  • Strategic licensing scenarios

There will be ample breaks and time for networking.

For the complete program, go here.

For the list of speakers, here.

To register, go here.

Image source: iammagazine.com; mckinsey.com

 

 

Events, Litigation, News, Places, Research, Transactions
, , , , , , , , , ,

Can the U.S. compete with China without a focused innovation policy?

May 29, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

More nations today have an innovation policy than do not – that is except for the U.S. 

The U.S. not only has no centralized innovation and intellectual property policy, it has no real strategy for making IP rights more meaningful and American businesses more competitive in the wake of initiatives from China.

Some believe it is not the job of policymakers to tinker with free-markets or favor certain industries. Well, that may have worked in the past, but with China committed to dominating global innovation – and with unlimited capital – the U.S. must reexamine its strategies.

What it is not supposed to do is assume that it is business as usual.

The United States has a tendency to repeat past mistakes, such as in the case of so-called “Japan, Inc.,” which devastated the auto and electronics industries with more advanced products. It is currently contending with China, which has approximately ten times the population of Japan and has quadrupled its investment in technology over the past decade.

“US innovation policy: Time for a makeover,” a fresh take on dealing with competition in the Intangible Investor, can be found in the July IAM magazine, out this week, here.

Innovation policy in the United States is mostly a series of suggested strategies and directives from several government agencies and industry organisations primarily designed to address foreign IP infringement (i.e., theft). It is often tied to science and economic policy, and is typically reactive – not proactive.

“Better innovation policy not only permits established industries to compete,” says the Intangible Investor, “it facilitates success for the next generation of inventors, authors, designers and software developers. It also helps to supply context for a confused and wary public susceptible to false media narratives – intellectual property is not the enemy, nor are rights holders and lawyers.”

Enforcement is Not Policy

Trump’s anger about China IP violations, justified or not, does not constitute an innovation policy. Innovation policy is not just about enforcement or supporting the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) curriculum for the next generation of inventors. It is about understanding the current economic and political context and responding as a nation.

“The FAANGs, and others, who dominate the competition and monetize their customers’ information, often without permission, realize they are increasingly symbols of bad business behavior,” Bruce Berman wrote recently in IP Watchdog. “The heat they feel from regulators in Europe and the U.S. will continue to rise.

“IP infringement will come to be seen as an increasingly important part of their bad behavior. The timing is perfect for them to step back and step up and show the leadership they heretofore have ignored regarding IP rights. Movement toward a responsible IP middle ground – a less entrenched position that recognizes others’ rights and actively conveys a greater willingness to share successes, not only defend them, will help to inform a meaningful IP policy.”

Quick-Reading Guide

For further background on U.S. innovation policy, read a timely and insightful perspective on U.S. innovation policy from James Goh, a young Wharton student from Singapore, “Primer: Innovation Policy in the United States.” 

For a linked quick-reading list about innovation and IP policy from the Center for IP Understanding, go to page 4.

Image source: q3research.com; breakinggap.com

 

 

Litigation, News, Places, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Rep. Collins speaks from IP experience at CIPU-GIPC innovation policy forum

May 10, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

On Tuesday an open briefing was held in Washington to better understand U.S. innovation and IP policy. Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA), a supporter of strong and certain IP rights, launched the event with a personal account of his exposure to IP rights growing up in rural Georgia. 

He said that a number of his relatives and neighbors were chicken farmers, “some of whom invented new and more effective processes to produce and process eggs and poultry that were protected under IP law.”

The keynote comments of the Congressman were part of a program, “Innovation Policy and Intellectual Property: Building on a Strong Foundation,” held by the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU), an independent non-profit, and the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), a division of the United Stated Chamber of Commerce.

House Judiciary Committee

Congressman Collins is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and also is on the sub-committee for the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. He was a sponsor of the recently enacted, and broadly supported Music Modernization Act, which passed the House 415-0, and has developed and supported other IP-friendly legislation. “IP is a part of the fabric of the nation,” he said. “American freedom is tied to an effective IP system.”

Other presenters included CIPU board member Marshall Phelps, former Vice President of IP Business and Strategy at Microsoft and prior to that at IBM. Mr. Phelps also served as head of Government Relations for IBM in Washington in the 1980s, and previously was head of Asia-Pacific. He spoke about the threat to technology posed by “Japan, Inc.” in the Eighties, and how the U.S. was able to surmount the threat with the right combination of incentives.

“The threat to IP and innovation from China is real,” said Phelps in his introductory remarks, “but too much policy and the wrong incentives can create bigger problems. Making patent certainty a higher priority should be the first priority. Putting IP properly on the balance sheet would help, too.”

Manny Schecter, Chief Patent Counsel of IBM, also a CIPU director, and president of the Intellectual Property Owners (IPO) Education Foundation, was a panelist, as were, Alan Marco, former USPTO Chief Economist, Rob Atkinson, a pro-IP economist and President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), and Professor Adam Mossoff, an IP scholar and policy expert at George Mason University Scalia School of Law.

Among the goals of the panel was to explore:

  • What is U.S. innovation policy?
  • How does it relate to intellectual property?
  • Who should be responsible for it?
  • How should success be measured?

Audience Response

One the audience members asked if the Supreme Court, with Oil States and several other decisions, was “anti-IP.” The panel did not believe so, but thought that SCOTUS members may be poorly informed about the purpose and use if IP rights.

Another audience member stated the false narratives around phrases like patent “trolls” were part of a long-term “public relations campaign” that has seeded anger and hostility toward IP rights in general. He thought a sustained educational initiative could help to make the role of IP clearer for various audiences.

Image source: GIPC

Events, Litigation, News, People, Places, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Patents for Financial Services Summit to examine IP system health

May 7, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

The 15th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit will gather patent and IP counsel, as well as senior financial executives, to discuss recent trends in financial patent litigation, value, and patentability.

The Summit will be held July 25-26 at the Sheraton Times Square in New York. Presentations include updates on CBMs, IPRs, Oil States vs. Greene, FinTech patents, and strategies to navigate the current IP landscape.

This year’s keynote is Hon. Susan Braden, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The United States Court of Federal Claims is a United States federal court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government. It rules on patent and copyright claims against the government, among other areas.

IP CloseUp readers receive a $200 discount when they use registration code IPC2XX.

Financial and Tech Leaders

Heads of IP, patents or senior IP executives from leading financial institutions and technology companies will be speaking. They include MasterCard, Citigroup, The Hartford, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase. Additionally, the Clearing House Payments Corporation (a consortium of leading banks) will be represented, as will IBM, by Chief Patent Counsel, Manny Schecter.

American Express, Royal Bank of Canada, Visa and Microsoft also will have representatives serving as panelists. Joe Matal, former Acting Director of the USPTO and 2017 PFFS Summit keynote, is a member of the “101: panel.”

Panels titles include:

  • Assess the Health of the U.S. Patent System and Discuss the Erosion of Patent Rights
  • Embrace Change at the PTAB
  • Bitcoin, Alt Coin, and Tokens: A Primer on How Intellectual Property Laws Relate

SPOTLIGHT SESSION:
Pursue §101 Eligibility Reforms

  • IP Considerations for the Digital Transformation of the Financial Services Industry
  • Identify Opportunities for Partnering with FinTech Companies
  • Predict the Future of Cryptocurrencies
  • Explore the Patent Issues Confronting Artificial Intelligence

For the complete program, go here. To register, go here. 

Image source: PatentVue.com

Events, Litigation, News, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Reactions to Oil States show that patent due process is not dead

April 30, 2018 by Bruce Berman 3 Comments

Two days before World IP Day, on April 24, the Supreme Court of the United States relinquished significant judicial authority for patents to the executive branch in Oil States Energy v. Greene’s Energy.   

This decision upheld the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Review Board. The Wall Street Journal stated in a thoughtful and uncharacteristically nuanced commentary, “This process [the inter partes review] was intended to discourage frivolous patent litigation, but is susceptible to political bias.”

Oil States overturns 200 years of judicial precedent and allows the federal government to revoke patents. Dissenting were Justice Gorsuch, President Trump’s appointee, and Chief Justice John Roberts.

” …the purpose of patents, which is to encourage innovation and reward investment, will be undermined if they can be nullified without due process and hearing before an Article III judge,” the WSJ concluded.

The WSJ’s editorial page got it right, even if SCOTUS did not.

Sin of Omission

James Carmichael and Brad Close writing in IP Watchdog, “Despite Oil States, IPRs May Still be Unconstitutional,” reminds patent holders that the Court, by its own admission (or should that be “omission”?), ruled on a very narrow area of law and may have left the door open to further decisions that will strengthen patents.

“What was unfortunately never addressed in Oil States, and which the court specifically left the door open for, was that patents rights are still property rights for the purpose of Due Process–the inference being that IPRs may fail under the Due Process or Takings Clause.  Indeed the court seemed to lament that Oil States did not challenge the retroactive application of IPRs and their constitutional sufficiency on a broader basis.”

Carmichael and Close cite the justices tone in their written decision:

We emphasize the narrowness of our holding. We address the constitutionality of inter partes review only… our decision should not be misconstrued as suggesting that patents are not property for the purpose of the Due Process Clause or the Takings Clause.

Justice Gorsuch wrote that until recently, most everyone considered an issued patent a personal right—no less than a home or farm—that the federal government could revoke only with the concurrence of independent judges.

Dig In

Oil States did not go well for patent holders, but that was no surprise. What was somewhat unexpected was a strong stance from the US’ leading business periodical, the Wall Street Journal, about the shortsightedness of the Court’s decision, and that the Chief Justice and another member of SCOTUS also were not in favor of constitutionality for PTAB reviews.

Further judicial review of patents and patentability, if not the PTAB and IPRs, is order. If nothing else, Oil States puts a greater burden on USPTO Director Iancu to step-up and de-politicize PTAB administrative procedures and judges.

Despite the obvious loss, Oil States may prove to be the best reason for patent holders to dig in.

Image source: yahoo.com; law.com

Litigation, News, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , ,

59% of blockchain patents are owned by developers; BofA and IBM dominate financial and tech players

April 24, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

More than half of U.S. blockchain patents are owned by blockchain-specific developers, while 20% are owned by financial institutions, led by Bank of America (see pie chart below).

Number three, Fidelity, has about a third as many patents as BofA. Number two, MasterCard, some 50% fewer.

13% are owned by traditional technology businesses, led by IBM, which owns more than three times the next biggest tech holder, Dell.

This is according to the findings of a report prepared by Envision IP, an IP law firm specializing in patent research, as reported in the April Managing Intellectual Property.

According to another report, China claims to have more than twice as many companies than the U.S. in the blockchain top 100 patentees.

Outside of IBM, which supports many banks, leading technology companies like Google, Intel and Microsoft have been slow to pursue blockchain patents. MasterCard, which has 27 blockchain patents, the same number as IBM, is dubious about the reliability of crypto-currencies, such as bitcoin. This 2014 video explains some of the credit card business’ reservations. The firm’s thinking may have evolved.

MasterCard processes over $4 Trillion ($4,000,000,000,000) in more than 38 billion transactions each year, reports The Art of Not Being Governed, a bitcoin blog.  On each of those 38 billion transactions, MasterCard assesses fees to the merchant, accepting the payment. These range from .11% to .80% of the total, plus various fixed amount fees for each transaction. All told, it averages out to about 2% of every transaction.

“Bitcoin, on the other hand, charges little to no fees, and as such, poses a direct threat to MasterCard’s business,” says the blog, which reports that in 2014 someone moved $80 million on the Bitcoin network for a fee of $.04 (4 cents).

For the full Envision IP report, go here.

Image source: Managing Intellectual Property; Envision IP

 

Litigation, News, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , ,

USPTO Director Iancu will keynote 2018 IPBC Global in San Francisco

April 17, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

An impressive group of speakers, sponsors and supporters, led by USPTO Director and Undersecretary of Commerce, Andrei Iancu, will be featured at the 11th global Intellectual Property Business Congress in San Francisco, June 10-12 at the Palace Hotel.

Director Iancu has indicated that he will support the long-awaited move to greater certainty in the U.S. patent system.  In a recent speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce he said that “reclaiming our (U.S.) patent leadership is within reach.”

Attendees will be eager to hear about Director Iancu’s strategy for attaining this and other goals.

IPBC Global 2018 plenary’s and panels include:

  • Will the U.S. Continue to Lead in IP?
  • CIPO Scenarios: The Good, Bad and Ugly 

IP CloseUp editor, Bruce Berman (that’s me), will be a member of the patent quality panel:

  • Is patent quality a distraction? – all that really matters is patent eligibility

    -What is a quality patent?
    -Controversy around eligibility
    -The importance of predictability

For the AI panel, participants will include Bart Eppenauer, former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft and William LaFontaine, General Manager, IP, IBM.

  • The World of Artificial Intelligence 

For the IPBC Global 2018 program, go here.

For the full list of speakers and their biographies, go here.

To register, go here.

Image source: ipbc.com; ipwatchdog.com

Litigation, News, People, Places, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , ,

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Some IP holders may benefit, most won’t

April 3, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 places some IP rights holders squarely in the sights of the tax collector, while providing others with an opportunity to license overseas without having to resort to international asset transfers to maximize returns.

Patent, trademark and copyright owners of all sizes would be wise to revisit the nature and tax implications of their transactions, including direct patent sales, as well as where their IP assets are best located. This is a direct result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), the impact of which on IP holders is starting to be understood.

The new law is partly a response to businesses that hold massive amounts of revenue-producing assets outside the United States in so-called ‘patent boxes’ – devices which allow revenue on assets held within them to escape most local and all domestic taxes derived from IP-related revenue.

Like Wildfire

“Patent boxes have spread like wildfire,” Edward Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the US Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, now a law professor at the University of Southern California told the Intangible Investor. “Their success was doomed from the start. The international environment for intangibles and tax has evolved. With more products to license from sources worldwide and more revenue derived from them, these devices, which originally were restricted to a handful of nations, have become diffuse.”

The most famous (or infamous) product of the IP asset tax avoidance schemes, known as the “double Irish,” has been used by large corporations, including Facebook Inc, Google parent Alphabet, Inc and drug maker Allergan PLC.

The TCJA aims to lure IP locations back to the US, but whether the benefits are sufficiently attractive is still unclear. The Wall Street Journal coverage of the TCJA can be found here. For the American Enterprise Institute take on the Act, go here.

Rana Foroohar, a journalist who reports for the Financial Times, says in a video that a growing “tech-lash” (backlash) against the imbalance of power generated by U.S. tech giants extends to how they use proceeds from overseas licensing revenues to buy foreign bonds. Curtailing this activity has the potential to cause disruption in the bond market and interest rates, she says. Foroohar’s video clip on the potential ramifications of tax increases can be found here.

Self-Licensing

Rather than licensing to themselves (or the entities they control) to generate income that avoids taxes and use those proceeds to invest in corporate bonds, techcos might consider generating genuine IP revenues, as well as taking, and paying for, licenses they need from other holders.

For the full Intangible Investor story, “Identifying the impact of the US tax act,” in the May IAM magazine out this week, go here.

Image source: brodyberman.com

Litigation, News, Places, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cong. Collins & Jeffries, and expert panel, will look at innovation policy and IP on May 8 in Washington

March 29, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

WASHINGTON, DC –– What is innovation policy? What does it mean to U.S. competition and jobs? Who is responsible for it?

These are among the questions that will be addressed at an afternoon briefing held by the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU) at the headquarters of the United States Chamber of Commerce headquarters in Washington on May 8.

The event will feature two leading proponents of IP rights, Congressmen Doug Collins (R-GA) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), both members of the House Judiciary Committee, Sub-Committee on the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.

“Innovation Policy and Intellectual Property: Building on a Strong Foundation” is being held by the Center for IP Understanding, an independent non-profit, and the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), a division of the Chamber. Persons interested in receiving an invitation please contact CIPU at explore@understandingip.org.

Preceding the Congressmen will be a panel, “What is Innovation Policy? Why is it Necessary?” featuring leading experts on innovation, IP and the economy, including:

 – Manny Schecter – Chief Patent Counsel of IBM, board member of CIPU and the IPO Education Foundation
– Alan Marco – former Chief Economist for the USPTO and now Associate Professor of Public Policy at Georgia Tech
– Adam Mossoff – Prof. of Law at George Mason University, Center for the Protection of IP
– Robert Atkinson – founder and President of Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), an independent think tank

Discussion Will Follow

A networking break will follow the panel and a reception will take place at the conclusion of the program.

Go here for information about the “Innovation Policy and Intellectual Policy: Building a Strong Foundation.”

“U.S. innovation policy and IP focus are seriously lacking,” said Marshall Phelps, former Vice President of IP Business and Strategy at Microsoft and at IBM, and a CIPU board member. “Other nations take their policies more seriously. The timing is right to dissect what U.S. innovation policy means and how it effects jobs and competition.”

Briefing partners and supporters include the Michaelson 20MM Foundation, the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, Berkeley Research Group, the Tusher Center for Intellectual Capital Management at UC Berkeley-Haas and Open Invention Network.

Image source: understandingip.org; nesta.org.uk; theglobalipcenter.com; 

 

Events, Litigation, News, Places, Research, Transactions
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Blockchain patent applications doubled in 2017 to more than 1,200

March 27, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

 1,240 blockchain patent applications were filed worldwide in 2017, up from 594 in 2016 and 258 in 2015. 

Among the leading filers were Bank of America, MasterCard, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, JP Morgan, and IBM.
According to data collected by the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and reported in CryptoCurrency, more than 1240 applications for blockchain-related patents were filed across South Korea, the United States, Japan, China, and Europe by the end of January 2018.

In December of 2017, CNBC reported that ‘patent trolls’ were coming for blockchain individuals and entire firms who seek to make fortunes off of amassing blockchain patents.

“Crush it”

“Nick (sic) Spangenberg, a notable patent entrepreneur,” reported the publication, said that his firm IPwe “is also looking to make big money by reforming the whole patent world.”

“It is a curious path how a collection of misfit trolls, geeks and wonks ended up here—but we are going to crush it and make a fortune,” said Spangenburg.

Image source: codeburst.io

Litigation, News, People, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , ,
Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: