Tag Archives: patents

IPCU readers can save $200 on IP Dealmakers Forum Nov 6-8 in NY

Patent monetization is alive and improving.

Look no further than the 5th annual IP Dealmakers Forum, which will attract the top players in IP licensing, sales and litigation funding to the Alexandria Center overlooking NYC’s East River, November 6-8.

IP CloseUp readers can save $200 off of registration by using discount code IPDF18_CIPU.

Panels include:

  • IP Market Roundup: Light at the end of the Tunnel
  • In Patents We Trust: Government Updates & Outlook
  • Leveraging Data to Identify Valuable Patents
  • SEP, FRAND & Getting Ready for 5G
  • IP Investors Roundtable: Opportunities In and Around IP
  • What Matters Now: Navigating the New Deal Landscape
  • Corporate Governance & Activist Investing in IP

One-to-one meeting and networking sessions will be held throughout the conference.

A partial list of speakers includes:

  • Erich Andersen, Corporate VP & Chief IP Counsel, Microsoft
  • John Lindgren, CEO, IPVALUE
  • Todd Dickinson, Former Director, USPTO
  • Fred Fabricant, Head of IP Litigation, Brown Rudnick 
  • Paul Michel (ret.), former Chief Judge of CAFC
  • Hans Sauer, Deputy General Counsel for IP, BIO

For the full IPDF agenda, go here.

To register, go here.

CLE credit is available.

Images source: ipdealmakersforum.com

12-fold increase in China’s U.S. trademark apps; many are said to be fraudulent and improperly filed

Cash subsidies are among the incentives fueling a dramatic rise in U.S. trademark applications by Chinese filers. Thousands are said to be  improperly filed and unlikely to be granted. 

In a national effort to increase IP ownership China is paying companies and individuals, some of them prisoners, as much as the equivalent of $800 to register a trademark in the U.S.

“The U.S officials say many China filings show a pattern of suspicious claims about the goods in question and the qualifications of the attorneys handling them,” reports the Wall Street Journal.

China may be attempting to “disrupt” the U.S. system by flooding it with huge numbers of applications, making it potentially more difficult for business to obtain the marks they desire, especially those that may be associated with products that are sold in e-commerce.

Mark Cohen, UC Berkeley law professor and former USPTO expert on China told IP CloseUp that he did not believe there is a concerted effort to undermine the U.S. trademark system.

“China is metrics-driven, numbers-oriented society,” said Cohen, who is fluent in Chinese. “It wants to achieve government-established goals and will resort to incentives to achieve them. This planned approach can lead to the kind of spikes we have been seeing in trademark applications. The ultimate impact is unclear.”

In addition to paying cash incentives, China has been known, says Professor Cohen, to award tenure, defer income taxes and reduce sentences of prisoners who obtain marks. Similar motivations have been known to exist in the patent space, where China is a leading U.S. filer and number two globally. If the pattern continues, it will soon be number one in both trademarks and patents.

Numbers Game

This rapid rise does not necessarily lead to high quality IP rights or to appropriate use of them. But IP does apparently amount to something of a numbers came to China.

Cohen believes that many of the filers are small businesses selling online goods such as phone chargers and cheap clothing. Whether they are every in a position to enforce their marks, if infringed, remains to be seen.

Representing a number of Chinese trademark filers are foreign attorneys who are not licensed to practice in the U.S., which violates application rules.

These payments by the Chinese government amount to nearly $800 per US trademark registration that is obtained (a potential profit per trademark of $525 after filing fees), reports trademark attorney Josh Groben.

Full-time Job

“Given that the median monthly income for a Chinese citizen is around $1,000,” says Groben, “the government payments make it possible for someone in China to have a full-time income by registering just two US trademarks per month.”

The U.S. received more than 50,000 applications from China in the year through September 2017, accounting for 8.5% of all trademark filings.

It is difficult to know how aggressively legitimate Chinese trademark holders will enforce their rights against infringers. In the U.S. complete failure to enforce will lead to a weakening of an owner’s marks, loss of distinctiveness over time and potential forfeiture of certain available remedies.

Image source: creekmorelaw.com; lexology.com

LES annual meeting to be held in Boston October 14-17

The birthplace of innovation, Boston, is the site for the 2018 Licensing Executives Society meeting.

The opening session, “Advancing Innovation Through a Renewal of Trust,” will feature Andrei Iancu, USPTO Director, Bill Elkington, Senior Director – IP Management, Rockwell Collins and Walter Copan, National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) Director and Under Secretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology.

Other sessions include:

  • Funding Startups – The Boston Perspective
  • Increasing ROI for Government-Funded Research
  • Advanced Telecommunications Licensing, 4G, 5G and LTE for Automobiles
  • US or Them – Who is Going to Set Standards for Licensing
  • Patenting Machine Learning
  • 2018 Tax Consequences: Coordination of IP Monetization and Tax Planning
  • Life Sciences Partnering Performance and Reputation Survey Results
  • Maximizing IP Value and Minimizing Risk in M&A Transactions

For the full 2018 LES annual meeting agenda, go here. For the speaker biographies, please visit http://www.lesmeetings.org/am18/speakers/

To register, go here.

Image source: lesmeetings.org 

IP CloseUp is named a “top 50” intellectual property blog

IP CloseUp has been named by Feedspot as a top-50 intellectual property blog.

Feedspot, a news aggregator, named the top 100 IP blogs in which IP CloseUp was number 48.  IPCU beat out quality competition, including many law firm publications and those from leading IP services providers.

Criteria for inclusion on the list includes number of searchers and followers, as well as content.

“It’s an honor to be recognized as a leader in IP news and analysis, especially in the company of such publications as IP Watchdog, IAM and IP Law 360,” said Bruce Berman publisher and editor of IP CloseUp. “IPCU’s mission is to spot relevant trends early with the help of our network of IP and industry contacts.”

IP CloseUp, which first appeared in 2010, covers original and thinly reported IP developments, events, people and transactions, via weekly posts. IPCU also makes available interesting videos and reviews new books. It’s coverage of automotive inventor Robert Kearns, who was depicted in the film, “Flash of Genius,” has generated more than 75,000 visits.

For the complete top-100 list, go here

Image source: feedspot.com

 

Rich values for IP services providers defy investor expectations

Prices for companies that support and sell IP services and analytical software remain surprisingly strong, even as patent licensing and sales continue to decline.

Their success appears to be fueled by the very problems facing patents: lower values and lack of certainty.

IP tools providers are the proverbial sellers of picks and shovels; the “miners” take the primary risk. Most are satisfied with the steady cash flow, while their clients make the big bets in R&D and litigation. Uncertainty makes investing even more dangerous and the information premium more valuable.

                                    __________________________________________

For the full IP services deal story, “Defying the monestisation market” in the September IAM magazinego here. In this issue the Intangible Investor explores recent IP service firms transactions and their prices.
                                         ______________________________________

Examples of IP services successes include CPA Global’s 2017 acquisition by private equity firm Leonard Green & Partner’s for 2.4 billion pounds ($3.1B USD). Cinven had acquired the firm in 2012 from Intermediate Capital Group for around £950 million ($1.3 billion), backed
by $555 million of debt financing.

In 2015, CPA Global – with approximately $12 million in revenues and no profit – acquired Innography for an undisclosed amount. An industry-insider told IP CloseUp it was likely between $80 and $90 million, or about seven times revenue. Innography, with a strong reputation, had raised $14 million in venture capital.

AI Driven

Thomson Reuters sold its IP and Science business in 2016 to Onex and Baring and Private Equity Asia for $3.55 billion. The company is now Clarivate Analytics.

Among the newer and more interesting entries in the IP services space is ClearAccessIP, a Palo Alto, CA-based firm “that indexes patents, looks for vulnerabilities in a corporation’s patent strategy, and finds opportunities in a patent collection for further value.”

Founded by Nicole Shanahan, a young patent attorney who served as a researcher for IP scholar Colleen Chien at Santa Clara University College of Law. Professor Chien is a member of the Clear Access IP Advisory Board, along with former AIPLA president Wayne Sobon.

“I am essentially trying to build and democratize a marketplace platform because not all patent holders and sellers can afford the large transaction firms,” she says. “I’m also solving a very old problem and putting docket management in the cloud.”

An extensive interview with Shanahan appears in Software Engineering Daily. The audio can be found here; the written transcript, here.

Ms. Shanahan, it seems fair to inform readers, has been living with Sergey Brin, founder of Google and President of its parent company, Alphabet, Inc., which, historically, has been dubious about strong patents.

New Wave

IP services and software providers, especially those using the latest algorithms, may represent a new wave for beleaguered IP holders and their law firms seeking to manage patent risk. The computing strength and analytics capability they offer may be just what some IP holders and margin-conscious law firms need to compete, or these companies may simply be repackaging the outsourcing mantra for the AI age.

These relationship-driven, technology-focused service providers are likely to grow in value as global patent applications and portfolios increase and uncertainty lingers. An improved outlook for patent licensing will make them even more attractive.

Image source: softwareengineeringdaily.com; clarivate.com; cpaglobal.com 

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

$88.3M (CD) for Canadian IP literacy and tools via new strategy

The Canadian government has announced that it is investing $88.3M CD in a new IP strategy that incorporates tools and education, and improves literacy. Canada’s population is approximately one-tenth of that of the U.S.’

The government wants to help business, creators, entrepreneurs, and investors better understand, protect and access intellectual property (IP) through a comprehensive IP Strategy. The full story can be read on IP Watchdog.

Legislation, Literacy, Advice

The IP Strategy will make changes in three key areas: Legislation, Literacy, and Advice, according to a statement and Canada’s IP Strategy website.

The Canadian government announcement said that intellectual property is a key component of an innovation economy. It helps Canadian innovators reach commercial success, further discovery and create middle-class jobs by protecting their ideas and ensuring they reap the full rewards of their inventions and creations.

Canada’s IP Strategy will help Canadian entrepreneurs better understand and protect intellectual property and also provide better access to shared intellectual property. Canada is a leader in research, science, creation, and invention, but has lagged in commercializing innovations.

The new IP strategy received praise from a range of industries, from aerospace to biotech to entertainment.

A suite of seminars, training and information resources on the subject of intellectual property (IP) is tailored for businesses and innovators. As part of the “Literacy and Advice” section of IP Strategy, the Canadian IP Office (CIPO) will:

  • Launch a suite of programs to help improve IP literacy among Canadians.
  • Support domestic and international engagement between Indigenous people and decision makers as well as for research activities and capacity building.
  • Provide tools to support Canadian businesses as they learn about IP and pursue their own IP strategies.

Copyright Awareness

Earlier this year, the UK IP Office (UK IPO) introduced a copyright awareness program with a series of educational animations for students seven to eleven-years-old.  “Nancy and the Meerkats,” under the Cracking Ideas initiative, met with nasty opposition from media like Techdirt and Torrent Freak. They believe that helping children to understand IP right from wrong is a little more than brainwashing. These publications often have an IP axe to grind and believe that content and code should be broadly shared, and that piracy is not necessarily theft.

UK Teaches 7-Year-Olds that Piracy is Stealing” was the title of the Torrent Freak article, implying that it is not. Piracy is not OK, even if some coders, content providers, and patent infringers believe it is. A BBC story attempted to sort things out, but the negative publicity appeared to put the educators on the defensive when it is the infringers who should be. Teaching children IP right from wrong is part of good parenting.

Image source: ic.gc.ca

Patents for Financial Services Summit to examine IP system health

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

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

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

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

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

 

USPTO Director Iancu will keynote 2018 IPBC Global in San Francisco

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

%d bloggers like this: