• Promoting Education Rights In South African Copyright Reform

    Eve Gray and Desmond Oriakhogba write: The publishing industry is making a mad dash to defeat South Africa’s adoption of a fair use rights in Parliament on Wednesday. Their latest effort includes an alarmist petition being circulated among authors. It is interesting to note that, while one of the most persistent and loud complaints in these protests has been that the drafting of the new legislation was badly handled, our perception, along with a number of experienced observers in the process, has been that the level of discussion and debate; the degree of participation and engagement of government representatives; and the consensus on the needs to be addressed, was of a higher standard and the debate much better informed than in previous such attempts at reform over the past decades. It should also be noted that, while it is true that international publishers might have much to lose in the new law, local publishers, authors and students have much to gain. It is time to lower the heat and concentrate on the facts and context of what is before Parliament.

    Continue Reading ...
  • US IP Stakeholders Seek To Strengthen Public Support For IP, Ensure Future US Competitiveness

    NEW YORK — United States intellectual property stakeholders from academic, business and legal backgrounds gathered recently to discuss how to increase public support to strengthen the intellectual property rights system in the US, in light of China’s steady rise in numbers of patent and trademark filings. US IP stakeholders argued that developing public awareness and understanding of IP is key to building this support, with some holding diverging views on how to go about this.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Study Finds Arthritis Drug Enbrel Overpatented, Overpriced in US

    Initiative for Medicines, Access & Knowledge (I-MAK) released a new study yesterday showing that the rheumatoid arthritis drug Enbrel has been overpatented by drugmaker Amgen, which has filed a total of 57 patents on the drug in the United States. Together, these patents were said to delay market competition by 39 years, rather than the standard 20 years for one patent. The study found that this market exclusivity for Enbrel resulted in US$ 8 billion dollars in sales in 2017 alone.

    Continue Reading ...
  • PTAB Institutes IPR, Finds Unified Patents is Sole Real Party in Interest

    On Tuesday, November 27th, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a redacted version of a decision to institute an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding petitioned by Unified Patents to challenge the validity of patent claims that have been asserted in district court against at least one of Unified’s subscribing members. The PTAB panel of administrative patent judges (APJs) decided to institute the IPR despite the patent owners’ assertion that the petition should be denied because…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Nasdaq ISE Files Motion to Disqualify Fish & Richardson at PTAB Over Prior Representation

    Nasdaq ISE’s motion to disqualify Fish & Richardson was made pursuant to 37 CFR 11.109, which prevents a practitioner from representing a party adverse to a former client in substantially similar proceedings; this duty is imputed to the practitioner’s law firm under 37 CFR 11.110. In its motion, Nasdaq argued that the PTAB should adopt the magistrate judge’s finding that the defense of MIAX, including the CBM reviews challenging the validity of the patents asserted against MIAX, is a…

    Continue Reading ...
  • The U.S. Industrial (Technology) Military Complex is Alive and Well: Microsoft and the Defense Innovation Unit

    The LA Times recently published an article titled, “Microsoft will Give the U.S. Military Access to ‘All the Technology We Create’.”  The article discusses Microsoft’s recent announcement as well as the tension in some U.S. technology companies concerning working with the U.S. military.  For example, some Google employees have expressed displeasure with Google’s decision to work with the U.S. military.  The article notes that:

    The Defense Department has established the Defense Innovation Unit, which is intended to provide capital — without taking an ownership stake — to companies that want to work on prototype projects that help address problems faced by the U.S. military.

    The Defense Innovation Unit’s website is here.  The Defense Innovation Unit focuses on five areas: artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, human systems, information technology and space.  Their team includes: “about 75 military and civilian personnel. Prior to joining DIU, we’ve launched and sold companies backed by tier-1 VCs; led teams at the Joint Staff, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the White House; served with our military around the world; and helped build some of Silicon Valley’s most iconic companies.”  Notably, the program is built around speed—a contractor will know if they have a “pilot” agreement within 30 days with a quick follow-through for a more involved contract.  The 2017 Annual Report states the mission of the Defense Innovation Unit:

    The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) established Defense Innovation Unit Experimental (DIUx) to accelerate commercial innovation to the warfighter in order to meet the changing demands of today’s strategic and technological environments. The Department’s 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS) boldly acknowledges that our nation’s military-technical advantage is eroding as our competitors and adversaries have the same access to the global technology marketplace driving innovation. Without significant changes to DoD’s acquisition culture and processes, the U.S. military will continue to lose its long-held technological superiority.

    Military-technical competition is dramatically different from past decades when key technologies were developed in government labs, often exclusively for military use. A technology first-mover up until the end of the Cold War, DoD must now adopt a fast follower posture to keep pace with commercial refresh cycles. The commercial sector leads the way in many cutting-edge areas from artificial intelligence to autonomous systems to space, the convergence of which generates the prospect of dramatic changes to the character of warfare. The implications of global access to advanced commercial technology are visible in today’s conflicts and the loss of exclusivity means the likelihood of technological surprise is far higher.

    It is DIUx’s mission to lead DoD’s break with past paradigms of military-technical advantage to become fast adapters — as opposed to sole developers — of technology, integrating the advanced commercial capabilities necessary for strategic advantage. In this hyper-competitive environment, DoD needs to prioritize speed of delivery, rapid and modular upgrades, and quick operational adaptation on the battlefield. Success in this new era of military-technical competition no longer goes to those who seek the most exquisite systems, but rather to those who move fast and think creatively.

    Headquartered in Mountain View, CA, with offices in Central Texas (Austin); Boston, MA; and in the Pentagon. . . . 

    On intellectual property, the Frequently Asked Questions page states:

    How is intellectual property treated and protected?

    Prior to the start of a project, it is important that a company identify rights in pre-existing data. In general, companies retain ownership of IP assets created during the effort. DoD is usually licensed certain rights to use these assets in accordance with the agreed OT (i.e., pilot contract) terms and conditions. These rights control, inter alia, how DoD can use, disclose, or reproduce company-owned proprietary information.

    What are the different ways IP is licensed under an OT agreement (i.e., pilot contract)?

    Unlimited Rights. These give DoD the ability to use, disclose, reproduce, prepare derivative works, distribute copies, and perform publicly, in any manner and for any purpose, and to have or permit others to do so (absent any separate security classification or export control restriction). We usually don’t need this and do not anticipate awarding any OT agreements (i.e., pilot contracts) with unlimited rights.

    Government Purpose Rights. These give DoD the ability to use, modify, reproduce, release, perform, display, or disclose data only within the Government (including competitive re-procurement). However, DoD cannot release the data for any commercial purpose.

    Limited Rights. DoD may use the company’s data, other than computer software, within DoD but not release the data outside of DoD except in limited circumstances. DoD may not use the data for manufacturing additional quantities of the item. Data may not be released without company permission/associated nondisclosure agreement.

    Restricted Rights. These apply to noncommercial computer software only. DoD may only run the software on one computer at a time, and may make only the minimum copies needed for backup. The software may not be released outside of DoD except with company permission/associated nondisclosure agreement.

    Continue Reading ...
  • 瞬間



    $$ The output device 10 thus captures the photosensor signal VC at the moment of disconnection and provides a read out signal at output no…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Reasonable Royalty Cannot Include Activities That Do Not Constitute Patent Infringement

    In Enplas Display Device Corp. v. Seoul Semiconductor Co., the Federal Circuit vacated a $4 million damages award to Seoul Semiconductor Co. (“Seoul”), holding that the district court erred when it denied Enplas Display Device Corp.’s (“Enplas”) motion for judgment as a matter of law that the damages award was not supported by substantial evidence.

    The post Reasonable Royalty Cannot Include Activities That Do Not Constitute Patent Infringement appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents &…

    Continue Reading ...
  • IP Chat Channel Webinar on FRAND

    On Thursday, December 6, from 2-3 p.m. Eastern Time, the IP Chat Channel will be hosting a webinar titled FRAND:  The Latest Developments and Predicting the Future SEP LandscapeHere is a link, and here is the description:
    In recent months, case law is continuing to develop in the evolving jurisprudence surrounding standard essential patents (SEPs) in the U.S. and elsewhere.
    In November, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order granting in part the FTC’s bid for summary judgment in its unfair competition case involving Qualcomm. The order addressed the issue of whether, under industry agreements to license SEPs at rates that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND), Qualcomm had to license its essential patents to competing modem chip suppliers. Some experts say this decision could tee up similar licensing fights against other SEP holders.
    Unwired Planet International Ltd. v. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. is another decision some experts view as having wide implications. In October, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales issued its much-anticipated ruling, finding Huawei may be barred from selling its smartphones in the U.K. if it refuses to pay a global license fee for Unwired Planet’s technology. The Court also rejected Huawei’s suggestion that the license Unwired Planet offered was not on “nondiscriminatory terms” because the royalty rate was higher than that which Unwired Planet previously agreed to with Samsung. The judgment could impact not only the terms of future licenses, but also the way that parties negotiate licenses and make offers to SEP owners.  
    Our panelists, which include lawyers who represent both SEP owners and implementers, will discuss:
    • Whether global licenses will come to dominate FRAND negotiations in the future
    • If there is any consensus emerging on how to calculate license terms that are fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory for SEP patents
    • The strengths and weaknesses of the differing valuation approaches of TCL and Unwired Planet
    • The impact of the availability of injunctions for the infringement of a SEP in Europe and China on litigation strategy
    The speakers will be:

    • Logan Breed, Hogan Lovells LLP
    • Dave Djavaherian, PacTech Law
    • Matteo Sabbatini, Ericsson
    I would also note that the IP Chat Channel’s December 13 webinar is titled Enforcing Patents: Transnational Tactics and Global Strategies.  When I have more information on that, I will pass it along.
    Continue Reading ...