• WIPO Sheds Lights On Artificial Intelligence Patenting Trends In New Report

    The World Intellectual Property Organization today released its first report on artificial intelligence showing a sharp rise in patenting activities over the last few years. WIPO Director General Francis Gurry called artificial intelligence a “game changer” during a press briefing yesterday and said WIPO hopes to spark a conversation on the issue among its member states this year. As in most other fields, leading patent offices are the United States and China.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Banner & Witcoff Elects President Andy Mu and New Shareholder Class

    Banner & Witcoff, Ltd., announces the election of firm president Chunhsi Andy Mu and 13 new shareholders, a group of attorneys who advise on all matters of intellectual property law and are dedicated to assisting their clients in protecting their work and ideas.

    The post Banner & Witcoff Elects President Andy Mu and New Shareholder Class appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.

    Continue Reading ...
  • IBM Calls for an End to the ‘Legal Fiction’ of Current 101 Law

    This marks the final installment in my four-part interview with IBM’s Vice President and Assistant General Counsel Mark Ringes and Chief Patent Counsel Manny Schecter. I found our conversation fascinating and want to thank them both again for their time and insight. Below, we conclude with an in-depth discussion on how the U.S. patent system is affecting startups and the state of enforceability following Director Iancu’s Section 101 Guidance.

    The post IBM Calls for an End to the ‘Legal…

    Continue Reading ...
  • 少なくとも

                            目次はこちら

    少なくとも

    (AT LEAST)
    $$ A method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the organic light-emitting devices comprises a backlight. / 請求項…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Upcoming Talks on Extraterritoriality and Patent Remedies

    On February 7, I will be speaking at Waseda University in Tokyo, and on February 8 and at a conference organized by the Graduate Schools of Law of Nagoya University and Hokkaido University, to be held in Nagoya.  My presentation at both venues is titled Is Territoriality Dead?  I don’t have a draft paper yet, but here is the abstract of what I intend to present: 
    Nations traditionally have viewed patents as territorial rights:  a U.S. patent is enforceable in the United States, for example, but not in Japan, and vice versa.  Recent developments nevertheless challenge this understanding of the territorial nature of patent rights, to some degree.  One set of challenges arises primarily in cases involving commitments to license standard-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) terms.  By way of example, in Unwired Planet v. Huawei an English court established the terms of a global license for the use of Unwired Planet’s SEP portfolio, even though the majority of those SEPs were granted—and most of Huawei’s accused devices made, used, and sold—outside the U.K.  Courts in the U.K. and U.S. also have been willing to grant antisuit injunctions restricting the owners of FRAND-committed SEPs from proceeding with parallel litigation in foreign tribunals.  In addition, courts in the U.S. and Canada recently have awarded damages for extraterritorial injuries stemming from acts of domestic infringement, although the precise scope of the entitlement to such damages remains unclear.  
    I will argue that these developments, though perhaps inevitable and even desirable as a matter of policy, nevertheless call for caution in their application, both to reduce abuses on the part of patent owners and accused infringers, and to avoid unwarranted interference with the practice of other nations.  To this end, I propose that courts and regulators throughout the world should consider (1) developing a set of best practices for deciding under what circumstances domestic courts should stay or dismiss pending litigation, in deference to a foreign tribunal; (2) generally limiting antisuit injunctions, in the present context, to cases in which enforcement in another jurisdiction would frustrate the domestic court’s ability to render judgment; and (3) permitting damages for extraterritorial injuries subject to limitations grounded in principles of proximate causation, the relevance of noninfringing alternatives, and the avoidance of duplicative recoveries. 

    For readers who may be able to attend, here is the Nagoya conference agenda:

    Conference on “Patent Law from an International Perspective” and

    “IP and the Public Domain”


    1.     Time and Place

    Time: February 8, 2019, Friday, 10:30-17:30
    February 9, 2019, Saturday, 10:00-17:30
    Place: Asian Community Forum, Asian Legal Exchange Plaza, Nagoya University, JAPAN
    2.     Organizers
    Organizer: Graduate School of Law, Nagoya University (supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 17H00963) (TBC)
    Co-organizer: Graduate School of Law, Hokkaido University (supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 18H05216) (TBC)
    3.     Program  * Titles are tentative.
    Day 1: February 8, 2019, Friday                 
    Time
    Sessions
    10:30-10:35
    Welcome and Opening Remarks
    Masabumi Suzuki, Dean/Professor, Graduate School of Law, Nagoya University
    10:35-12:25
    PART I: Patent Law from an International Perspective
    Session 1: Patent System and Territoriality
    Moderator: Christoph Rademacher, Associate Professor, Waseda University, Japan 
    10:35-11:20
    Thomas F. Cotter, Professor, University of Minnesota Law School, USA 
    Is Territoriality Dead? 
    11:20-12:05
    Masabumi Suzuki, Professor, Nagoya University, Japan
    Cross-border Patent Infringement under Japanese Law
    12:05-12:25
    Discussion
    12:25-13:30
    Lunch Break
    13:30-15:20
    Session 2: Patent System and Policy
    Moderator: Irene Calboli, Professor, Texas A&M University, USA
    13:30-14:15
    Yoshiyuki Tamura, Professor, Hokkaido University, Japan
    Looking at Patent System from an Institutional Perspective
    14:15-15:00
    Ichiro Nakayama, Professor, Kokugakuin University, Japan
    Patentable Subject Matter in Japan
    15:00-15:20
    Discussion
    15:20-15:35
    Coffee Break
    15:35-17:25
    Session 3: Patent and other IP in Specific Fields
    Moderator: Branislav Hazucha, Associate Professor, Hokkaido University, Japan
    15:35-16:20
    Nari Lee, Professor, Hanken School of Economics, Finland
    Patent and Trade Secret Trade-off – a Case of Personalised Medicine
    16:20-17:05
    Su-Hua Lee, Associate Professor, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
    Mitigating the Impacts of Pharmaceutical Patent Linkage on Access to Medicine: Comparisons between the USA and Asian Countries
    17:05-17:25
    Discussion
    17:30-
    Reception
    Lobby on the Second Floor of ALEP (in front of the room for the conference)
    Day 2: February 9, 2019, Saturday
    10:00-11:50
    PART I: Patent Law from an International Perspective (Cont’d)
    Session 4: Patent Enforcement from a Comparative Perspective
    Moderator: Su-hua Lee, Associate Professor, National Taiwan University, Taiwan
    10:00-10:45
    Christoph Rademacher, Associate Professor, Waseda University, Japan
    Dancing with Biotech Patents – is Japan ready for a new enforcement system?
    10:45-11:30
    Hao-Yun Chen, Assistant Professor, National Taipei University, Taiwan
    A Comparative Study of Damages for Patent Infringement in Japan and Taiwan – In the Context of Exclusive Licensing
    11:30-11:50
    Discussion
    11:50-13:00
    Lunch Break
    13:00-14:50
    PART II: IP and the Public Domain
    Session 1: General Theory; Patent and the Public Domain
    Moderator: Yoshiyuki Tamura, Professor, Hokkaido University, Japan
    13:00-13:45
    Branislav Hazucha, Associate Professor, Hokkaido University, Japan
    Concept of Public Domain in IP Discourse
    13:45-14:30
    Li Yang , Professor, Sun Yat-Sen University, PRC
    Patent and the Public Domain
    14:30-14:50
    Discussion
    14:50-15:05
    Coffee Break
    15:05-17:40
    Session 3: Trademark/Copyright and the Public Domain
    Moderator: Nari Lee, Professor, Hanken School of Economics, Finland
    15:05-15:50
    Irene Calboli, Professor, Texas A&M University, USA
    Mutant Rights: Trademark Protection for Copyrighted Works and the Negative Impact on the Public Domain
    15:50-16:35
    Takeshi Maeda, Associate Professor, Kobe University, Japan
    Introduction of “Flexible” Copyright Limitations in Japan: An Alternative to Fair Use
    16:35-17:20
    Masabumi Suzuki, Professor, Nagoya University, Japan
    Restriction on IP for Public Policy Purposes: An Assessment on the Case of Tobacco Plain Packaging Measures
    17:20-17:40
    Discussion
    17:40-17:45
    Closing Remarks
    Yoshiyuki Tamura, Professor, Hokkaido University, Japan
    18:15-
    Dinner  

    Continue Reading ...
  • Board Debates Medicines Access; WHO Asserts Mandate On IP, Trade Issues

    Shortages, faulty supply chains, unbearable prices, weak health systems – the issue of access to medicines is multifaceted and gave way to a long list of interventions yesterday at the World Health Organization. Challenged on its mandate to address intellectual property and trade issues, WHO Director General Tedros Adhanom Gheyebresus (Dr Tedros) confirmed that WHO’s mandate includes work with partners on those issues. Discussions also included fair pricing and transparency, for which Italy called for a resolution at the next World Health Assembly.

    Continue Reading ...
  • U.S. State Wants to Adopt "Netflix" Model for Paying for Pharmaceuticals

    The state of Louisiana is attempting to adopt the Netflix model of paying for pharmaceuticals as a way to tackle the high cost of pharmaceuticals and public health issues.  The Netflix model was proposed in a recent article.  Basically, the state pays a set price for an unlimited number of drugs for its citizens.  This has the benefit of providing certainty as to price as well as opens up access to the drugs to more people than previously treated.  The Washington Post discusses Louisiana and the Netflix model, here.  The abstract of the article titled, Alternative State-Level Financing for Hepatitis C Treatment—The “Netflix Model”, authored by Mark R. Trusheim, MS; William M. Cassidy, MD; Peter B. Bach, MD is in the November issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association states:

    Drug prices in the United States remain the highest in the world. New payment approaches are needed, a point illustrated by the new treatments for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection that are highly effective but also very expensive, at least from the view of many payers, physicians, and patients. Five years after the introduction of these drugs, and due in many cases to budgetary constraints of state Medicaid programs and prisons, only 15% of the estimated population of more than 3 million individuals with HCV infection in the United States have been treated.Yet the optimal way to treat HCV is at the population level, that is, by treating every patient possible, with as much speed as is possible. Doing so would reduce the health consequences for those infected, generate the most future savings from improved health, and help decrease future transmission of HCV from person to person.

    Continue Reading ...
  • 少ない

                            目次はこちら

    少ない

    (LESS)
    $$ The inner surface of the chock 10 is considerably less wearing on synthetic fibre rope R than the surface of the chock. / チョック…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Wayne Evans: One Inventor’s Battle With the Patent Troll Issue

    When you see a docket report with a patent lawsuit filed by a non-practicing entity (NPE), do you think it’s just another “patent troll” taking advantage of the system? Or would you be willing to consider that underlying every patent litigation is a human story of invention, which is the embodiment and manifestation of an innovator’s aspirations and sacrifices? These human stories are too often marginalized in the “patent troll” debate. One such story is that of Wayne Evans. His life took him…

    Continue Reading ...
  • It’s Hard Out There for a Commons

    I just finished reading a fascinating draft article about the Eco-Patent Commons, a commons where about 13 companies put in a little fewer than 100 patents that could be used by any third party. A commons differs from cross-licensing or other pools in a couple of important ways. First, the owner must still maintain the patent (OK, that’s common to licensing, but different from the public domain). Second, anyone, not just members of the commons, can use the patents (which is common to the public domain, but different from licensing).

    The hope for the commons was that it would aid in diffusion of green patents, but it was not to be. The draft by Jorge Contreras (Utah Law), Bronwyn Hall (Berkeley Econ), and Christian Helmers (Santa Clara Econ) is called Green Technology Diffusion: A Post-Mortem Analysis of the Eco-Patent Commons. A draft is on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

    We revisit the effect of the “Eco-Patent Commons” (EcoPC) on the diffusion of patented environmentally friendly technologies following its discontinuation in 2016, using both participant survey and data analytic evidence. Established in January 2008 by several large multinational companies, the not-for-profit initiative provided royalty-free access to 248 patents covering 94 “green” inventions. Hall and Helmers (2013) suggested that the patents pledged to the commons had the potential to encourage the diffusion of valuable environmentally friendly technologies. Our updated results now show that the commons did not increase the diffusion of pledged inventions, and that the EcoPC suffered from several structural and organizational issues. Our findings have implications for the effectiveness of patent commons in enabling the diffusion of patented technologies more broadly.

    The findings were pretty bleak. In short, the patents were cited less than a set of matching patents, and many of them were allowed to lapse (which implies lack of value). Their survey-type data also showed a lack of importance/diffusion.

    What I really love about this paper, though, is that there’s an interpretation for everybody in it. For the “we need strong rights” group, this failure is evidence of the tragedy of the commons. If nobody has the right to fully profit on the inventions, then nobody will do so, and the commons will go fallow.

    But for the “we don’t need strong rights” group, this failure is evidence that the supposedly important patents were weak, and that it was better to essentially make these public domain than to have after the fact lawsuits.

    For the “patents are useless” group, this failure shows that nobody reads patents anyway, and so they fail in their essential purpose: providing information as a quid pro quo for exclusivity.

    And for the middle ground folks, you have the conclusions in the study. Maybe some commons can work, but you have to be careful about how you set them up, and this one had procedural and substantive failings that doomed the patents to go unused.

    I don’t know the answer, but I think cases studies like this are helpful for better understanding how patents do and do not disseminate information, as well as learning how to better structure patent pools.

    Continue Reading ...