United States of America – Page 2

HACKED! Regain Control of Your Social Media Identity

Mar 22 2024

Imagine receiving a call from a friend asking about a new money-making opportunity you just posted on your social media account. Only, you did not post it. This is a story that many social media users face as the number of hacked social media accounts continues to rise. In a letter dated March 5 2024, 41 state Attorney Generals wrote Meta Platforms Inc. highlighting a significant rise in the number of hacked accounts being reported to their offices, (noting increases from 2022 to 2023: 730% increase in Vermont; 330% increase in North Carolina; 256% increase in Illinois; and 270% increase in Pennsylvania), and urging Meta to take immediate action. In a world where social media is engrained as a daily part of our lives, losing control of your social media identity can cause stress and have an impact on your professional and personal brand. Here are some suggested steps you can take to prevent having your account taken over and address it should hacking occur.

New USPTO Guidelines on AI-Assisted Inventions Leave Many Questions Unanswered

Mar 04 2024

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued what it labeled as Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions [Docket No. PTO-P-2023-0043].¹ Despite its name, the document provides little in the way of certainty that one could not garner from reviewing recent precedent addressing the issue of artificial intelligence (AI) inventions. To begin with, the USPTO warns that its “guidance does not constitute substantive rulemaking and does not have the force and effect of law.”² Rather, “[t]he guidance sets out agency policy with respect to the USPTO’s interpretation of the inventorship requirements of the Patent Act in view of” controlling jurisprudence, but “[r]ejections will continue to be based on the substantive law, and it is those rejections that are appealable to the PTAB and the courts.”³ Adding to the confusion attendant to the actual purpose thereof, the guidelines admonish that, “[t]o the extent that earlier guidance from the USPTO, including certain sections of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure. . . is inconsistent with the guidance set forth” in such guidelines, “USPTO personnel are to follow these guidelines,” and “[t]he MPEP will be updated in due course.”⁴

Victory for Chanel in Luxury Reseller Trial

Feb 09 2024

A New York federal jury sided in favor of Chanel on all of it claims against luxury reseller What Goes Around Comes Around (WGACA), awarding Chanel US$4 million in statutory damages for sales of counterfeit Chanel-branded handbags. In Chanel, Inc. v. What Goes Around Comes Around, LLC, et al., 1:18-cv-02253 (SDNY), WGACA was found liable for trademark infringement, false association and unfair competition, and false advertising claims. The jury further found that WGACA acted willfully, with reckless disregard, or with willful blindness.

Jury Clears Los Angeles Tattoo Artist of All Copyright Infringement Claims In One of the First Significant Post-Warhol Transformative Use Cases

Feb 05 2024

On 26 January2024, a federal jury in Los Angeles handed down its verdict in one of the first copyright infringement cases to grapple with fair use after the Supreme Court’s 2023 Warhol decision.¹ The trial concerned a dispute over a tattoo inked by Katherine Von Drachenberg (known as Kat Von D), and related social media posts. In the Kat Von D case, plaintiff Jeffrey Sedlik argued the tattoo and posts infringed upon his copyright in a photograph of jazz musician Miles Davis that was indisputably utilized to create the tattoo and featured in one of the posts. Emphasizing the case-specific nature of fair use, the Los Angeles jury handed down a complete defense verdict.

New Accelerated Patent Grant (APG) Program Enhances Opportunities for U.S. Entities

Dec 19 2023

On November 13 2023, the Mexican PTO (“IMPI”) released guidelines for the Accelerated Patent Grant (“APG”) Agreement. This is a patent work-sharing arrangement allowing qualifying USPTO patent holders the option of expediting prosecution for a corresponding Mexican patent application. The USPTO has been partners with Mexico through the Prosecution Highway (“PPH”) since 2010. PPHs are bilateral agreements among participating nations allowing qualifying patent applicants from one patent office to request expedited prosecution in a participating office. PPH programs have successfully reduced examination time and costs for clients by allowing examiners in later examining offices to utilize the search results from the earlier examiner. While the USPTO has a PPH partnership with IMPI, the APG Program is a new program giving USPTO applicants another opportunity to expedite a counterpart application in Mexico.

U.S. Copyright Review Board Affirms Rejection of Copyright Registration for Work Created With AI Application

Dec 18 2023

In a decision dated 11 December 2023, the Copyright Review Board of the United States Copyright Office affirmed the Office’s refusal to register an AI-generated artwork submitted by Ankit Sahni.

Hydrogen Storage, Distribution, and Transportation: Developments in Hydrogen Carriers

Oct 11 2023

According to the joint EPO-IEA report summarizing patent trends in the hydrogen economy (summarized here), technologies related to storage, distribution, and transportation of hydrogen are among the most critical challenges for large-scale deployment. Standardized infrastructure for hydrogen trade is essential to allow the market to function and flow.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against Andy Warhol Foundation in Copyright Fair Use Dispute Over Prince Portrait

May 21 2023

In a decision closely watched by the visual arts community and content creators alike, the U.S. Supreme Court held on May 19, 2023, that pop artist Andy Warhol’s orange silkscreen portrait of the musician Prince (“Orange Prince”), adapted from photographer Lynn Goldsmith’s original photograph of Prince, was not “fair use” under copyright law. Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, 598 U.S. _ (2023).

Proposed PTAB Rules up for Comment

Apr 26 2023

The USPTO on April 21, 2023 proposed a variety of changes to the pre-institution requirements and briefing process for post-grant proceedings, including both IPRs and PGRs. Among the proposed changes are broad amendments to the discretionary denial frameworks, which are intended to provide clarity, curb abusive litigation tactics, and generally align procedure with the objectives of the AIA. The deadline for submitting comments and suggestions related to these rules is June 20, 2023. The proposed rules provide valuable insight into the future of post-grant proceedings before the PTAB. An overview of these changes is outlined below, and additional details follow.

Parallel Proceedings – The USPTO is considering changes to the Fintiv framework, including the elimination of current factors 1, 2, and 5, a requirement for a Sotera stipulation, and a grace period that would exempt petitions filed within 6 months of service of the complaint from being discretionarily denied under this rule.
325(d) Framework – The USPTO is considering a rule that would reign in the application of discretionary denial under 325(d) by limiting its application to art or arguments that had been “previously addressed,” or actually evaluated by the patent office as articulated on the record, such as in a rejection, notice of allowance, or examiner interview. Mere citation in an IDS will no longer meet the standard. Prior art will only be considered “substantially the same” where it contains the same teaching relied upon in the petition, and that teaching was addressed by the patent office.
Serial Petitions – The USPTO is considering replacing the existing framework for serial petitions with a rule that will deny any serial or follow-on IPR petition filed by: (1) the same petitioner; (2) a real party in interest to that petitioner; (3) a party with a significant relationship to that petitioner; or (4) a party who previously joined an instituted IPR filed by that petitioner. There will be an exception where the earlier petition was not resolved on the merits of the petition, or where exceptional circumstances are shown.
Prior Adjudications – The USPTO is contemplating stricter requirements where a prior final adjudication by a district court or in a post-grant proceeding upheld the validity of claims that substantially overlap the challenged claims, essentially requiring the petitioner (1) either has standing to challenge the validity of the patent in district court or intends to pursue commercialization, (2) was not a real party in interest to the party who unsuccessfully challenged the claims, and (3) meets the heightened burden of compelling merits.
Micro and Small Entities – The USPTO is mulling changes that would protect under-resourced entities by denying institution where the patent owner (1) claimed micro or small entity status at the time of filing; (2) did not exceed a gross income cap in the calendar year preceding filing of the petition; and (3) was commercializing a product covered by the challenged claim at the time of filing.
For-Profit Entities – The USPTO is contemplating a rule that would deny any IPR or PGR petition by a for-profit entity that has not been sued or threatened with infringement of the challenged patent, is not otherwise practicing in the field of the challenged patent, and is not in “substantial relationship” with an entity to which the rule would not apply.

The USPTO has also proposed changes to the disclosure requirements, what constitutes compelling merits, and termination by settlement filing requirements. An in-depth discussion of each suggested change is included below.

Technical Effect Embodied in Technical Teaching

Mar 28 2023

European Patent Office: Enlarged Board of Appeal decision G2/21

The Enlarged Board of Appeal EBoA is the highest judicial authority under the European Patent Convention. It handles patent examination for about 37 member states including the EU. The EBoA has recently published its decision G2/21 dealing with the principle of free evaluation of evidence in the context of inventive step. This decision is relevant for patents in the pharma, biotech and life science field.

Tag:United States of America