Original news and analysis on international IP policy
Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium. Alas, that longstanding legal principle – where there’s a right, there’s a remedy – doesn’t apply to IP owners in the US. Thanks to several Supreme Court rulings interpreting the US Constitution, owners of patents have no recourse when their IP is infringed by US states. Copyright owners now face the same fate, unless the Supreme Court reverses a recent 4th Circuit decision.
The US started 2019 with a bang. Its Supreme Court has just announced a major patent decision, and more big developments could arrive in the coming months. Here are some of the top issues to watch this year.
Two recent academic papers examine whether Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) deserve their reputation as patent trolls – but the papers reach conflicting conclusions. As discussed in the first part of this article, a paper published by Stanford’s Hoover Institution found that 26 publicly-listed NPEs invest in R&D and do little harm to America’s high tech sector. These findings, however, are less significant than they appear. Another paper, published by Harvard Business School (HBS), found that NPEs do on average behave as patent trolls. How important – and trustworthy – are the HBS findings?
They are called many things. Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs), Patent Trolls, and on occasion, names not suitable in polite company. They often are accused of harming innovation and the economy, while providing nothing useful in return. They, less often, are said to promote innovation, in part by helping small inventors monetize their discoveries. Two recent academic studies attempt to shed light on this dispute, but their findings seem contradictory – at least at first.
Donald Trump is no fan of international norms or rules. He’s made this clear on numerous occasions, including during his two speeches at the United Nations. It is surprising, therefore, that one of the few international deals he has made as president – the recently announced treaty replacing NAFTA – contains IP provisions whose main purposes seem to be extending US rules overseas and establishing IP norms for future international agreements.
The US Supreme Court often decides momentous cases. And then there’s Fourth Estate Pub. Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com. Many experts view this case as little more than a tempest in a teapot. However, the suit will resolve a legal dispute that has simmered for over 30 years, and it highlights some important copyright issues that are unique to the US.
The strategy was breathtaking in its boldness. Just days before the USPTO was to hear a challenge to Allergan Inc.’s patents on a dry-eye drug, Restasis, the company transferred those patents to a Native American tribe; the tribe then sought to dismiss the USPTO proceedings by asserting sovereign immunity. Following this action, a number of other patentees made similar transfers to Native tribes, in order to protect their patents. More patentees were poised to do so, should this ploy prove effective. It, however, did not. On 20 July, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the tribe’s sovereign immunity did not protect its patents from USPTO review. The ruling thus kept intact a key component of America’s patent system.
For more than a decade, the United States has been making it harder to obtain patents. A series of court rulings have steadily restricted the types of inventions that are patent-eligible. The tide, however, may be now turning. The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Vanda Pharmaceuticals v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals has opened the way to many future patents on biotech and personalized medicine. The ruling is a big step forward for the biotech and medical industries, and perhaps for patients seeking better medical care. But there’s a catch. Vanda could be overturned because it conflicts with the US Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories.
In a time when partisanship runs wild in the USA and the country’s political parties can’t seem to agree on anything, the Music Modernization Act is exceptional. The MMA passed the House of Representatives on 25 April with unanimous support. And for good reason. Almost all the major stakeholders back this legislation, which will bring some badly needed changes to copyright law’s treatment of music streaming. But wrapped in the MMA is a previously separate bill – the CLASSICS Act – that has been attacked by many copyright law experts, is opposed by many librarians and archivists, and runs counter to policy previously endorsed by the US Copyright Office.
Government agencies do not ordinarily relinquish power easily, or without a struggle. But these are not ordinary times in the USA. Trump appointees have pushed a variety of federal agencies – including Interior, EPA, and HUD – to surrender much of their powers. Yesterday, the USPTO joined that list, when it announced proposed new regulations that would weaken the agency’s review of existing patents.