Original news and analysis on international IP policy
Fashion in the US generates over $330 billion in annual revenues, but it is more than a business. Fashion is a well-recognized art, displayed in numerous museum exhibitions throughout the world. This art, however, receives little IP protection in the US. But a case before the US Supreme Court could change that.
The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is not admitting defeat. It is still refusing to register trademarks that disparage people, even though this policy violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, according to a December decision by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The USPTO has appealed the court ruling, and many experts expect the Supreme Court will soon rule on whether there is constitutional protection for disparaging marks. [Updated!]
The controversial ruling was perhaps to be expected. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals doggedly hewed to its existing interpretation of patent law. Unfortunately, the court’s decision in Lexmark International v Impression Products conflicts with recent Supreme Court jurisprudence, according to many experts – thus leaving unresolved some important questions about how much control patentees can maintain over their patented products.
The United States has spent over a decade trying to rein in so-called “patent trolls.” Nevertheless, a recent study suggests that patent trolls are a bigger problem than ever.
The United States worked hard over the last five years to reduce patent infringement suits. Congress enacted patent reform, the courts handed down important anti-patentee rulings, and the US Patent and Trademark Office began a campaign of energetically rejecting patents and patent claims. Despite all this, from 2014 to 2015, new patent infringement suits increased 18 percent and the number of defendants sued for patent infringement increased 21 percent. What went wrong?
Familiar intellectual property concerns will continue to vex the United States in the coming year. The scope of patent-eligible subject matter, the requirements for safe-harbor protections against copyright infringement, and the registration of disparaging trademarks will be among the top IP issues to watch in 2016, according to experts.
America’s International Trade Commission is a tempting venue for US intellectual property owners. The agency acts quickly, has a history of supporting IP owners, and offers a powerful means to stop infringing products from entering the US. So when the ITC expanded its jurisdiction last year, claiming the power to stop online infringements, many IP owners cheered. And many internet companies fretted. Until last month, when the Federal Circuit had its say.
The US government has been less than candid about the Trans-Pacific Partnership. While the agreement was being negotiated, the US Trade Representative stated that a much-criticized arbitration process included in the TPP would not apply to intellectual property. Turns out, it does apply to IP. And it provides foreign corporations with a huge advantage in IP disputes – private arbitrations that can override courts and statutes, effectively rewriting a nation’s IP laws.
The Federal Circuit is no stranger to controversy. And recently, the court stepped in it again. In an important ruling, the court made it far easier for some patent owners to obtain injunctions against infringers. The ruling could promote patent litigation in many industries, boost litigation costs, and effectively undermine a key Supreme Court decision limiting the availability of patent injunctions.
Once, hashtags (like #cute_cat) merely identified topics on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media. No longer. A rapidly growing number of companies are using hashtags (like #HowDoYouKFC) as trademarks. There is one problem, however. A court in the US has recently ruled that hashtags can never receive trademark protection.
Economics be damned. So said the US Supreme Court on 22 June, when it reaffirmed a 50 year-old ruling that limits how patent owners can license their patents. The court conceded the limit does not make economic sense, but asserted that patent law has its own logic. That could change many aspects of patent law, according to experts.
The US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals clearly likes patents. Over the years, the court has issued a long string of rulings that greatly strengthened the rights of patent owners. But several weeks ago, in Akamai Technologies v. Limelight Networks, the court reluctantly created a major loophole in patent protection.