Original news and analysis on international IP policy
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.
Ed Klaris and Alexia Bedat write: An update to our article reviewing US and European law/recent developments in link liability in both the copyright and defamation contexts and providing a checklist of questions an attorney (or editor) ought to ask before deciding, prepublication, whether a proposed link may lead to liability in the US and/or the EU. Updates include the recent Goldman v. Breitbart decision in which a Federal Judge concluded that embedding a Tweet can be copyright infringement.
The annual update on World Trade Organization dispute settlement was especially challenging this year due to the ongoing impasse regarding selection process to the Appellate Body. During the event, some light was shed on the “alarming consequences” of the stalemate.
The United Kingdom has ratified the Unified Patent Court Agreement that will allow "a single judgment in cross-border disputes between private parties over patents granted under the current intergovernmental system." The system is administered by the European Patent Office, and the UK's ratification leaves Germany outstanding.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has issued guidance on changes to post-grant proceedings following the 24 April decision by the US Supreme Court in the SAS Institute v Iancu case. The Court ruled that the USPTO must decide the patentability of each claim that is challenged in petitions for inter partes review.
A new private-sector survey of large companies making consumer products showed their greatest concerns are exposure to litigation, followed by protection of brand equity and privacy/data security issues.
United States Patent and Trademark Office inter partes reviews are legal and do not violate Article III of the Constitution or the 7th Amendment, the US Supreme Court said today. While the decision was expected, practitioners before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board can now rest easy, as one patent lawyer put it.
American songwriters and performers achieved a rare feat in a highly polarized and partisan political environment: unite policymakers from all sides of the House of Representatives, and even get on board tech companies and broadcasters to support the most significant piece of copyright legislation in the United States since the 1998's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
The United States Supreme Court is likely to affirm the constitutionality of US Patent and Trademark Office inter partes reviews when it rules in the closely watched matter of Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC, according to Michael Best & Friedrich intellectual property attorney Marshall Schmitt. The end result of the decision, however, is hard to predict, he said.
The United States today said China's request for dispute settlement consultations at the World Trade Organization is "baseless," as the recent US measures against imports of Chinese steel and aluminum are not safeguards and so do not warrant the $3 billion in retaliation subsequently announced by China. Nevertheless, the US said it is willing to hold consultations with China, but not related to the WTO Agreement on Safeguards.
Google’s use of 37 of Oracle’s Java application programming interface (API) packages in its Android operating system infringed Oracle patents and copyright, the US District Court for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) said on 27 March. The latest decision in the long-running case was not unreasonable but could stifle software innovation, lawyers said.
Another debate occurred today at the World Trade Organization between the United States and China over new US measures against China's alleged failure to fairly protect US intellectual property rights under domestic and international rules.