Looking Behind The Different Invalidation Rates Of Oppositions And IPRs

Janice Vatland

Opposition proceedings in Europe have long served as a powerful tool for third parties to challenge the validity of a patent before the European Patent Office (EPO). Now, under the America Invents Act (effective September 2012), the United States (US) has two new procedures for challenging the validity of a patent before the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO): inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review. Current statistics indicate a higher invalidation rate for IPRs as compared to EPO oppositions.

The Year Ahead In Internet Governance: Of Competing Institutions, IANA Transition, And A New Crypto War

Internet-Governance image

For many years Electronic Frontier Foundation Policy Analyst Jeremy Malcolm has been predicting the next year would be the pivotal year for the UN-led Internet Governance Forum (IGF). With the NetMundial Initiative being constructed these coming months and governments having not yet agreed to prolong the IGF mandate, the decade-old forum might be challenged to either move or become just one of many internet governance conference venues. And while some hope the future oversight over the internet’s underlying IANA function could become an experiment in shared global governance, others point out that more and more of the interesting questions of internet politics are decided elsewhere: national governments, trade negotiators, big data giants and cyberdominance strategists.

The Copyright Manifesto: How The EU Should Support Innovation And Creativity Through Copyright Reform

The author outside the European Commission

Teresa Hackett writes: “Copyright divide in numbers”, the graph on the first page of the newly launched ‘The Copyright Manifesto. How the European Union should Support Innovation and Creativity through Copyright Reform’ tells a story. In an illustration of the results of the European Union’s (EU) 2014 consultation on copyright, publishers, authors and collective management organizations express strong support for the current system, while end users and institutional users (such as libraries) are strongly in favour of copyright reform. So if copyright is supposed to benefit everyone, the copyright system sure isn’t working for everyone.

Year Ahead: Big IP Developments Loom For US Law In 2015

2015 balloon

2014 brought major changes to the United States intellectual property system, particularly in the area of patent law. 2015 promises more of the same, as the new Supreme Court ruling in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz attests. Here’s a discussion of Teva and other key cases and developments to watch this year.

Year Ahead: Copyright Reform, EPO Governance, Trade Secrets Among Top European IP Issues In 2015

Europe_orthographic_Caucasus_Urals_boundary.svg

Review, and possibly reform, of the European Union copyright system tops the list of “hot” European intellectual property issues this year. The new European Commission has made modernising copyright rules a major priority, while fresh debate has broken out over the need for levies on digital copying devices to remunerate rights holders.

Meanwhile ongoing unrest between European Patent Office (EPO) staff and management looks likely to continue, as do efforts to finalise the unitary European patent and Unified Patent Court. EU legislation to protect trade secrets could be adopted and trademark law updated. In addition, several important IP-related decisions are expected from the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

CARICOM, Trans-Pacific Partnership, And IP Law & Policy: What Next?

CARICOM logo

The year 2015 has dawned as usual with the fanfare of greater things to come. Caribbean projects are in the pipeline, along with activities to enhance competitiveness and many gallant efforts by well- meaning non-governmental and International organizations. The research has shown, however, that without the impetus of effort that originates from amongst the local innovators, there is no real change and no great advancement.

ISPs In US Face New Copyright Attack

BitTorrent network

It is a novel way to attack online copyright infringement. Two music companies have sued an internet service provider, alleging that because the ISP failed to terminate the accounts of repeat infringers, the ISP is guilty of secondary infringement. This lawsuit troubles many copyright experts and its success is far from certain, but the music companies may achieve their aims regardless.

Recent Cases Warn Of Dangers Of Trying For Second Bite At The IPR Apple

apple second bite

The American Invents Act of 2011 (AIA) created inter partes review (IPR), a new opposition-like proceeding conducted at the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the US Patent and Trademark Office to challenge the validity of patent claims based on prior art patents and printed publications. Since then, conventional wisdom has advised filing a petition for IPR quickly after being sued for patent infringement, because any deficiencies or mistakes the PTAB identifies could be corrected with a second petition later on. Several recent decisions from the PTAB reveal limits to that strategy.

Limitations And Exceptions For Libraries, Archives And Education At WIPO: What To Know About The Africa Group Proposal

Kundayi Masanzuk

The 29th Session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights at the World Intellectual Property Organization is currently underway. On the agenda, inter alia, will be discussions on Limitations and Exceptions to Libraries, Archives and Educational, Teaching and Research Institutions. Against the backdrop of the success with the Marrakesh Treaty, the trajectory looks set for these further exceptions and limitations to succeed.

One Bite At The Apple: PTAB Closes IPR Joinder Loophole

Apple Bite

As a result of the America Invents Act enacted three years ago, the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) now handles inter partes reviews (IPR)—a new trial proceeding used to challenge the validity of patent claims based on patents and printed publications. Recently, the PTAB has caused a split concerning the proper scope of the IPR joinder provision, which grants the PTAB discretion to join a “party” to a previously-instituted IPR. In the past, the PTAB interpreted the term “party” expansively to include petitioners for whom it had already instituted an IPR. Petitioners were quick to jump on this loophole, and have since sought to raise new arguments in an instituted IPR by filing a subsequent petition and seeking joinder with the in-progress proceeding.