Troubled Federal Circuit Hobbles US Patent System 31/07/2017 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment It’s been another dismal term for the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Six of its patent law decisions were reviewed in the US Supreme Court’s 2016-17 term, and the Federal Circuit’s decisions were overturned in all six cases. That, unfortunately, is not surprising. Over the past 15 years, the tribunal once known as the nation’s “patent court” has seen many of its most important patent law decisions reversed by the Supreme Court– sometimes in withering opinions. This has seriously undermined the Federal Circuit’s power, reputation, jurisprudence, and (apparently) self-confidence – causing a major problem for the United States’ patent system.
US High Court OKs Bigoted Trademarks 29/06/2017 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment When the US Supreme Court issued its decision in Matal v. Tam, trademark applicants celebrated, hailing it as a victory for free speech and trademark rights. But some trademark owners will become very unhappy about the ramifications of the Court’s 19 June ruling.
US Ends Post-Sale Patent Rights 08/06/2017 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment On 30 May, the US Supreme Court handed down yet another in a long series of rulings that cut back on the rights of patent owners. This time, the high court made it far more difficult for patentees to impose post-sale restrictions on the use or resale of their patented goods. The ruling should boost parallel imports into the US, increase competition throughout the American economy, lower prices for US consumers, and hurt the bottom line of many companies.
US Supreme Court Puts New Limits On Patent Suits 23/05/2017 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Yesterday’s United States Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group followed some familiar trends in Supreme Court jurisprudence. It overturned long-established Federal Circuit law, restricted the power of patent owners, and handed a stinging defeat to so-called “patent trolls” (companies that make money primarily by licensing their patents and suing those who refuse to purchase licenses). The Court did all this by limiting where patent infringement suits can be filed – and thus significantly changing patent litigation in the US.
March-in Rights: A Lost Opportunity To Lower US Drug Prices 18/05/2017 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 17 Comments It appears not just unfair, but absurdly so. The US government paid for research that produced a patented drug, the patents were licensed exclusively to a Japanese firm, and that firm is now committing price discrimination against the US. Astellas Pharma is selling its anti-prostate cancer drug, Xtandi, for over $129,000 per year per patient in the United States – triple the price of the drug in Japan. Alas, this situation is not unusual. Many drugs that were financed by US taxpayers are sold in the US at exorbitant prices, but are much cheaper in other high-income industrialized nations. This differential price problem could be solved easily. However, the US government has consistently refused to exercise its march-in rights in order to lower drug prices.
US Supreme Court Ruling Worries Patent Experts 25/04/2017 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments A recent US Supreme Court patent law decision surprised few observers – other than those steeped in patent law. The high court’s ruling in SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Prods stunned and dismayed many patent experts, because the decision will benefit patent trolls and other unscrupulous patent owners, at the expense of companies just trying to make and sell their products. On the positive side, however, the ruling brings US patent law more in line with Europe’s patent law.
US High Court Backs Foreign Manufacturers Over US Patentees 10/03/2017 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Under Donald Trump, the United States has adopted new, protectionist policies. “America first,” the President has repeatedly and loudly declared. It appears, however, that the US Supreme Court didn’t get the memo. The Court, in a recent patent law case, sided with foreign companies and consumers, at the expense of US patent owners. The unanimous ruling protects international supply chains instead of domestic US manufacturing.
In US, New Tactics To Combat Online Copyright Infringement 21/02/2017 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments The death was quick, quiet, and unmourned. The Copyright Alert System – a once vaunted plan to stop online copyright infringement in the US – was killed on 27 January. Lasting only four years, CAS had accomplished little and satisfied no one, according to many experts. What went wrong? And what is the movie and music industries’ next plan to combat online infringement?
IP Law In The US: A Look Ahead 20/01/2017 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Whatever else could be said of 2016, it was undeniably interesting. That’s likely to be true, too, for 2017. Even the staid area of US Intellectual Property Law may face dramatic changes. Here’s the likely most important of those changes.
US Supreme Court Eyes Patent-Enforced Post-Sale Restrictions 21/12/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment Few were surprised when, earlier this month, the US Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal in Impression Products, Inc. v. Lexmark International. The case presents two important patent law issues, and the lower court’s ruling on these issues conflicts with Supreme Court precedents, according to many experts.
