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.
New US Copyright Rule Sets Trap For Online Firms 25/11/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment The US Copyright Office is supposed to balance the interests of copyright owners with the interests of everyone else. However, the Office’s latest regulation, which takes effect 1 December, may be anything but fair and balanced. It could, according to critics, strip Facebook, YouTube, and other online companies of a vital statutory safe harbor, thus making these companies liable when their users post infringing material online. Online companies could face billions in infringement damages, driving them out of business.
US High Court Puts Unreasonable Delay On Trial 21/10/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch Leave a Comment On its face, the case is a humdrum, procedural dispute about a patentee’s delay in filing an infringement suit. But if the Supreme Court rules the way most experts expect, the decision will significantly enhance the power of patent trolls and others alleging patent infringement, and it will harm many companies doing business in the US – especially companies in the tech sector. Much hangs in the balance on 1 November, when the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in SCA Hygiene Products AG v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC.
US Supreme Court To Examine Outsized Infringement Damages 28/09/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 2 Comments Patent infringers are supposed to pay damages, but the award in this case struck many as ridiculous. Some Samsung smartphones contained one or two purely decorative design elements that had been patented by Apple. But instead of paying modest damages for what many see as a tiny infringement, Samsung was ordered to pay $399 million – all the profits the company had made from its infringing phones. The Federal Circuit said it had no choice but to approve those damages; it was constrained by statute. Critics, however, said that the Federal Circuit had misinterpreted the statute. They fret the court’s error will unleash a wave of design patent infringement suits that will harm innovation, stifle competition, and empower patent trolls. Which is why so many will be paying close attention on 11 October, when this dispute comes before the US Supreme Court.
US High Court Restores Treble Damages For Patent Infringement 26/07/2016 by Steven Seidenberg for Intellectual Property Watch 3 Comments Pulse Electronics was guilty of patent infringement. That had been decided long ago. The only remaining issue was how much Pulse must pay for its wrongdoing. The company could be liable for treble damages, provided its infringement was willful. Fortunately for Pulse, willful infringement was almost impossible to prove, thanks to a standard established by the Federal Circuit. Unfortunately for Pulse, its lawsuit reached the US Supreme Court. And in its recent ruling on the case, the high court threw out the Federal Circuit’s standard, making it far easier to prove willful infringement. The decision is likely to have an important impact on patent litigation, the courts, and companies doing business in the US.
