Tag: Adam Mossoff

Categories
Copyright Patents

CPIP Fall Conference Papers Highlight How Intellectual Property Rights Promote Global Prosperity

2016 Fall Conference flyerBy Alex Summerton

The George Mason Law Review has just published the papers from our Fourth Annual Fall Conference, Intellectual Property & Global Prosperity, which was held at Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, in Arlington, Virginia, on October 6-7, 2016. The conference highlighted the importance of IP rights in the global marketplace and discussed how countries that leverage the availability of such protections enjoy creative, technological, and economic benefits far surpassing those that place less value on IP.

The newly-published papers are outlined below:

Kristina M. L. Acri, née Lybecker, Economic Growth and Prosperity Stem from Effective Intellectual Property Rights, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 865 (2017)

Professor Kristina Acri of Colorado College discusses the importance of IP in incentivizing innovation by enabling firms to recuperate development expenditures. She explains how the static loss resulting from the patent system is far offset by the dynamic gains resulting from both increased innovation and public disclosure of knowledge. Acri identifies how countries employing strong IP regimes realize greater benefits in pharmaceutical innovations in the form of more available treatments and earlier implementation than countries with weaker protections. Furthermore, she highlights how robust IP systems encourage both revolutionary and incremental technology developments, promote domestic technology industries, and foster new employment opportunities for domestic labor forces.Key to this analysis are the fundamental economic forces that drive patented innovation. Acri discusses the importance of patents to innovator companies that must bear substantial fixed costs in the form of research and development, while generic competitors need only compete on negligible marginal costs with the innovators. She further explores how countries employing strong patent protections attract innovation businesses, as well as develop investment industries and educated workforces to support such innovation. Finally, Acri analyzes the positive correlation between a country’s rank as an innovative hot spot and the relative strength of its IP protections.

Walter G. Park, Averting a “Tripsxit” From the Global Intellectual Property System, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 883 (2017)

Professor Walter Park of American University examines the benefits that developing countries can realize by implementing stronger IP right systems in the context of the globalized marketplace. He considers the effect the TRIPS Agreement has had on the relationship between developed and developing countries as a function of the grant rates for technologies originating from various countries and the balance of technology imports and exports. Park seeks to explain why certain countries have developed into technological powerhouses in the last few decades, while others have remained behind and lagged in technological production.Park looks at various factors that could have influenced, and in turn have been influenced by, these divergent development paths, such as trade practices, legal and sociological structure, and the flexibility that TRIPS gives member states to set their own schedules. He concludes that countries seeking to move themselves into modern economies can benefit greatly by examining and adjusting their IP regimes to encourage both domestic and foreign innovations and investment in the local territory.

Stan Liebowitz, The Case for Copyright, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 907 (2017)

Professor Stan Liebowitz of the University of Texas explores several rationales for copyright, commenting on both economic and moralistic perspectives and discussing how, as a common misconception, many people fail to recognize that the property rights imparted by copyright truly enable economic returns. He focuses heavily on the economic case for copyright, seeking to dispel the myth that copyright is an economic monopoly. Liebowitz notes that popular works enjoy unusually high monopoly-like rents because they are uncommon and disproportionately successful as compared to unpopular works, not because they benefit from any economic monopoly imparted by copyright.Liebowitz discusses the concept of market-determined values of works in contrast to alternative systems such as centralized markets and patronage systems, and he concludes that these alternative systems lack the ability to incentivize the production of either high quality or high quantities of works. Finally, he explores the moral justifications for the remuneration of authors of successful works and discusses several alternative, although morally absurd, repugnant, or questionable, systems for securing payments for authors. Liebowitz posits that copyright enables markets to efficiently set the price of works and facilitates the determination of what society does and does not want produced.

Brett Danaher & Michael D. Smith, Digital Piracy, Film Quality, and Social Welfare, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 923 (2017)

Professors Brett Danaher of Chapman University and Michael Smith of Carnegie Mellon University assess the impact of piracy of copyrighted works on the production, in terms of both quantity and quality, of artistic works, particularly films. They discuss the trade-offs of copyright enforcement versus piracy for consumers and producers, and they outline the expected welfare transfers that occur for both users who would and would not otherwise purchase the consumed media in the absence of piracy. Danaher and Smith also delve into the hidden impact that piracy and the non-enforcement of copyright laws have on markets that traditionally have relied on copyright.Danaher and Smith analyze the origination of high-quality works and examine how the rise of online piracy has caused a depression in the production of award-winning films in countries where copyright is laxly enforced. They further identify the collateral negative effects of the lack of copyright enforcement, including the frustration of attempts to secure funding for riskier projects. Danaher and Smith explain how this potentially robs the world of artistically meritorious, but financially unsafe, projects, thereby decreasing overall social welfare.

Kevin Madigan & Adam Mossoff, Turning Gold Into Lead: How Patent Eligibility Doctrine is Undermining U.S. Leadership in Innovation, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 939 (2017)

CPIP Legal Fellow Kevin Madigan and Professor Adam Mossoff of George Mason University focus on recent developments at the Supreme Court that have made patenting high-technology inventions, particularly in the computer and biotechnology disciplines, more difficult and the consequential danger this poses to the United States’ position as a global innovation leader. They begin by reviewing the late-20th century jurisprudence that placed the U.S. in a position to be a technological force in the new millennium, especially with respect to the patentability of biotech and computer technology. Madigan and Mossoff then review more recent Supreme Court precedents that have led to a recession from a pro-patentability position while providing very little guidance on what could be patentable.Madigan and Mossoff go on to assess how this change in jurisprudence has resulted in a retreat from America’s position as a patent powerhouse. They point to cases where applications were rejected as unpatentable subject matter in the U.S. while the corresponding technologies were found to be patentable in Europe and China. Madigan and Mossoff also discuss the general trend of rejecting applications and invalidating patents with scant actual justification for why those applications and patents were patent ineligible. They conclude that data available from the last few years shows that the U.S. may be receding as a technological center since its patent laws have become unreliable for inventors and investors seeking protection.

Jiarui Liu, The Predatory Effects of Copyright Piracy, 24 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 961 (2017)

Professor Jiarui Liu of the University of San Francisco analyzes strategic behavior in copyright enforcement, particularly in countries that have not yet developed robust copyright industries and that have lessened incentive to invest in effective copyright policy. He discusses the phenomenon in China, where large copyright entities sometimes prefer pirating of their works to enforcement when they cannot expect any return for their work. As Liu explains, expecting the ability to develop a market and later determine how to recover payments for pirated copies, this lax enforcement of copyright policy results in a suppression of domestic industries that would compete with large entities.Liu outlines the reality of copyright enforcement in China, a lackluster effort on the part of the Chinese government that has led to rampant piracy of a wide range of copyrighted works. He explains how the piracy of software products, such as Microsoft Office, has stunted the development of new and competing technologies, a result implicitly approved by the market-dominant copyright owners. Liu compares this behavior of strategic non-enforcement to predatory pricing practices traditionally viewed as part of antitrust law, since it places the product into consumer hands at an initial loss in order to establish market dominance that will later enable the firm to exert monopoly power once its product has become the dominant force. Finally, Liu discusses possible mechanisms of corrective actions, both private and public, to combat non-enforcement as strategic behavior.

Categories
Administrative Agency Innovation Patent Law

The PTAB’s Regulatory Overreach and How it Cripples the Innovation Economy

files labeled as "patents"On August 14, 2017, the Regulatory Transparency Project of the Federalist Society published a new white paper, Crippling the Innovation Economy: Regulatory Overreach at the Patent Office. This white paper examines how an administrative tribunal created in 2011—the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)—has become “a prime example regulatory overreach.” Several CPIP scholars are members of the Intellectual Property Working Group in the Regulatory Transparency Project that produced the white paper, including Professors Adam Mossoff, Kristen Osenga, Erika Lietzan, and Mark Schultz, and several are listed as co-authors.

Among the sweeping changes to the U.S. patent system included in the America Invents Act (AIA) was the creation of the PTAB, a new administrative body within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The PTAB hears petitions challenging already-issued patents as defective. Anyone can file a petition to have a patent declared invalid. The original idea was that this would help to weed out “bad patents,” i.e., patents that should not have been issued in the first place.

In the past five years, however, it has become clear that the PTAB has become an example of an administrative tribunal that has gone too far. Lacking the proper procedural and substantive restraints that constrain courts and even other agencies in respecting the rights of citizens brought before them, the PTAB is now “killing large numbers of patents and casting a pall of uncertainty for inventors and investors.”

In just a few years, the laudable goal of the PTAB in providing a cheaper, faster way to invalidate “bad patents” has led to a situation in which all patents now have a shroud of doubt around them, undermining the stable and effective property rights that serve as the engine of the innovation economy. The former chief judge of the court that hears all patent appeals recently said that the PTAB is a “patent death squad,” and confirming that this is not extreme rhetoric, the first chief judge of the PTAB responded to this criticism by embracing it: “If we weren’t, in part, doing some ‘death squadding,’ we would not be doing what the [AIA] statute calls on us to do.”

The white paper briefly discusses the history and purpose of the U.S. patent system and describes the PTAB and how it operates. The substance of the white paper details extensively the procedural and substantive problems in how the PTAB has failed to respect both the basic requirements of the rule of law and the rights of patent owners. The concern is that this undermines the stable and effective platform that patent rights provide as the engine of the innovation economy.

To read the white paper, please click here.

Categories
Innovation Legislation Patent Law

CPIP Co-Founder Testifies at House Judiciary Committee Hearing on IP

U.S. Capitol buildingCPIP co-founder Adam Mossoff testified on June 13 before the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.  He and other witnesses testified about the impact of the Supreme Courts recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC on innovators and the possibility of future changes to patent law.

For those not familiar with the decision, it held that patent lawsuits against corporations must be filed either where the corporation is incorporated or where it has infringed the patent and has a “regular and established placed of business.” This is different than the rule for most litigation which generally allows a lawsuit to be filed wherever a court may exercise jurisdiction over the corporation.  Thus, TC Heartland placed constraints on patent owners enforcing their rights that don’t exist for other litigants.

Although the hearing was nominally about TC Heartland and venue for patent suits, Members of Congress and witnesses took the opportunity to address broader issues of innovation policy.  In his opening statement, Professor Mossoff primarily described how patent owners—particularly individual inventors and small businesses—will now be required to file multiple lawsuits all across the country to enforce their rights.  This will drastically increase the costs of protecting their property from infringers, which for many innovators will be cost prohibitive.  Professor Mossoff mentioned one such inventor, Bunch-o-Balloons inventor Josh Malone, who is being seriously harmed by the inability to protect his invention from rampant infringement.  Together with the litany of other recent disastrous changes to our patent system, innovators are now in a precarious position when deciding to rely on patents to protect their inventions.

Much of the hearing was taken up by questions of what the impact of the TC Heartland decision will be.  There was general agreement that the concentration of patent cases in only a few districts will continue.  Under the old regime, many cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas.  Under the new regime, these cases will now be filed in the Northern District of California or the District of Delaware.  There was also general agreement that this would benefit accused infringers, who will now be litigating in their preferred fora.

Adam MossoffUnfortunately, much of the discussion centered around a perceived problem with patent “trolls.”  This epithet based on myths is often used in the place of reasoned debate for patent policy.  As Professor Mossoff explained, as deployed in research and policy debates, this term would make even famous inventors like Thomas Edison a troll.  Furthermore, it is both wrong and irresponsible to assume that patent owners who license their inventions are practicing an illegitimate business model. Just as it is perfectly legitimate for a landlord to rent her property instead of selling it, it is likewise perfectly legitimate for a patent owner to license her patent rights instead of manufacturing and selling products to customers. And just as it is legitimate for a landlord to sue a squatter for trespass, it is equally legitimate for a patent owner who licenses her property rights to sue for infringement.

Several questions focused on broader patent issues in the context of whether or what Congress should do next for patent law. The Global Intellectual Property Center of the Chamber of Commerce recently reported that the United States had slipped from 1st to 10th in their annual ranking of patent systems.  Reasons for the degradation of our patent system are obvious: death squads killing patents at the PTAB, subject matter eligibility standards that make oil rigs outside the scope of patent laws, and the inability of patent owners to prevent others from infringing their rights through injunctions.

As Professor Mossoff emphasized, Congress’ first priority should be “do no harm.” Rather than make another attempt to pass legislation further restricting patent owners’ rights, it would be better for Congress to simply do nothing.  However, Congress could make the patent system better for innovators.  One step already being discussed that would be a positive improvement is the suggestion to amend section 101 to limit the scope of the judicial exceptions to subject matter eligibility.  At the hearing, Professor Mossoff astutely noted that the first patent ever issued in the United States—being held up at that moment by Chairman Darrell Issa—would likely be invalidated under current patent eligibility standards.

Many questions directed at the witnesses asked for them to propose specific solutions to either perceived venue abuses or broader patent law issues. Professor Mossoff stressed that systemic changes to the patent system will not just affect a few bad actors, but all of the individual inventors, small businesses, universities, licensing companies, and R&D-intensive high-tech and bio-pharma companies who rely on the patent system to protect their innovations.  These types of companies have been the fountainhead of the U.S. innovation economy for more than 200 years.  “Reform” that only addresses the concerns of accused infringers, but not the costs to patent owners, is doomed to do more harm than good.

Professor Mossoff’s written testimony can be found here.  Video of the hearing can be found here.

Categories
Infringement Patent Theory

Explaining Efficient Infringement

By Adam Mossoff & Bhamati Viswanathan

files labeled as "patents"In a recent New York Times op-ed, “The Patent Troll Smokescreen,” Joe Nocera used in print for the first time the term, “efficient infringement.” This pithy phrase quickly gained currency if only because it captures a well-known phenomenon that has been impossible to describe in even a single sentence. Unfortunately, some commentators are confused about the validity of this term. This is understandable, because no one has yet described exactly what it means, especially in comparison to the similar commercial practice of “efficient breach” in contract law.

In a nutshell, efficient infringement occurs when a company deliberately chooses to infringe a patent given that it is cheaper than to license the patent. The reason it is cheaper is what makes it hard to explain briefly: a slew of legal changes to the patent system by Congress, courts, and regulatory agencies in the past ten years have substantially increased the costs and uncertainties in enforcing patents against infringers.

Accused infringers now can very easily invalidate patents, either in court or at the “patent death squad” known as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. If a patent owner runs this gauntlet after several years of costly litigation and obtains a judgment in its favor, courts are increasingly refusing to award injunctions for anyone other than manufacturing companies. What is left for the patent owner is only damages, but changes in the legal rules for awarding damages have made damage awards very minimal compared to the actual economic harms suffered by a patent owner (a 2015 PricewaterhouseCoopers study found that median damage awards in 2014 were at their second lowest level in the past 20 years).

The result of all of this is that a company economically gains from deliberately infringing patents. It pays less in either legal fees or in court-ordered damages than it would have paid in a license negotiated with a patent owner. This is efficient infringement.

As a term in the legal policy debates, efficient infringement draws some inspiration from the well-known economic model of “efficient breach” in contract law. But the two seem very different, at least superficially.  Thus, efficient infringement needs further explanation by way of a more explicit comparison to efficient breach theory.

The model of efficient breach posits an overall net gain in social welfare from a willful breach of contract. It supposes a scenario in which one contracting party has an opportunity to obtain a higher payment for its goods or services, producing a profit that exceeds any damages from a breach of contract that would be paid to the other contracting party. Thus, the contracting party breaches: it receives the higher payment, it pays the other contracting party its “expectancy interest” (lost profits), and it pockets its net profits. Everyone wins and society is better off, at least according to this highly stylized and abstract economic model.

In practice, though, one rarely finds cases in which this opportunistic breach of contract works. The losses suffered by a victim of a breach of contract easily exceed mere profits, and courts account for this by awarding reliance and restitution damages, as well as punitive damages for deliberate misconduct like opportunistic breach of contract. Other legal claims, such as tortious interference with a contract and equitable claims for rescission and restitution, provide additional sources of relief for victims of willful breaches of contracts. In fact, one reason contracting parties negotiate liquidated damages provisions in their agreements is to limit liability for these widely recognized costs that go beyond mere expectancy interests.

These additional damages reflect the total costs created by strategic, opportunistic breaches of contract. These include institutional and systemic harms in eroding reasonable reliance on contractual commitments, lost investments made on the basis of contractual commitments, lost opportunities to pursue other commercial transactions, reputational harms, and so on. A victim of an opportunistic contract breach, for example, can seek the equitable remedy of rescinding the contract and seek restitution to disgorge the willful bad actor of his wrongful gains at the expense of the victim.

This is why one usually finds successful efficient breach only in hypothetical examples in economic textbooks or in law review articles, and not in actual court cases. As one of the scholars who first coined this term in 1977 recently observed, “efficient breach is both a null set as well as an oxymoron.” Or, as Professor Gregory Klass similarly notes, efficient breach is a “dead letter,” although he still believes it “remains a great teaching tool.”

Recognizing this difference between theory and practice is key in understanding the parallels between efficient breach and efficient infringement.  In theory, efficient breach considers only the lost profits in a one-off case of contract breach, and it thus sounds like a gain in social welfare because everyone benefits. But, in practice, contracting parties and courts recognize the total individual and systemic costs caused by willful violations of legal rights, whether a contract right or a property right. The same is true for efficient infringement, in both theory and practice.

Theoretically, efficient infringement posits a breach of a legal right that enhances both private and social welfare. The company benefits privately because it pays less via a patent infringement lawsuit in either legal fees (invalidating the patent) or in a compulsory license (court-awarded damages). Society is better off, too, because the company engaging in efficient infringement has more resources to put to productive endeavors, as opposed to paying for use of an invalid patent (a monopoly) or in making a larger wealth transfer payment on the basis of a negotiated license.

In the real world, though, efficient infringement creates more costs than merely the lost licensing profits for the patent owner, or the lost patent itself. The more fundamental problem with efficient infringement is that it undermines the proper functioning of the patent system. It frustrates the promise of the reward to the innovator for one’s inventive labors. Once inventors know that the deck of (legal) cards is stacked against them and that they will suffer efficient infringement, they will create less patentable innovation. Without legal security in stable and effective property rights, venture capitalists will not invest in inventors or startups and the innovation economy will suffer.

The important point is that these negative dynamic efficiency effects from efficient infringement are systemic in nature. This is similar to the concern about systemic costs represented by such causes of action for willful breach of contract as restitution and disgorgement of wrongful gains. As a matter of real-world practice, the costs created by efficient infringement are similar to the broader private and systemic costs created by opportunistic breaches of contract—both threaten the viability of legal institutions and the policies that drive them, such as incentivizing investments and promoting commercial transactions.

Categories
Copyright

New CPIP Policy Brief: Open-Access Mandates and the Seductively False Promise of “Free”

the word "copyright" typed on a typewriterCPIP has published a new policy brief entitled Open-Access Mandates and the Seductively False Promise of “Free.” The brief, written by CPIP Legal Fellow Bhamati Viswanathan and CPIP Director of Academic Programs & Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff, exposes the lack of evidence or justification for the proliferating legal mandates by federal agencies that coerce authors and publishers to make their scholarly articles available for free to the world.

The Introduction to the policy brief is copied below:

Introduction

Federal agencies are increasingly mandating or proposing free public access for copyrighted works that report on federally-funded research. These “open-access mandates” compel scholars and researchers to make their articles or other writings freely available to billions of people around the world. Furthermore, many of the mandates also allow the public to modify these copyrighted works without the authors’ consent. Countless authors and publishers must comply with this legal mandate of “free.” Federal agencies—such as the Department of Education, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Energy—disburse billions annually in research grants. As a result, open-access mandates encompass millions of published articles, test-related materials (including those relating to standardized tests and testing services), and even computer software source code.

Open-access mandates have the potential to significantly harm the publishing industry. In 2015, the American publishing sector generated $27.78 billion in net revenue, representing 2.71 billion published works in electronic and print formats. This includes over 500,000 works in higher education, as well as learning materials for primary and secondary education. Works of scholarship, such as scientific research, also account for a significant share of revenue-generating materials. Unfortunately, open-access mandates are a direct threat to the business model that enables the multi-billion dollar market in scholarly and educational publishing to thrive.

Open-access mandates require publishers to place their works in government-operated repositories that are openly accessible and free of charge to users. But publishers typically invest hundreds of millions of dollars in building and supporting their own innovative and sophisticated systems for delivering copyrighted works to the public. Open-access mandates frustrate these efforts, effectively undermining publishers’ proven business models. Further, they force publishers to compete with government-run systems that need not be efficient, advanced, or profitable. By inserting the government as a competitor to private actors in the publishing sector, open-access mandates undermine publishers’ incentives to invest in both copyrighted works and effective systems for disseminating those works.

Open-access mandates also strike at the heart of copyright law by depriving publishers of their right to own and commercialize their copyrighted works as they see fit. U.S. copyright law secures to copyright owners fundamental property rights in their works; these rights cannot be eviscerated by administrative fiat. By forcing publishers to forfeit their rights to commercialize their copyrighted works, open-access mandates in works that report on federally-funded research are incompatible with fundamental principles of copyright law.

The publishing industry is built upon a business model that is proven, realistic, and robust. Moreover, the industry is constantly investing in innovation and improvement of its products and services. Proponents of open-access mandates seek to replace this model with an untested set of systemic changes. Yet they have not offered any evidence that the open-access model is viable and sustainable. Barring such evidence, open-access mandates should not be adopted.

Open-access mandates should be rejected as a prime example of regulatory overreach. In this paper, we address four reasons why this is the case:

  • Open-access mandates undercut publishers’ ability to invest in producing and distributing copyrighted works.
  • Open-access mandates contradict basic principles of copyright law.
  • Open-access mandates are the classic example of a solution in search of a problem: there is no evidence of a systemic market failure in scholarly publishing requiring a massive regulatory intervention.
  • Open-access mandates are based on untenable economic models.

We begin, however, by noting that while open-access mandates raise serious legal, policy, and economic concerns, the open-access model itself is unobjectionable when done on a voluntary basis.

To read the policy brief, please click here.

Categories
Uncategorized

Lobbyists Continue to Invoke Discredited Junk Science to Push Patent Legislation

dictionary entry for the word "innovate"It seems no matter how many times the mole gets whacked, it keeps popping back up. The latest incarnation of this problem is a recent op-ed by Katie Johnson of the National Association of Realtors, which relies on a long since discredited study about the state of patent litigation in the United States.  She goes on to make matters worse by using the highly misleading “patent troll” moniker and positively referring to an out of control bureaucracy that is destroying patents at an alarming rate.

Although Ms. Johnson cites only the $1.75 million estimate to defend a patent suit from the flawed study, the entire study was flawed from top to bottom. To achieve its desired result of blaming “trolls” for high litigation costs, the study defined “trolls” to include individual inventors, universities, startups, and even manufacturers who also license their patents. The study also ignores the benefits of the patent system for small business patent owners and inventors who must rely on litigation to stop piracy of their new innovation.

It is important to set things right. Patent litigation is the mechanism by which property owners protect their rights.  This has been true for all types of inventors throughout American history, including such famous American innovators as Thomas Edison, Charles Goodyear, and Elias Howe – all of whom are included in the “patent troll” definition. For software patents specifically, these patents are highly valuable for innovation.  As CPIP founder Adam Mossoff has discussed at length previously, patent protection for software inventions promotes innovation. It is important that every time someone uses junk science and rhetorical epithets to attack the patent system, we continue to call this out for what it is.

Categories
Conferences Innovation

Event Recap: Great Inventors and the Patent System

hand under a lightbulb drawn on a blackboardOn February 16, 2017, CPIP hosted a panel discussion, America as a Place of Innovation: Great Inventors and the Patent System, at the Smithsonian National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C. The event was co-hosted by the Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation at the Smithsonian Institution and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The video of the event is available here, and the event program is available here.

The panel featured three professors who have written extensively on the role of innovation and patenting in American history. Professor Ernest Freeberg, University of Tennessee, discussed Thomas Edison’s invention of electric light and its effects on American life and culture. Professor Christopher Beauchamp, Brooklyn Law School, discussed Alexander Graham Bell and his fight to secure patent rights in the telephone. Professor Adam Mossoff, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, discussed the centrality of patents to early American innovations by Charles Goodyear, Samuel Morse, and Joseph Singer. Arthur Daemmrich, Director of the Lemelson Center, moderated the discussion. Alan Marco, Chief Economist at the USPTO, delivered the closing remarks.

The theme of the panel was twofold. First, the late-nineteenth to early-twentieth era was marked by extraordinary innovation and progress. Second, patent rights both spurred and supported American innovation at every critical juncture: from invention and discovery to commercialization, and then to the delivery of life-changing products and services to the American people.

The panel highlighted a broad and rapidly-paced array of contributions that innovators made throughout the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, enriching and transforming American lives in the process. Several panelists emphasized the enthusiasm that Americans evinced for the inventions of their day. Electric lights, telephones, labor-saving devices, and gadgets were all welcomed by the scientific press and the populace as exciting hallmarks of progress. As Professor Freeberg emphasized, everyone agreed at the turn-of-the-century that American innovation was a deeply democratic act.

Central to the growth of innovative progress was the consolidated strength and support of the American patent system. Professor Beauchamp emphasized the multiple roles that patents play in a strong innovative economy. First, they secure rights that motivate inventors to create and commercialize their work. Second, they are an asset around which companies are organized and in which investors are eager to invest. Third, they are a business tool that enables transactions, contracts, licensing, and the exchange of rights to occur. And fourth, they are a means for disseminating and furthering public knowledge.

Patents were the bedrock of American innovation, but they were frequently also controversial. Professor Mossoff observed that today’s “patent wars” are nothing new, but instead are part of a lineage of disputes over ownership of new inventions, technologies, and commercial products. Historically, however, there is a much more important constant than litigiousness: the unique approach that America took toward patents.

As Professor Mossoff underscored, the commitment to patents is an integral and enduring part of American exceptionalism. Patents were created and protected as property rights of the innovators who created them. This has many important dimensions. Patents were from the start protected through the rule of law. They were granted to inventors not just as an abstract concept, but as a concrete grant of secure and effective rights. And they were a way for people to structure their lives.

Professor Mossoff observed that patents as property ensured that patent owners could use and deploy their inventions however they wanted. Ownership and control over patents were features of the system from its inception. This institutionalization of the patent system was central to the democratization of American innovation. It allowed Americans to invent, commercialize, and in a larger sense to innovate: to take technology and turn it into a commercial, viable product that consumers could actually use and benefit from in the marketplace.

The conversation among the panelists was centered on innovation and its longstanding role in generating disruptive innovation that changes lives as dramatically then as it does now. But an equally powerful theme was that innovation needs patents to make progress commercially viable and to bring products and services to people. It was, and has always been, the exceptional nature of the American patent system that has indeed enabled America to be the place of innovation.

Categories
Innovation Patent Litigation

CPIP Scholars Ask Supreme Court to Resist Call to Restrict Venue Choices for Patent Owners

U.S. Supreme Court buildingOn March 8, 2017, CPIP Scholars Adam Mossoff, Devlin Hartline, Chris Holman, Sean O’Connor, Kristen Osenga, & Mark Schultz joined an amicus brief in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. CPIP Scholars worked with USD Law’s Ted Sichelman to organize, write, and file the brief. The case focuses on whether patent owners may sue corporate defendants in any judicial district where the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant, which is the default rule in federal cases.

Concerned about the allegedly abusive behavior of certain firms suing in the Eastern District of Texas, some would like to severely restrict where all patent owners may sue. The amici note that, even if the Supreme Court restricts venue choices as these people would like, patent lawsuits would not be equitably distributed as a result. A recent study showed that 60% of all patent cases would still be concentrated in 5 of the 94 judicial districts. Furthermore, instead of concentrating in one district—the Eastern District of Texas—cases would primarily concentrate in two districts—the Northern District of California and the District of Delaware.

As the amici argue: “No plausible argument can be made—and Petitioner and its amici have not offered an argument—that shifting cases from one district to two districts would result in a meaningful distribution of patent cases among the ninety-four federal district courts.” The amici note that concerns about “forum shopping” are overblown since patentees are just doing what all federal plaintiffs do—choosing “the forum that gives it the best opportunity for success.” Since “corporate defendants are generally subject in any civil complaint to venue in any district in which personal jurisdiction lies,” the amici suggest that the same rule should apply in patent cases.

The amici conclude: “Innovators and their investors have long been vital to a flourishing innovation economy in the United States. Startups, venture capitalists, individual inventors, universities, and established companies often rely heavily on patents to recoup their extensive investments in both research & development and commercialization. By restricting the districts in which a patent owner can bring suit, the value of the patent itself is lessened, diminishing the economic incentives the patent system provides to spur innovation.”

To read the amicus brief, please click here.

Categories
Innovation Patent Law Supreme Court

CPIP Scholars File Amicus Brief Urging Consideration of Claimed Inventions as a Whole

U.S. Supreme Court buildingLast week, CPIP Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and I filed an amicus brief on behalf of 15 law professors, including CPIP’s Devlin Hartline, Chris Holman, Sean O’Connor, Kristen Osenga, and Mark Schultz. We urge the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in TDE Petroleum v. AKM Enterprise and reaffirm that any analysis of an invention must be of the claimed invention as a whole.

Unfortunately, lower courts and the Patent & Trademark Office have been applying a test of patent eligibility that allows breaking up an invention into parts and then analyzing the parts separately. Sometimes, as in the case here, a court will completely ignore an element of the invention. This needs to be fixed. Any invention is defined by its entirety, not by its isolated parts.

As I discussed before, TDE Petroleum’s patent claims a method of operating an oil rig. Part of the method uses software. But as the claim discussed in our brief makes clear, the end result of the method is control of a physical well with a drill running inside the earth. However, the courts that have looked at this patent so far have only considered the function of certain software elements and pretend the oil rig is not important. Such unimpeded dissection of claims makes it easy to invalidate important patented innovation notwithstanding the contribution to the field.

The full amicus brief can be found here. In addition to showing that the claimed invention is a method of operating an oil rig, we show why the claim precisely parallels a claim to a method of molding rubber found patent eligible by the Supreme Court 36 years ago.

Categories
ITC Trademarks

CPIP Founders File Amicus Brief on Behalf of 11 Law Professors in Converse v. ITC

a gavel lying on a table in front of booksCPIP Founders Adam Mossoff & Mark Schultz filed an amicus brief today on behalf of 11 law professors in Converse v. International Trade Commission, a trademark case currently before the Federal Circuit.

In late-2014, Converse filed a complaint with the International Trade Commission alleging that more than thirty companies, including Skechers, Walmart, New Balance, and Highline, were violating Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 by importing and selling infringing shoes. Converse owns a registered trademark on the midsole of its iconic Chuck Taylor All Star shoe, including the signature toe cap, toe bumper, and midsole stripes:

patent drawing of a Converse shoe

An administrative law judge found that Converse owns a valid registered trademark and that each respondent sold at least one infringing knock-off. That opinion was later reversed by the Commission, which held that Converse’s registered trademark was invalid. In the Commission’s opinion, Converse failed to prove that its iconic midsole had acquired secondary meaning—though it nevertheless found that Converse’s trademark would have been violated had it been valid. Converse has now appealed that ruling to the Federal Circuit.

The amicus brief filed by Professors Mossoff & Schultz argues that the Commission failed to properly consider the fundamental role of trademark law in securing the productive labors of companies like Converse that create famous products like its Chuck Taylor All Star shoe. The brief was co-signed by Professors Gregory Dolin, Christopher Frerking, Hugh Hansen, Jay Kesan, Irina D. Manta, Kristen Osenga, Eric Priest, Ted Sichelman, and Saurabh Vishnubhakat.

The Summary of Argument from the amicus brief is copied below:

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

This case deals with one of the most iconic, long-lived brands in the footwear industry: the Chuck Taylor athletic shoe. As one of the first massively successful athletic shoe products—selling hundreds of millions of pairs over the past 80 years—the name and design of these athletic shoes is an exemplar of the successful commercial goodwill that trademark law is intended to promote and secure to innovative commercial enterprises like Converse. Unfortunately, the International Trade Commission (Commission) chose to ignore the fundamental importance of investment in goodwill—to trademark law generally and to the establishment of secondary meaning specifically.

The appellant addresses the numerous doctrinal and factual infirmities with the Commission’s decision, and thus amici offer an additional legal and policy insight into this case that is necessary to understand the full scope of the Commission’s error: the Commission contradicted a fundamental precept of modern trademark law that it secures the valuable goodwill created by companies like Converse through their productive labors in creating, manufacturing and marketing iconic, famous products like the Chuck Taylor athletic shoes. See Qualitex v Jacobson, 514 U.S. 159, 163-64 (1995) (“The law thereby encourages the production of quality products, and simultaneously discourages those who hope to sell inferior products by capitalizing on a consumer’s inability quickly to evaluate the quality of an item offered for sale.”).

In addition to protecting consumers from significant costs and other harms imposed on them by commercial pirates, it is a longstanding, fundamental policy in trademark law to secure the valuable goodwill created by innovative commercial enterprises in selling products in the marketplace. See, e.g., Partridge v. Menck, 5 N.Y. Ch. Ann. 572, 574 (1847) (stating a trademark owner “is entitled to protection against any other person who attempts to pirate upon [its] goodwill”). Courts recognize these two key, mutually reinforcing policies in trademark law—securing goodwill and protecting consumers—as two sides of the same coin. See Groenveld Transport Efficiency v Lubecore Intern., Inc., 730 F.3d 494, 512 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Trademark law’s likelihood-of-confusion requirement . . . incentivizes manufacturers to create robust brand recognition by consistently offering good products and good services, which results in more consumer satisfaction. That is the virtuous cycle envisioned by trademark law, including its trade-dress branch.”). These two policies necessarily work together to ensure that trademark law functions properly.

In this case, the Commission disregarded the dual policies that animate trademark law by focusing solely on consumer issues while denying Converse its justly earned legal protection for its long-established and valuable goodwill. Thus, amici believe that the Commission’s decision should be reversed solely on the grounds of this contradiction of fundamental trademark policy. This is a case in which commercial pirates have undoubtedly “tread closely on the heels of [a] very successful trademark,” and thus are within the “long shadow which competitors must avoid” that is cast by Converse’s valuable goodwill in its famous mark—the Chuck Taylor athletic shoe design. Kenner Parker Toys Inc. v. Rose Art Industries, Inc., 963 F2d 350, 353-54 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quotations and citations omitted).

To read the amicus brief, please click here.