Search

The WIPO has published a report on Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), which highlights the increasing number of patents and scientific publications in this field. The growth is attributed to advancements in technology and AI algorithms. The report identifies the top patent owners and scientific publication producers in GenAI, as well as the countries with the highest number of GenAI patent filings. It also explores different GenAI models, data types, and application areas. GenAI is expected to have a significant impact on various industries and enhance content creation and productivity. The article cautions that while there has been substantial growth in GenAI patent families, many of these patents cannot be assigned to a specific application. The software/other applications category has experienced the most growth, particularly in energy management and agriculture. The information in the article is sourced from WIPO, but it is important to note that it does not provide legal advice. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the emerging case law regarding orders to preserve evidence under the Unified Patent Court (UPC). These orders are similar to the "saisie-contrefaçon" procedures in civil law jurisdictions like Belgium, France, and Italy, which allow patentees to collect evidence of suspected patent infringement without the targeted party being heard. So far, five orders have been issued by the UPC, all of which were granted ex parte. The article highlights trends in the case law, including the assessment of patent validity, the favoring of the patentee's interests, and the use of confidentiality measures. Overall, the article suggests that these orders are a valuable tool for patentees to collect evidence of infringement. [Extracted from the article]

The Virginia Appeals Court has overturned a $2 billion jury award in a trade secrets misappropriation case between Appian Corp. and Pegasystems, Inc. The court found that the trial judge made errors in instructing the jury and excluding evidence. The case involved allegations that Pegasystems hired a consultant who shared Appian's platform information with them. The appellate court criticized the trial judge for excluding important damages evidence and preventing Pegasystems from introducing relevant software versions. The court also discussed the distinction between viewpoint-neutral and viewpoint-biased prohibitions in trademark law, ultimately concluding that the names clause in trademark law is content-based but fits within the tradition of restricting the trademarking of names. [Extracted from the article]

The Guangzhou Internet Court in China has made the world's first decision regarding the liability of AI service providers for copyright infringement. The case involved an AI company that generated images of Ultraman, which infringed upon the copyright of the plaintiff, Shanghai Character License Administrative Co., Ltd. The court ruled that the AI company was liable for infringement of reproduction and adaptation rights. The court ordered the defendant to implement measures to prevent the generation of similar images and awarded compensation of RMB 10,000 to the plaintiff. This case highlights the challenges and complexities of copyright law in the era of artificial intelligence. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the conflict between privacy law and trade secret law in the context of the fourth industrial revolution, which is driven by data and connectivity. Companies often rely on trade secret law to protect valuable data sets, algorithms, and insights derived from data processing. However, privacy laws are expanding and subjecting the same information to transparency and disclosure requirements, creating a conflict. The article explores potential solutions, such as limiting consumer access to derived or generated data and having consumers sign nondisclosure agreements. It emphasizes the need for coordination between intellectual property and data privacy departments to ensure trade secret protection while complying with privacy laws. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses a pharmaceutical litigation case involving H. Lundbeck A/S and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company. The court ruled that several generic drug companies' applications did not infringe on the plaintiffs' patents. The court also rejected arguments of induced infringement and contributory infringement. The article highlights the importance of considering noninfringing uses and the limitations of a specific section of the Hatch-Waxman Act. The IPLitigator magazine, where the article is featured, covers various topics related to intellectual property law and provides valuable insights and analysis from experts in the field. It is a useful resource for library patrons interested in researching intellectual property law. [Extracted from the article]

The article provides a review of intellectual property litigation in Canada in 2023. It discusses several important developments, including the court's limitations on summary trials, the involvement of counsel in drafting expert reports, the availability of permanent injunctions, and the use of artificial intelligence in court proceedings. The article also highlights specific cases that illustrate these developments, such as the court's refusal to grant a permanent injunction in Abbvie v. Jamp based on public interest considerations and the Federal Court's issuance of a novel rolling order in Burberry v. Ward to address infringing behavior. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses proactive litigation strategies in intellectual property disputes. It explains that when an entity or individual believes their IP rights have been infringed upon, the typical first step is to send a demand or cease-and-desist letter. However, in some cases, the accused party may opt for a proactive litigation strategy. This strategy allows them to frame the legal issues proactively, evaluate the most appropriate venue for the dispute, and potentially mitigate the scope of the dispute. The article explores the components of a proactive litigation strategy, including filing for a declaratory judgment, initiating an Inter Partes Review (IPR), and conducting a Post Grant Review (PGR). It also highlights the potential risks and challenges associated with proactive litigation and emphasizes the importance of consulting with experienced IP counsel. The article concludes by stating that while being proactive can help resolve uncertainties and secure a favorable legal position, it is crucial to approach these strategies with caution, knowledge, and thorough planning. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the rise in trade secret litigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) and the unique traits that make it an attractive venue for trade secret owners. The ITC has worldwide jurisdiction and can investigate claims of trade secret misappropriation related to imported products. It also has the power to issue mandatory injunctions and has a fast trial process. However, complainants must satisfy the injury requirement, which can be complicated, and the ITC's decisions on trade secret misappropriation claims are generally followed by district courts. The article provides considerations for both trade secret owners and targets of trade secret misappropriation investigations at the ITC. [Extracted from the article]

The article discusses the importance of collaboration between technical and financial experts in technology-related litigation, such as patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation cases. Technical experts provide explanations of complex concepts to judges and juries, while financial experts assess the value and financial impact of the technology at issue. The article highlights the need for better collaboration between these experts to provide a more accurate and comprehensive analysis of value to the trier of fact. It also emphasizes the importance of technical experts going beyond their traditional role to provide a more comprehensive technical analysis that supports the value conclusion. [Extracted from the article]

This article discusses the ongoing copyright cases against OpenAI, a company that uses artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Multiple lawsuits have been filed against OpenAI, alleging copyright infringement for using protected works to train their AI models. The most prominent case is the New York Times v. OpenAI & Microsoft, in which the New York Times is seeking billions of dollars for copyright infringement and trademark dilution. Comedian Sarah Silverman has also filed a similar lawsuit against OpenAI. The article highlights the denial of Silverman's attempt to intervene in the New York Times case, indicating that the cases will proceed separately on both coasts. [Extracted from the article]

6 Such a royalty typically includes two components: (1) a royalty base, which defines the value of units for which damages are assessed; and (2) a royalty rate, which defines the relative value of the claimed invention per unit. See Elbit, 927 F .3d at 1299 ("[T]he prior licenses or settlements need to be "sufficiently comparable" for evidentiary purposes and any differences in circumstances must be soundly accounted for."); CSIRO, 809 F .3d at 1302 ("Where the data used is not sufficiently tied to the facts of the case, a damages model cannot meet the substantive statutory requirement of apportionment of royalty damages to the invention's value." 69 The court permitted the patentee to present this model to the jury, reasoning it "doesn't derive a per-unit royalty by applying a royalty rate to the price of the devices, so [it] does not implicate the[] jury-confusion concerns" the EMVR and SSPPU are designed to prevent. There is little doubt that sophisticated patent-assertion entities and litigation funders will exploit comparable-license rules by structuring selfserving licenses. [Extracted from the article]

15 From 1993 to 1995, Ezaki sent letters to Lotte, notifying Lotte of its registered trade dress and asking Lotte to cease and desist selling Pepero in the United States. In Ezaki Glico Kabushiki Kaisha v. Lotte International America Corp., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered a trade dress infringement dispute between two confectioners. 67 The Court also considered Lotte's argument that because Ezaki's product was covered by a utility patent, it shows that the product was functional. Third Circuit Court of Appeals Considers Differences Between Trade Dress and Patent Protection. [Extracted from the article]