The Canadian government has announced that it is investing $88.3M CD in a new IP strategy that incorporates tools and education, and improves literacy. Canada’s population is approximately one-tenth of that of the U.S.’
The government wants to help business, creators, entrepreneurs, and investors better understand, protect and access intellectual property (IP) through a comprehensive IP Strategy. The full story can be read on IP Watchdog.
Legislation, Literacy, Advice
The IP Strategy will make changes in three key areas: Legislation, Literacy, and Advice, according to a statement and Canada’s IP Strategy website.
The Canadian government announcement said that intellectual property is a key component of an innovation economy. It helps Canadian innovators reach commercial success, further discovery and create middle-class jobs by protecting their ideas and ensuring they reap the full rewards of their inventions and creations.
Canada’s IP Strategy will help Canadian entrepreneurs better understand and protect intellectual property and also provide better access to shared intellectual property. Canada is a leader in research, science, creation, and invention, but has lagged in commercializing innovations.
The new IP strategy received praise from a range of industries, from aerospace to biotech to entertainment.
A suite of seminars, training and information resources on the subject of intellectual property (IP) is tailored for businesses and innovators. As part of the “Literacy and Advice” section of IP Strategy, the Canadian IP Office (CIPO) will:
Support domestic and international engagement between Indigenous people and decision makers as well as for research activities and capacity building.
Provide tools to support Canadian businesses as they learn about IP and pursue their own IP strategies.
Earlier this year, the UK IP Office (UK IPO) introduced a copyright awareness program with a series of educational animations for students seven to eleven-years-old. “Nancy and the Meerkats,” under the Cracking Ideas initiative, met with nasty opposition from media like Techdirt and Torrent Freak. They believe that helping children to understand IP right from wrong is a little more than brainwashing. These publications often have an IP axe to grind and believe that content and code should be broadly shared, and that piracy is not necessarily theft.
“UK Teaches 7-Year-Olds that Piracy is Stealing” was the title of the Torrent Freak article, implying that it is not. Piracy is not OK, even if some coders, content providers, and patent infringers believe it is. A BBC story attempted to sort things out, but the negative publicity appeared to put the educators on the defensive when it is the infringers who should be. Teaching children IP right from wrong is part of good parenting.
On Tuesday an open briefing was held in Washington to better understand U.S. innovation and IP policy. Congressman Doug Collins (R-GA), a supporter of strong and certain IP rights, launched the event with a personal account of his exposure to IP rights growing up in rural Georgia.
He said that a number of his relatives and neighbors were chicken farmers, “some of whom invented new and more effective processes to produce and process eggs and poultry that were protected under IP law.”
Congressman Collins is a member of the House Judiciary Committee, and also is on the sub-committee for the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet. He was a sponsor of the recently enacted, and broadly supported Music Modernization Act, which passed the House 415-0, and has developed and supported other IP-friendly legislation. “IP is a part of the fabric of the nation,” he said. “American freedom is tied to an effective IP system.”
Other presenters included CIPU board member Marshall Phelps, former Vice President of IP Business and Strategy at Microsoft and prior to that at IBM. Mr. Phelps also served as head of Government Relations for IBM in Washington in the 1980s, and previously was head of Asia-Pacific. He spoke about the threat to technology posed by “Japan, Inc.” in the Eighties, and how the U.S. was able to surmount the threat with the right combination of incentives.
“The threat to IP and innovation from China is real,” said Phelps in his introductory remarks, “but too much policy and the wrong incentives can create bigger problems. Making patent certainty a higher priority should be the first priority. Putting IP properly on the balance sheet would help, too.”
Manny Schecter, Chief Patent Counsel of IBM, also a CIPU director, and president of the Intellectual Property Owners (IPO) Education Foundation, was a panelist, as were, Alan Marco, former USPTO Chief Economist, Rob Atkinson, a pro-IP economist and President of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), and Professor Adam Mossoff, an IP scholar and policy expert at George Mason University Scalia School of Law.
Among the goals of the panel was to explore:
What is U.S. innovation policy?
How does it relate to intellectual property?
Who should be responsible for it?
How should success be measured?
One the audience members asked if the Supreme Court, with the Oil States and several other decisions, was “anti-IP.” The panel did not believe so, but that some of the members may be poorly informed about the purpose and use if IP rights.
Another audience member stated the false narratives around phrases like patent “trolls” were part of a long-term “public relations campaign” that has seeded anger and hostility toward IP rights in general. He thought a sustained educational initiative could help to make the role of IP clearer for various audiences.
The 15th Annual Patents for Financial Services Summit will gather patent and IP counsel, as well as senior financial executives, to discuss recent trends in financial patent litigation, value, and patentability.
The Summit will be held July 25-26 at the Sheraton Times Square in New York. Presentations include updates on CBMs, IPRs, Oil States vs. Greene, FinTech patents, and strategies to navigate the current IP landscape.
This year’s keynote is Hon. Susan Braden, Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The United States Court of Federal Claims is a United States federal court that hears monetary claims against the U.S. government. It rules on patent and copyright claims against the government, among other areas.
IP CloseUp readers receive a $200 discount when they use registration code IPC2XX.
Financial and Tech Leaders
Heads of IP, patents or senior IP executives from leading financial institutions and technology companies will be speaking. They include MasterCard, Citigroup, The Hartford, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase. Additionally, the Clearing House Payments Corporation (a consortium of leading banks) will be represented, as will IBM, by Chief Patent Counsel, Manny Schecter.
American Express, Royal Bank of Canada, Visa and Microsoft also will have representatives serving as panelists. Joe Matal, former Acting Director of the USPTO and 2017 PFFS Summit keynote, is a member of the “101: panel.”
Panels titles include:
Assess the Health of the U.S. Patent System and Discuss the Erosion of Patent Rights
Embrace Change at the PTAB
Bitcoin, Alt Coin, and Tokens: A Primer on How Intellectual Property Laws Relate
Two days before World IP Day, on April 24, the Supreme Court of the United States relinquished significant judicial authority for patents to the executive branch in Oil States Energy v. Greene’s Energy.
This decision upheld the constitutionality of the Patent Trial and Review Board. The Wall Street Journal stated in a thoughtful and uncharacteristically nuanced commentary, “This process [the inter partes review] was intended to discourage frivolous patent litigation, but is susceptible to political bias.”
Oil States overturns 200 years of judicial precedent and allows the federal government to revoke patents. Dissenting were Justice Gorsuch, President Trump’s appointee, and Chief Justice John Roberts.
” …the purpose of patents, which is to encourage innovation and reward investment, will be undermined if they can be nullified without due process and hearing before an Article III judge,” the WSJ concluded.
James Carmichael and Brad Close writing in IP Watchdog, “Despite Oil States, IPRs May Still be Unconstitutional,” reminds patent holders that the Court, by its own admission (or should that be “omission”?), ruled on a very narrow area of law and may have left the door open to further decisions that will strengthen patents.
“What was unfortunately never addressed in Oil States, and which the court specifically left the door open for, was that patents rights are still property rights for the purpose of Due Process–the inference being that IPRs may fail under the Due Process or Takings Clause. Indeed the court seemed to lament that Oil States did not challenge the retroactive application of IPRs and their constitutional sufficiency on a broader basis.”
Carmichael and Close cite the justices tone in their written decision:
We emphasize the narrowness of our holding. We address the constitutionality of inter partes review only… our decision should not be misconstrued as suggesting that patents are not property for the purpose of the Due Process Clause or the Takings Clause.
Justice Gorsuch wrote that until recently, most everyone considered an issued patent a personal right—no less than a home or farm—that the federal government could revoke only with the concurrence of independent judges.
Oil States did not go well for patent holders, but that was no surprise. What was somewhat unexpected was a strong stance from the US’ leading business periodical, the Wall Street Journal, about the shortsightedness of the Court’s decision, and that the Chief Justice and another member of SCOTUS also were not in favor of constitutionality for PTAB reviews.
Further judicial review of patents and patentability, if not the PTAB and IPRs, is order. If nothing else, Oil States puts a greater burden on USPTO Director Iancu to step-up and de-politicize PTAB administrative procedures and judges.
Despite the obvious loss, Oil States may prove to be the best reason for patent holders to dig in.
More than half of U.S. blockchain patents are owned by blockchain-specific developers, while 20% are owned by financial institutions, led by Bank of America (see pie chart below).
Number three, Fidelity, has about a third as many patents as BofA. Number two, MasterCard, some 50% fewer.
13% are owned by traditional technology businesses, led by IBM, which owns more than three times the next biggest tech holder, Dell.
This is according to the findings of a report prepared by Envision IP, an IP law firm specializing in patent research, as reported in the April Managing Intellectual Property.
According to another report, China claims to have more than twice as many companies than the U.S. in the blockchain top 100 patentees.
Outside of IBM, which supports many banks, leading technology companies like Google, Intel and Microsoft have been slow to pursue blockchain patents. MasterCard, which has 27 blockchain patents, the same number as IBM, is dubious about the reliability of crypto-currencies, such as bitcoin. This 2014 video explains some of the credit card business’ reservations. The firm’s thinking may have evolved.
MasterCard processes over $4 Trillion ($4,000,000,000,000) in more than 38 billion transactions each year, reports The Art of Not Being Governed, a bitcoin blog. On each of those 38 billion transactions, MasterCard assesses fees to the merchant, accepting the payment. These range from .11% to .80% of the total, plus various fixed amount fees for each transaction. All told, it averages out to about 2% of every transaction.
An impressive group of speakers, sponsors and supporters, led by USPTODirector and Undersecretary of Commerce, Andrei Iancu, will be featured at the 11th global Intellectual Property Business Congress in San Francisco, June 10-12 at the Palace Hotel.
Director Iancu has indicated that he will support the long-awaited move to greater certainty in the U.S. patent system. In a recent speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce he said that “reclaiming our (U.S.) patent leadership is within reach.”
Attendees will be eager to hear about Director Iancu’s strategy for attaining this and other goals.
IPBC Global 2018 plenary’s and panels include:
Will the U.S. Continue to Lead in IP?
CIPO Scenarios: The Good, Bad and Ugly
IP CloseUp editor, Bruce Berman (that’s me), will be a member of the patent quality panel:
Is patent quality a distraction? – all that really matters is patent eligibility
-What is a quality patent?
-Controversy around eligibility
-The importance of predictability
For the AI panel, participants will include Bart Eppenauer, former Chief Patent Counsel at Microsoft and William LaFontaine, General Manager, IP, IBM.
San Francisco-born Reuben Garrett Lucius “Rube” Goldberg, an American cartoonist, sculptor, author, engineer, and inventor, best known for satirical cartoons that depicted complicated devices that performed simple tasks in creatively complex ways.
But Goldberg, born on July 4, 1883, was also a visionary, who saw the impact of personalized communications decades before it occurred. His Forbes cover,“After Color TV: The Future of Home Entertainment,” from March 15, 1967 (below) depicts a family with each member engaged with its own mostly flat screen and targeted content – including the baby and cat. Recall that in 1967 the idea of the color TV, aka “talking furniture,” was still relatively new.
Future Family: Alone Together
Note the types of content, the different screens and the interactive controller used by the father. The baby’s wind-up truck does not have a chance.
The Fun of Getting There
Goldberg is associated with popular cartoons depicting gadgets that perform simple tasks in indirect or complicated but imaginative ways, giving rise to the term “Rube Goldberg machine” for s similar gadget or process. Goldberg received many honors in his lifetime, including a Pulitzer Prize for his political cartooning in 1948.
He is the inspiration for various international competitions, known as Rube Goldberg Machine Contests, which challenge participants to make a complicated machine to perform a simple task (kind of the opposite of an invention, which attempts to solve a problem or improve efficiency).
The contest, in which college or high school students build devices to complete a simple task in a minimum of twenty steps in the style of Goldberg, is held throughout the United States, and local winners are eligible to compete in the national contest.
Rube Goldberg reminds us that how a simple problem gets solved can be as fascinating as the solution.
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 places some IP rights holders squarely in the sights of the tax collector, while providing others with an opportunity to license overseas without having to resort to international asset transfers to maximize returns.
Patent, trademark and copyright owners of all sizes would be wise to revisit the nature and tax implications of their transactions, including direct patent sales, as well as where their IP assets are best located. This is a direct result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), the impact of which on IP holders is starting to be understood.
The new law is partly a response to businesses that hold massive amounts of revenue-producing assets outside the United States in so-called ‘patent boxes’ – devices which allow revenue on assets held within them to escape most local and all domestic taxes derived from IP-related revenue.
“Patent boxes have spread like wildfire,” Edward Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the US Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, now a law professor at the University of Southern California told the Intangible Investor. “Their success was doomed from the start. The international environment for intangibles and tax has evolved. With more products to license from sources worldwide and more revenue derived from them, these devices, which originally were restricted to a handful of nations, have become diffuse.”
The most famous (or infamous) product of the IP asset tax avoidance schemes, known as the “double Irish,” has been used by large corporations, including Facebook Inc, Google parentAlphabet, Inc and drug maker Allergan PLC.
The TCJA aims to lure IP locations back to the US, but whether the benefits are sufficiently attractive is still unclear. The Wall Street Journal coverage of the TCJA can be found here. For the American Enterprise Institute take on the Act, go here.
Rana Foroohar, a journalist who reports for the Financial Times, says in a video that a growing “tech-lash” (backlash) against the imbalance of power generated by U.S. tech giants extends to how they use proceeds from overseas licensing revenues to buy foreign bonds. Curtailing this activity has the potential to cause disruption in the bond market and interest rates, she says. Foroohar’s video clip on the potential ramifications of tax increases can be found here.
Rather than licensing to themselves (or the entities they control) to generate income that avoids taxes and use those proceeds to invest in corporate bonds, techcos might consider generating genuine IP revenues, as well as taking, and paying for, licenses they need from other holders.
For the full Intangible Investor story, “Identifying the impact of the US tax act,” in the May IAM magazine out this week, go here.
WASHINGTON, DC –– What is innovation policy? What does it mean to U.S. competition and jobs? Who is responsible for it?
These are among the questions that will be addressed at an afternoon briefing held by the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU) at the headquarters of the United States Chamber of Commerce headquarters in Washington on May 8.
The event will feature two leading proponents of IP rights, Congressmen Doug Collins (R-GA) and Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), both members of the House Judiciary Committee, Sub-Committee on the Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet.
“Innovation Policy and Intellectual Property: Building on a Strong Foundation” is being held by the Center for IP Understanding, an independent non-profit, and the Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC), a division of the Chamber. Persons interested in receiving an invitation please contact CIPU at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Preceding the Congressmen will be a panel, “What is Innovation Policy? Why is it Necessary?” featuring leading experts on innovation, IP and the economy, including:
– Manny Schecter – Chief Patent Counsel of IBM, board member of CIPU and the IPO Education Foundation
– Alan Marco – former Chief Economist for the USPTO and now Associate Professor of Public Policy at Georgia Tech
– Adam Mossoff – Prof. of Law at George Mason University, Center for the Protection of IP
– Robert Atkinson – founder and President of Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), an independent think tank
Discussion Will Follow
A networking break will follow the panel and a reception will take place at the conclusion of the program.
Go here for information about the “Innovation Policy and Intellectual Policy: Building a Strong Foundation.”
“U.S. innovation policy and IP focus are seriously lacking,” said Marshall Phelps, former Vice President of IP Business and Strategy at Microsoft and at IBM, and a CIPU board member. “Other nations take their policies more seriously. The timing is right to dissect what U.S. innovation policy means and how it effects jobs and competition.”
Briefing partners and supporters include the Michaelson 20MM Foundation, the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, Berkeley Research Group, the Tusher Center for Intellectual Capital Management at UC Berkeley-Haas and Open Invention Network.
1,240 blockchain patent applications were filed worldwide in 2017, up from 594 in 2016 and 258 in 2015.
Among the leading filers were Bank of America, MasterCard, Goldman Sachs, Walmart, JP Morgan, and IBM.
According to data collected by the Korean Intellectual Property Office, and reported in CryptoCurrency, more than 1240 applications for blockchain-related patents were filed across South Korea, the United States, Japan, China, and Europe by the end of January 2018.
In December of 2017, CNBC reported that ‘patent trolls’ were coming for blockchain individuals and entire firms who seek to make fortunes off of amassing blockchain patents.
“Nick (sic) Spangenberg, a notable patent entrepreneur,” reported the publication, said that his firm IPwe “is also looking to make big money by reforming the whole patent world.”
“It is a curious path how a collection of misfit trolls, geeks and wonks ended up here—but we are going to crush it and make a fortune,” said Spangenburg.
Image source: codeburst.io
Read Full Article
Read for later
Articles marked as Favorite are saved for later viewing.
Scroll to Top
Separate tags by commas
To access this feature, please upgrade your account.