The Chatter We Make

In mid-December 2019, a policy statement was issued by the USPTO, NIST, and DOJ to clearly state injunctive relief (among other remedies) is available to holders of standard-essential patents (SEPs.)

Gilead's vaccine against the Ebola virus, Remdesivir, is proving effective in combating COVID-19, according to news reports and clinical trials.

This fall, a jury ordered Wells Fargo to pay USAA $200 million for infringing on patents relating to mobile image capture technology. Judging by even more recent "Wells Fargo must pay a fine" news, their patent issues may be the least of their concerns, but it will not likely be the end of the story here.

President Trump has a reputation for unorthodox approaches. His administration's foray into patent enforcement is no exception. 

From diagnostics to robotic surgery to predictive analytics, AI is revolutionizing health care.

Sometimes a patent does not make business sense. It’s a conversation I have frequently with potential and existing clients, and after a brief discussion, drawing attention to important issues they should consider, they often arrive at the conclusion that it’s not worth it.

Artificial intelligence as it is starting to be employed is certainly new technology. You have to be aware that it is essentially the proverbial “robot” doing stuff, not a person. There are going to be glitches. But, in one sense, we have always had automated systems doing “stuff” for us so it is not unexpected that these systems are making their way into the legal industry.

Clients see a competing product with similar functionality to their own and immediately believe it’s a copy, even if the competitor developed the functionality independently. At that point, they don’t care how the attorneys deal with the situation — the attorneys are expected to find a way to shut down the knockoff.