• Federal Circuit Bar Association_2The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) Patent Litigation Committee will be offering a remote program entitled "Skinny Labels, Enablement, Venue, and More: Recent Developments in Hatch-Waxman Litigation" on May 11, 2021 from 1:00 to 2:00 pm (ET).  Coy Stull of Carlton Fields, P.A. will moderate a panel consisting of April Weisbruch of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, John Bateman of Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, and Christopher Bruno of McDermott Will & Emery LLP.  The panel will cover recent developments in the Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA litigation and legislation, in particular, the Federal Circuit decisions in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, LLC. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., as well as the Orange Book Transparency Act and the Purple Book Continuity Act.

    The webinar is complimentary for FCBA members and students, $50 for government/academic/retired attendees, and $175 for private practitioners.  Those interested in registering for the program, can do so here.

  • IPO #2The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "Patenting Computer Simulations in Europe Following Enlarged Board Case G1/19" on May 12, 2021 from 12:00 pm to 1:00 pm (ET).  Mike Jennings of AA Thornton; Tobias Kaufmann of Bardehle Pagenberg; Heli Pihlajamaa, Director Patent Law, European Patent Office (EPO); and James Signor of Leydig, Voit & Mayer, LTD. will address whether, following the Decision G 1/19 on Computer-implemented simulations by the Enlarged Board of Appeal (EBOA) of the European Patent Office, something has changed with respect to the assessment of patentability and inventiveness in Europe.  The panel will discuss the implications of the following:

    • For the purposes of assessing inventive step under this approach, a simulation can solve a technical problem producing a technical effect further to its implementation on the computer
    • The EBOA recognized in accordance with existing case law that features which could contribute to the technical character of a claim could be the use of technical inputs (e.g., measurements) or outputs (e.g., a control signal for controlling a machine), or specific adaptations to the computer or its operation
    • On the other hand, the EBOA stated that the simulation being based on underlying technical principles is by itself not sufficient to solve a technical problem
    • According to the decision, it is not necessary for there to be a direct link to physical reality, and the same standard applies even if the simulation is claimed as part of a design process

    The registration fee for the webinar is $150 for non-members or free for IPO members (government and academic rates are available upon request).  Those interested in registering for the webinar can do so here.

  • IPO #2The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) Education Foundation, in collaboration with the Asian IP Professionals Resource Group, will offer a webinar in the Behind the IDEA series, entitled "Asian and Pacific Islander Heritage Month," May 13, 2021 from 5:00 pm to 6:00 pm (ET).  Swati Mohan of NASA, Patti Hoa of Apple, Jyoti Uppuluri of Facebook, and Vaishalli Udupa of Hewlett Packard Enterprise will discuss their roles and how they entered STEM and IP careers.

    There is no registration fee for the webinar.  However, those interested in attending the webinar should register here.

  • By Kevin E. Noonan —

    Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
    Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
    Everybody knows the war is over
    Everybody knows the good guys lost
    Everybody knows the fight was fixed
    The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
    That's how it goes
    Everybody knows

    Everybody knows that the boat is leaking
    Everybody knows that the captain lied
    Everybody got this broken feeling
    Like their father or their dog just died
    Everybody talking to their pockets
    Everybody wants a box of chocolates
    And a long-stem rose
    Everybody knows

    "Everybody Knows," Leonard Cohen

    U.S. Trade RepresentativeAnd everybody knows that suspending patent rights is necessary to provide sufficient vaccine to stem the global pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus known as COVID-19.  It is always a sign of intellectual weakness and pack animal thinking to believe something is true because "everybody knows"; recently American pathologists reaped the consequences of their "everybody knows" campaign against "gene patenting" in AMP v. Myriad Genetics (see "Schadenfreude Is Not Always An Unpleasant Feeling"), although evidence of this eventuality was available earlier (see "The ACLU, Working for the Man").  Sadly, the true roots of the issues arising over global vaccination have been known for almost a year (see "Latest COVID Conundrum: Accessibility of Vaccines (When They Are Available)"), and the wrong-headedness of proposals for a "patent waiver" have also been recognized (see "Suspending IP Protection: A Bad Idea (That Won't Achieve Its Desired Goals)").  And yet, of course, the Biden Administration, speaking though the U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai, issued a press release yesterday supporting the waiver (see "Biden Administration Supports Waiver of IP Protection for COVID-19 Vaccines").

    There is no silver lining and no Pollyanna or Professor Pangloss available to contend that this is good policy, but it may be informative to consider the possible outcomes that could arise depending on how any such waiver or suspension is effectuated.

    To the extent that the suspension or waiver of rights is limited to patents, the effects could amount to no more than virtue signaling, a political exercise meant to illustrate differences between the prior administration and this one, or to placate voices like Senator Bernie Sanders who maintain that pharmaceutical companies are rapacious predators who place profits over people (with a fervor and rhetoric the prior administration and its supporters reserved for liberals and the well-educated).

    But as annoying as this might be, there is a greater danger in other forms of implementation.  The terms of the press release do not say that there should be a waiver of patent protection (which was the original impetus and justification for the waiver as proposed by India and South Africa last October when it was proposed; see "Communication IP/C/W/669, "WAIVER FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT FOR THE PREVENTION, CONTAINMENT AND TREATMENT OF COVID-19, 2 October 2020").  The plain language of the press release, and the focus of the waiver that has evolved, is to include all intellectual property.  This would include trade secrets, and that raises a serious issue.  As explicated by Derek Lowe in his article "Myths of Vaccine Manufacturing," the rate-limiting step for COVID vaccine production (at least for the mRNA-based vaccines) involves proprietary machines and methods for making the vaccine that are, more than likely, not covered by patents and never will be.  The technological circumstances surrounding vaccine production involve trade secrets regarding formulation of vaccines that are what can be the bottleneck in the process.  But trade secrets are the type of property the rights to which cannot be suspended; disclosure destroys the secret and thus the property.  It is unlikely that companies will voluntarily give up their valuable trade secrets, and while there might perhaps be some stomach for forcing them to in some jurisdictions, it is unlikely that the U.S. will be one of them.

    But this "moveable feast" of policy rationales illustrates the political fact that the aim and goal of this and other proposals by India, South Africa, and other countries is to escape the TRIPS requirement for recognizing and enforcing IP protections, imposed as part of the requirements for WTO membership.  When these facts are considered, the call by these governments (and others) should be understood for what it is:  an attempt to use the pandemic to achieve a goal of status quo ante (prior to the establishment of the GATT/TRIPS/WTO global trade and patent regime), which was imposed upon these and other countries a generation ago.  The COVID pandemic provides the humanitarian reason for a solution that isn't a solution but that resonates with uninformed (albeit generally well-meaning) politicians, humanitarians, and religious and non-governmental organizations.

    It is undeniable that there are significant issues regarding availability of drugs in low- and middle-income countries that need to be addressed.  But there are ways to achieve the lofty goals that are at the root of calls for an IP waiver.  This includes cooperation between pharmaceutical companies, as Merck as done with Johnson & Johnson, that can increase the number of doses of the vaccine necessary for global vaccination.  Groups like Gavi, the WHO, and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), can be involved in a concerted effort obtain vaccine supplies for the rest of the world.  Western governments with "excess" vaccine reserves can use the auspices of these groups to send doses to low- and middle-income countries and economies (LMICS) and even some "wealthier" countries having the economic capacity to defray some or all of the costs.  Indeed, the Biden Administration announced it would make available "excess" vaccine doses to countries in need (amounting to 60 million doses).

    The motivations for such efforts need not rely exclusively on altruism, either; as has become evident recently the virus has the capacity to mutate in ways that variants of unknown resistance to current vaccines can arise.  Vaccines, particularly the mRNA-base vaccines, may not be effective against these variants (see "Do mRNA-based COVID Vaccines Have an Achilles Heel?").  Thus, it is in everyone's interest to extend vaccination globally (regardless of how daunting that challenge may be) to reduce the probability of such variants arising.

    The efforts being applied globally to develop vaccines, treatments, and better tests and technology in response to COVID-19 have been impressive.  We can hope that, ultimately, these efforts will prove to be successful.  Intellectual property protection has an important role to play in these efforts.  Past experience and recent developments suggest that protecting IP for vaccines, therapies, and technologies to fight COVID-19 will have a positive impact, and advance the cause of eradicating, or at least treating, and preventing this disease.  Support for the proposed IP waiver is a foolish and tragic mistake.

  • By Donald Zuhn —

    Yesterday, United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai announced "the Biden-Harris Administration's support for waiving intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines" (see "Biden Administration Supports Waiver of IP Protection for COVID-19 Vaccines").  The waiver was proposed last fall by India and South Africa, which asked the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to recommend "a waiver from the implementation, application and enforcement of Sections 1, 4, 5, and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement in relation to prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19" to the General Council of the WTO.  In March, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), a group of fifteen industry and trade organizations (including BIO), and a group of intellectual property organizations (including the IPO), sent letters to the Biden Administration, members of Congress, and officials at the Patent and Copyright Offices asking the recipients to oppose the waiver proposal.

    Biotechnology Innovation OrganizationIn response to Ambassador Kai's statement on Wednesday, BIO and IPO released their own statements.  BIO's statement, which was issued by BIO's president and CEO, Dr. Michelle McMurry-Heath, noted that the organization was "extremely disappointed that the Administration has chosen to support waiving critical protections for American ingenuity and to delay the equitable delivery of needed COVID vaccines to people around the globe."  Dr. McMurry-Heath explained that:

    Handing needy countries a recipe book without the ingredients, safeguards, and sizable workforce needed will not help people waiting for the vaccine.  Handing them the blueprint to construct a kitchen that — in optimal conditions — can take a year to build will not help us stop the emergence of dangerous new COVID variants.  The better alternative would have been to follow through on the President's pledge just last week to make the United States the world's "arsenal of vaccines".  This policy leads in the opposite direction.

    BIO pointed to the COVID Global Strategy for Harnessing Access Reaching Everyone (SHARE) Program as a better alternative to "ensure sufficient global supply of vaccines, ensure safe and expeditious global access to vaccines and therapeutics, and bolster ongoing efforts to strengthen and support healthcare systems in low-and middle-income countries in addressing COVID."  BIO also contended that the Administration's "decision will disadvantage patients by undermining existing incentives to develop vaccines and therapeutics for future pandemics."  BIO concluded by stating that:

    The United States has unfortunately chosen to set a dangerous precedent with these actions.  But how we negotiate with the WTO moving forward will be critical in mitigating this myopic decision and its effects on patients around the world.

    IPO #1IPO Executive Director Jessica Landacre stated that the organization was "extremely disappointed by the U.S. government's statement yesterday that it will support 'waiving intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines.'"  She noted that the IPO "supports equitable, widespread, and successful distribution of vaccines to meet the challenges of COVID-19, but waiving IP rights would not further this goal," adding that "should a waiver of IP rights be implemented, it would have an immediate chilling effect on the research and collaborations that are needed to continue to combat COVID-19 and that will be needed to tackle any future crisis."  The IPO believes that the Administration's decision "sets a dangerous precedent," and contends that the "misinformed approach" will "not solve the problem it seeks to address."

    ImagesThe Biden Administration's decision to support a waiver of IP protections for COVID-19 vaccines, and the response to that decision, raises the question of how the ongoing humanitarian crisis in India can be most quickly addressed.  In a May 1 article in MIT Technology Review, Krishna Udayakumar and Andrea Taylor of the Duke Global Health Innovation Center write that "immediate and aggressive measures are needed to stabilize the situation and buy time for vaccine production to ramp up" (see "What India Needs to Get Through Its Covid Crisis").  They note that the crisis "will require coordinated global action."  In particular, India requires medical oxygen, medications, hospital beds, ventilators, personal protective equipment, COVID testing supplies, and more health workers "to augment India's own, who are currently working under immense pressure."  While the authors note that the first aid shipments from the UK and the U.S. arrived on April 27 and 30, respectively, they indicate that "[e]ven this global aid response will not avert a historic tragedy."  The authors conclude the article by stating that:

    The heartbreaking tragedy in India will unfortunately continue for many weeks.  But by mobilizing global resources more quickly, adopting public health measures that will keep the virus in check, and ramping up vaccine manufacturing, India and the global community can at least offer some hope of better days ahead.

    For additional information regarding this topic, please see:

    • "Biden Administration Supports Waiver of IP Protection for COVID-19 Vaccines," May 5, 2021
    • "Suspending IP Protection: A Bad Idea (That Won't Achieve Its Desired Goals)," April 26, 2021
    • "Sen. Tillis Asks Biden Administration to Oppose WTO Waiver Proposal," April 21, 2021
    • "IP Organizations Support Continued Opposition to Waiver Proposal," April 5, 2021
    • "Industry Coalition Supports Continued Efforts to Oppose Waiver Proposal," March 29, 2021
    • "BIO and PhRMA Urge Biden Administration to Oppose Proposed WTO TRIPS Waiver," March 11, 2021
    • "IPO Sends Letter on IP Law and Policy to President-Elect and Vice President-Elect," January 4, 2021

  • By Donald Zuhn —

    U.S. Trade RepresentativeIn a statement issued earlier today, United States Trade Representative Katherine Tai announced "the Biden-Harris Administration's support for waiving intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines."

    As we reported earlier this year, India and South Africa proposed last fall that the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) recommend "a waiver from the implementation, application and enforcement of Sections 1, 4, 5, and 7 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement in relation to prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19" to the General Council of the WTO.  The two countries also recommended that "[t]he waiver should continue until widespread vaccination is in place globally."

    In March and April, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), a group of fifteen industry and trade organizations (including BIO and PhRMA), four intellectual property organizations, and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, sent separate letters to the Biden Administration, members of Congress, and officials at the Patent and Copyright Offices, asking the recipients to oppose the waiver proposal.

    Ambassador Kai's statement regarding the waiver proposal was concise:

    This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures.  The Administration believes strongly in intellectual property protections, but in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for COVID-19 vaccines.  We will actively participate in text-based negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) needed to make that happen.  Those negotiations will take time given the consensus-based nature of the institution and the complexity of the issues involved.

    The Administration's aim is to get as many safe and effective vaccines to as many people as fast as possible.  As our vaccine supply for the American people is secured, the Administration will continue to ramp up its efforts — working with the private sector and all possible partners — to expand vaccine manufacturing and distribution.  It will also work to increase the raw materials needed to produce those vaccines.

    Several media outlets reported on the Ambassador's statement this afternoon before it became publicly available on the Office of the United States Trade Representative website.  The New York Times reported that the WTO had held further discussions about waiving intellectual property protections earlier in the day, and that more discussions were expected in the coming weeks, as India and South Africa were preparing a revised waiver proposal (see "The Biden administration says it will support lifting patent protections to help produce more vaccines globally").  CNN reported that prior to the Ambassador's statement, "[t]here had been divisions within the administration over whether to ease some patent restrictions on vaccines, according to people familiar with the matter" (see "US supports vaccine patent waiver proposal at World Trade Organization").

    Responding to the Ambassador's announcement, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released the following statement from Executive Vice President and Chief Policy Officer Neil Bradley:

    The administration has gotten this issue wrong; undermining intellectual property rights for complex, hard to manufacture vaccines will not accelerate global production, instead it will take us off track in the ongoing and successful efforts to license and scale global production of vaccines that individuals can be confident are safe and effective.  Make no mistake, this move will undermine the global fight against COVID and it will diminish our ability to prepare for and respond to the next pandemic.  We urge the administration to reverse course and work with the business community to deliver on the President's recent promise to make America the 'arsenal of vaccines.'

    For additional information regarding this topic, please see:

    • "Suspending IP Protection: A Bad Idea (That Won't Achieve Its Desired Goals)," April 26, 2021
    • "Sen. Tillis Asks Biden Administration to Oppose WTO Waiver Proposal," April 21, 2021
    • "IP Organizations Support Continued Opposition to Waiver Proposal," April 5, 2021
    • "Industry Coalition Supports Continued Efforts to Oppose Waiver Proposal," March 29, 2021
    • "BIO and PhRMA Urge Biden Administration to Oppose Proposed WTO TRIPS Waiver," March 11, 2021
    • "IPO Sends Letter on IP Law and Policy to President-Elect and Vice President-Elect," January 4, 2021

  • By Kevin E. Noonan and Michael Borella —

    Supreme Court Building #1Today, the Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General in its consideration of American Axle's certiorari petition, which asks the Court to reverse the Federal Circuit's decision in American Axle & Mfg. v. Neapco Holdings LLC.  That decision is noteworthy on several grounds.  It is an application of the Federal Circuit's fractured jurisprudence on subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to a traditionally patent-eligible subject matter — a method of producing shaft assemblies in a driveline system for trucks having reduced vibration during use.  The case was the occasion for the full Court to illustrate the deep divisions among the Judges, with half of them voting to rehear the case en banc and the other half refusing to do so.  Moreover, the decision not to grant rehearing en banc was accompanied by several opinions from various combinations of the Judges concurring or dissenting from the decision.  And those opinions (as well as Judge Moore's dissent from the panel opinion) contained sharp rhetoric regarding not only the panel decision but the pattern and scope of the Court's attempts to consistently and coherently explicate the broad principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International (which, to be fair, may itself have been a Herculean task).

    It is foolhardy to speculate on why the Court asked these views, except noting that a sufficient number of the Justices felt it would be beneficial to their deliberations (regarding whether to grant certiorari) to hear what the Government has to say, in view of the Executive's role in granting patents.  However, it is evidence that there are several consequences of this decision that should be borne in mind.

    The most immediate consequence is that it gives the Biden administration a chance to provide the Court (and the rest of us) with insights into how the administration views patent law in general and eligibility in particular.  This is an aspect that may very well be clearer depending on the administration's choice for U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director, and how that individual responds to questions during confirmation hearing on these topics.

    The time it takes to receive the SG's views (which can be a few to several months) will delay the Court's decision whether to grant certiorari until the October Term.  This may result in the certiorari decision (and if granted the Court's decision on the merits) being decided by a differently constituted Court, should for example Justice Breyer decide (as has been suggested) to retire.  A Justice Breyer retirement could be significant on this issue because he wrote the Mayo opinion (and before that a dissenting opinion on dismissal of certiorari in LabCorp v. Metabolite) and thus bears some responsibility for shaping the precedent the Federal Circuit (and district courts as well as the Office) have had such difficulty in consistently applying.

    With regard to the certiorari decision itself, regardless of how the SG comes down on the question, if the Court does not grant it could indicate a continued unwillingness to address patent eligibility.  If the Court does hear arguments on the merits, of course, at a minimum the Justices could provide clarity regarding the "super-enablement" requirement that at least one Federal Circuit judge believes the panel majority has injected into the eligibility question, and more broadly the Court could provide more clarity on the eligibility issue in reassessing (or at least restating more clearly) the metes and bounds of what is patent-eligible subject matter.

    On the other hand, it is possible (although hopefully unlikely) that the Court could further muddy the issue, making eligibility even less predictable, more confusing, and less clear.  While in the short term this would be unfortunate, it may raise the possibility that Congress would be able to enact meaningful reform of Section 101 — something that certain legislators have been threatening for the last two years.

    As has been the case for the past decade, a period during which the Court has denied certiorari on this issue more than fifty times, all we can do it wait.

  • Federal Circuit Bar Association_2The Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA) will be offering a remote program entitled "UK and Continental Challenges: Innovation and IP" on May 4, 2021 from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm (ET).  Penny Gilbert of Powell Gilbert will moderate a panel consisting of Clemens Heusch of Nokia Corporation; Ludwig von Reiche of IP21nnovate; Muriel Morel-Pecheux of Sanofi; Rt Hon. Sir Robin Jacob, Sir Hugh Laddie Chair of Intellectual Property Law, University College London; and Klaus Haft of Hoyng Rokh Monegier.

    There is no registration fee for FCBA and EPLAW members and the registration for non-members is $75.  Additional information regarding the program can be found here.

  • IPO #2The Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO) will offer a one-hour webinar entitled "Compulsory Licensing and Other Government Actions: To Use or Not To Use?" on May 5, 2021 from 2:00 pm to 3:00 pm (ET).  Colene Blank of 3M Innovative Properties Co., Thomas A. Brown of Dell Technologies, and Sharon Reiche of Pfizer will explore the extent to which governments should assume patent licensing powers to make crucial medical related supplies available, and discuss the voluntary IP licensing initiatives taken by companies in the pharmaceutical, medical device, and IT industries in meeting the challenges of the current pandemic.

    The registration fee for the webinar is $150 for non-members or free for IPO members (government and academic rates are available upon request).  Those interested in registering for the webinar can do so here.

  • IPLACThe Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) Corporate Committee will be presenting panel discussion entitled "Patent Focus: Section 101" on May 6, 2021 from 11:00 am to 12:00 pm (CT).  A. Christal Sheppard, Professor, University of Nebraska College of Law, and Distinguished Fellow, NGCT – Nebraska Governance and Technology Center will moderate a panel consisting of Andrei Iancu of Irell & Manella; Rob Sterne of Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox; Gwilym Roberts of Kilburn & Strode LLP.

    The panel discussion is free for IPLAC members.  Those interested in registering for event can do so here.