Op-Eds

C4IP Co-Chairs and former USPTO Directors Andrei Iancu and David Kappos recently published an opinion piece in RealClear Health highlighting the unintended consequences that would arise if the Medication Affordability and Patent Integrity Act (MAPIA) is passed by Congress and signed into law. Supporters of the bill argue that drug companies take advantage of a lack of coordination between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to inflate drug prices. But Iancu and Kappos contend that these claims are baseless, because existing legal safeguards already prevent this sort of behavior. They further argue that MAPIA’s unnecessary reforms would create government waste and inefficiency, exacerbate backlogs in the patent examination process, and weaken intellectual property rights to the benefit of international rivals like China. “Blurring the lines of authority around the comprehensive processes already in place at USPTO and the FDA won’t make patients better off,” Iancu and Kappos explain. “It’ll only jeopardize American companies’ competitive edge, squander government resources, and help foreign competitors and copycats.”

C4IP Co-Chair and former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu recently published an opinion piece in Law360 highlighting the importance of passing the bipartisan RESTORE Patent Rights Act. This bill, introduced by Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Representatives Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) and Madeleine Dean (D-PA), would reinstate injunctions as the default remedy in patent infringement cases, helping inventors block infringers from selling copied products. Iancu explains how the act would nullify a 2006 Supreme Court case called eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, which weakened patent protections by abandoning the precedent for injunctions against patent infringers. This decision left the door open for patent piracy of American inventions. “Over the last two decades, judicial decisions have made it harder for inventors to keep patent-infringing goods off the market. Intellectual property theft costs the U.S. economy as much as $600 billion annually, indirectly aiding geopolitical competitors like China, which is the primary IP infringer,” Iancu states. “Protecting — and even strengthening — the ITC and passing the RESTORE Patent Rights Act would help ensure inventors get the justice they deserve.”

C4IP board member and retired federal judge Kathleen O’Malley recently published a new opinion piece in World Intellectual Property Review on how the proposed NO FAKES Act would help guard creators’ and artists’ intellectual property against the misuse of emerging AI technology. The Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act would create a new “digital replication right,” which allows individuals to authorize or prohibit the use of their likeness and voice. As O’Malley explains, existing laws are insufficient to govern the use of AI technology, which has transformative potential but also a large capacity for misuse. The NO FAKES Act would allow for further AI development and encourage creative uses of the technology while simultaneously protecting human singers, actors, and artists for years to come. O’Malley concludes, “The NO FAKES Act would preserve the incentives that drive creative expression — while ensuring that, in the digital age, our identities, our art, and our innovations remain inviolably our own.” Read the full op-ed here.

C4IP Co-Chairs and former USPTO Directors Andrei Iancu and David Kappos recently published an opinion piece in Fortune about how Big Tech firms have weaponized the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to steal smaller companies’ patents — and how the PREVAIL Act would solve this. Since the creation of the PTAB in 2011, Big Tech firms have attacked smaller companies by filing ceaseless legal challenges with the PTAB so that startups are forced to waste resources and time repeatedly defending their patents. But as Iancu and Kappos explain, the bipartisan PREVAIL Act would reform the PTAB by banning duplicative litigation in this tribunal court and in federal court, too. They also debunk the idea that the PREVAIL Act would drive up drug prices, pointing out that the PTAB rarely sees cases related to pharmaceutical patents — and that strong and defensible patents benefit consumers by catalyzing high-tech innovation and empowering small firms to compete. “Startups and small firms are often at the forefront of developing [innovative] technologies, but they’ll never succeed if corporate behemoths can plunder their ideas and bully them with repetitive litigation when they fight back,” Iancu and Kappos assert. “PREVAIL would create a level playing field where small businesses have a fighting chance against established industry giants.”

C4IP board member and retired federal judge Kathleen O’Malley recently published a new opinion piece in World Intellectual Property Review on how the proposed NO FAKES Act would help guard creators’ and artists’ intellectual property against the misuse of emerging AI technology. The Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe (NO FAKES) Act would create a new “digital replication right,” which allows individuals to authorize or prohibit the use of their likeness and voice. As O’Malley explains, existing laws are insufficient to govern the use of AI technology, which has transformative potential but also a large capacity for misuse. The NO FAKES Act would allow for further AI development and encourage creative uses of the technology while simultaneously protecting human singers, actors, and artists for years to come. O’Malley concludes, “The NO FAKES Act would preserve the incentives that drive creative expression — while ensuring that, in the digital age, our identities, our art, and our innovations remain inviolably our own.”

Colorado College professor of economics Kristina M. L. Acri just published a new opinion piece in the Denver Post on the 2006 Supreme Court ruling, in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., which has harmed American innovation by undermining small companies and entrepreneurs. The eBay decision eliminated injunctions – court orders requiring infringers to stop using stolen intellectual property – as the default course of action in the face of proven patent, copyright, or trademark infringement. That case rendered many small inventors defenseless against corporate behemoths that infringed on their products and kept them from creating and marketing next-generation technologies. Acri concludes by asserting that the long term effects of eBay “demand a thorough reexamination of how we balance innovation protection with fair competition in the 21st century.”

Netlist founder and CEO Chuck Hong recently published a new opinion piece in Fortune discussing his experiences as a tech entrepreneur and victim of predatory infringement, and highlighting how the RESTORE Patent Rights Act and PREVAIL Act could keep Big Tech in check. He explains how Google has stolen Netlist’s patented technology by taking advantage of the America Invents Act (AIA), a law that allows patents to be challenged repeatedly. By challenging the same patent over and over at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Big Tech can drain small businesses of time and money, which ultimately damages innovation and entrepreneurship nationwide. Hong concludes by stating the importance of strengthening IP rights through reforms such as  the RESTORE Patent Rights Act and PREVAIL Act — which would prevent Big Tech companies from abusing their legal and financial resources to steal competitors’ patents. In Hong’s words, “For too long, Big Tech has used the AIA to bully inventors and small businesses. It’s time for lawmakers to stop this abuse.”