Streamlining Ownership Transfers: USPTO's New Assignment Center Arrives This Month

Get ready for a smoother ride when navigating patent and trademark ownership changes! The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is launching its new Assignment Center on January 22, 2024, replacing the aging Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS) and Electronic Trademark Assignment System (ETAS). This marks a significant step forward in modernizing the USPTO's services and simplifying the process for transferring ownership or changing names on pending or granted applications and registrations.

But the improvements go beyond mere ease of use. The Assignment Center also boasts enhanced functionality: Easy-to-use editing, Real-time tracking and Improved reporting

The USPTO recognizes the importance of customer service during this transition. Comprehensive support resources will be available on the Assignment Center webpage, including how-to guides, training materials, and a dedicated FAQ section. Additionally, customer service staff will be on hand to answer questions via phone and email.

This is just one step in the USPTO's ongoing efforts to modernize its systems and enhance the customer experience. The introduction of the Patent Center in 2023, replacing EFS-Web and PAIR, and the retirement of the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) are further examples of the USPTO's commitment to providing efficient and user-friendly services.

Novartis AG & Anr?v.?Natco Pharma Limited

Facts of case:

A super molecular complex combining valsartan and sacubitril, filed for patent in June 2007 (Patent Application No. 4412), still pending.(Plaintiff’s Invention).Defendant launched a valsartan-sacubitril tablet under the brand name VALSAC. Plaintiff sued for infringement.

Arguments:

Defendant's Arguments:

Non-infringement: They claim their product uses a single molecule (supramolecular complex) unlike the patent's physical mixture of Valsartan and Sacubitril. They point to the Plaintiff's own statements during Patent Application No. 4412 prosecution and the Scientific Advisor's report.

Invalidity: They argue the patent lacks inventive step, is obvious, and covers non-patentable subject matter. Additionally, they claim insufficient disclosure and non-patentability under specific sections of the Act.

Plaintiff's Arguments:

Infringement: They claim their patent covers any combination of Valsartan and Sacubitril, regardless of form or mixture, and the Defendant's product falls within this scope. They argue the Defendant misinterprets the reliance on Patent Application No. 4412 and address the "Novartis" case cited by the Defendant. They downplay the Scientific Advisor's opinion on infringement.

Validity: They highlight the Defendant's prior knowledge of the patent and argue the late challenge is a mere tactic. They cite the lack of prior challenges as evidence of the patent's validity.

Court’s Decision:

The court focused on interpreting Claim 1 of patent IN'051, using the "literal rule" and considering it objectively. They found that the term "comprising" allows additional elements, making the defendant's product an infringement.

Patent Application No. 4412: This application, filed by the plaintiff, doesn't affect the interpretation of IN'051. Each claim stands alone.

Patent Validity: The defendant's challenge was deemed premature and requires further evidence.

Scientific Advisor's Report: It's advisory only and not binding on the court. Experts need to be examined and cross-examined.

Overall: The court found infringement of IN'051 and rejected the defendant's arguments. Further proceedings will address the patent's validity.

GOOGLE LLC .v. MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) PRIVATE? LIMITED AND ORS

In a recent landmark decision, the Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Google in a trademark dispute with MakeMyTrip. The case centered on whether the use of trademarks as keywords in Google Ads constitutes "infringement" under the Trademarks Act, 1999.

Background:

MakeMyTrip filed a suit against Booking.com, seeking to stop them from using MakeMyTrip's trademarks ("MakeMyTrip," "MMT," and "MakeMyTrip Hotels Ltd.") as keywords in Google Ads. They also sought an injunction against Google for allowing Booking.com to use these keywords. The Single Judge initially granted MakeMyTrip's request and restrained Google from using the disputed keywords.

?

Appeal and Ruling:

Google appealed the Single Judge's order to the Division Bench.

The Division Bench held that merely using trademarks as keywords does not amount to infringement under the Trademarks Act. They relied on a previous decision where they had established that using trademarks as keywords constitutes "use in advertising" but not necessarily infringement.

The Bench further reasoned that:

Booking.com's advertisements would be displayed alongside MakeMyTrip's organic search results, ensuring user differentiation. Section 29(4) of the Act, dealing with identical trademarks for similar goods/services, was not applicable due to the distinct brands. The use of the keyword "MakeMyTrip" alone, without confusion or deceit, doesn't infringe under Section 29(8).

Implications:?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

This decision has significant implications for online advertising and trademark protection:

• Clarity on Keyword Use: It clarifies that using trademarks as keywords is not inherently infringing, as long as there's no confusion or harm to the trademark owner.
• Balance of Interests: The Court balanced the interests of both parties - protecting trademarks while allowing competition in online advertising.
• Potential for More Disputes: This may open doors for future disputes as competitors might test the boundaries of permissible keyword usage.

The Rise of Generative AI and the Murky Waters of Copyright Law

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has opened a treasure trove of opportunities for businesses, but it's also cast a long shadow of legal uncertainty. Lawmakers and courts are scrambling to catch up, leaving the question of how these sophisticated language models interact with copyright law unanswered.

While most copyright infringement lawsuits in this arena focus on the content generated by the AI, another battleground exists: the data used to train them. Several authors have accused OpenAI and its peers of using their works without permission to "teach" their language models.

However, a recent lawsuit filed by non-fiction author Julian Sancton takes a new approach by dragging Microsoft into the picture. Microsoft's close ties to OpenAI, involving both investment and system integration, are now under scrutiny.

Sancton, filing in the Southern District of New York, seeks to represent a class of authors whose work allegedly ended up in OpenAI's training data without their consent. He claims OpenAI copied thousands of books without permission, infringing on copyright. Adding salt to the wound, he accuses Microsoft of complicity due to its extensive involvement in OpenAI's growth and commercialization over the past four years. The lawsuit paints a picture of a multi-billion dollar business built on, according to Sancton, blatant disregard for copyright law.

Seeking both financial compensation and an injunction to halt the alleged infringement, Sancton's case could be a landmark decision. The outcome will not only define OpenAI's future but also cast a light on its controversial partnership with Microsoft.

Click here to view our Company Brochure