White House Releases Fact Sheet on US India Strategic Technology Collaboration

The White House released a Fact Sheet outlining collaboration efforts concerning national security and technology with India on January 6, 2025.  The Fact Sheet states in relevant part:

Today, U.S. National Security Advisor (APNSA) Jake Sullivan met with Indian National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval, Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, and Prime Minister Modi in New Delhi as the United States and India continue to forge a strategic technology partnership that benefits both of our countries and our partners around the world.  APNSA Sullivan and NSA Doval launched the U.S.-India initiative on Critical and Emerging Technology (iCET) in 2022 at the direction of President Biden and Prime Minister Modi.  In the intervening years, our two nations have taken significant steps forward together to integrate our technology and defense supply chains in recognition that, now more than ever, we need to work with our partners to build a trusted and resilient innovation base.

During their capstone meeting, APNSA Sullivan and NSA Doval underscored the vital importance of our efforts to jointly produce and develop strategic technologies that will allow us to deliver secure, reliable, and cost-competitive technology solutions for the world. As the United States and India deepen collaboration across key sectors – from space to semiconductors, biotechnology, cybersecurity, advanced telecommunications, and clean energy – we have seen the promise of our partnership deliver results.  Our partnership has also anchored multilateral work with like-minded nations from across the Indo-Pacific and Europe, including the Bio-5 Biopharmaceutical Supply Chain Consortium, the U.S.-India-ROK Technology Trilateral, and ongoing cooperation with Australia and Japan through the Quad.

Finally, APNSA Sullivan and NSA Doval reaffirmed our shared resolve to adapt and strengthen our technology protection toolkits and discussed efforts to address national security concerns associated with overcapacity in key technology sectors.  At the same time, they commended the progress we have made to address long-standing barriers to bilateral strategic trade, technology, and industrial cooperation.

The two national security leaders expressed their confidence that the bridges we have built across our governments, industry, and academia will endure and reflected on the significant achievements we have driven across every dimension of the technological enterprise – from the seabed to the stars, and beyond.  This includes:

Launching a New Era in Space Technology Cooperation

• Announcing the first-ever joint effort between American and Indian astronauts at the International Space Station with the launch of Axiom-4 scheduled to take place this spring, which will mark a significant milestone in the U.S.-India human spaceflight partnership and space exploration; 
• Reducing barriers to collaboration around commercial space technology following the U.S. government’s recent conclusion of updates to Missile Technology Control Regime export policy, which will open the door to additional technology licensing and co-development opportunities in support of the U.S.-India space partnership;
• Working toward the launch of a new bilateral space accelerator to promote commercial space cooperation, including around lunar exploration, human spaceflight, geospatial data and services, and the co-development of technology;
• Celebrating the conclusion of a Strategic Framework for Human Spaceflight Cooperation to deepen interoperability in space and working toward the imminent completion of additional agreements to commence advanced training for ISRO astronauts and ground personnel at the NASA Johnson Space Center and for joint experiments at the International Space Station;
• Preparing for the launch of the NASA-ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar, a jointly developed satellite that will map the entirety of the Earth’s surface twice every 12 days as the United States and India work together to combat climate change and other global challenges, this spring;
• Deciding to hold the first bilateral experts’ exchange on space situational awareness and space traffic coordination in the first half of this year.  This exchange builds upon the two nations’ shared commitment to pursue opportunities for deeper collaboration to ensure safe and sustainable space operations;
• Exploring additional avenues for cooperation in space exploration technologies, including docking and interoperability demonstration missions, as well as India’s participation in the United States Traffic Coordination System for Space program. 

Deepening Defense Innovation and Industrial Cooperation

• Welcoming the advancement of discussions between Ultra Maritime and Bharat Dynamics Limited to enhance undersea domain awareness through a first-of-its-kind partnership on co-production of U.S. sonobuoys in support of the U.S. and Indian defense industrial bases;
• Welcoming India’s acquisition of the MQ-9B platforms, the possible co-production of land warfare systems, and progress on other co-production initiatives outlined in the U.S.-India Roadmap for Defense Industrial Cooperation;
• Celebrating the third edition of the India-U.S. Defense Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X) Summit which took place at Stanford University in September 2024, and highlighting the continued progress under INDUS-X, including the Gurukul Educational Sessions and the launch of a third joint challenge on space situational awareness in low earth orbit;
• Welcoming the completion of an upgraded Memorandum of Understanding between the Defense Innovation Unit and the Defense Innovation Organization to expand cooperation on defense innovation and deepen collaboration between the U.S. and Indian startup ecosystems;
• Deepening cooperation between the U.S. Defense Innovation Unit and India’s Innovations for Defense Excellence to accelerate the joint adoption of cutting-edge commercial technologies for military solutions and capability enhancement of both countries’ defense ecosystems;
• Noting continued progress in the discussions between GE Aerospace and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited for the co-production of GE F414-INS6 engines to power India’s future fighter fleet;
• Expanding defense industrial partnerships, such as the launch of an AI Multi-Doman Situational Awareness product jointly developed by General Atomics and 114ai to support joint all domain command and control.

Building a Clean Energy and a Critical Minerals Partnership for the 21^st Century

• Advancing discussions to unlock new commercial partnerships around the deployment of small modular reactor technology in India;
• Reflecting the progress the United States and India have made—and will continue to make—as strategic partners and countries with a shared commitment to peaceful nuclear cooperation, NSA Sullivan announced US efforts to finalize necessary steps to delist Indian nuclear entities, which will promote civil nuclear cooperation and resilient clean energy supply chains;
• Commending the signing of a bilateral Critical Minerals Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the Indian Ministry of Commerce and Industry and the Ministry of Mines, and driving additional areas of cooperation in critical mineral supply chains such as for graphite, gallium, and germanium;
• Advancing collaboration between U.S. and Indian organizations and companies for carrying out research studies for beneficiation and co-development of processing technologies for critical minerals, including lithium, titanium, gallium, and vanadium;
• Building a collaborative program between the Geological Survey of India and the U.S. Geological Survey on exploration, characterization and evaluation of rare earth elements and critical mineral deposits.

Promoting Strategic Semiconductor Supply Chain Partnerships

• Advancing a strategic semiconductor partnership between the U.S. Space Force and 3rdiTech to establish a compound semiconductor fabrication plant in India to manufacture infrared, gallium nitride, and silicon carbide semiconductors that will be used in national security-relevant platforms; this includes favorably reviewing a technical assistance agreement and export licenses to promote technology transfers;
• Building on the U.S.-India Semiconductor Supply Chain and Innovation Partnership MOU and promoting secure, resilient, and sustainable semiconductor supply chains through continued collaboration between the U.S. Department of Commerce and the India Semiconductor Mission, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology including facilitating investments in semiconductor manufacturing and strengthening R&D collaboration around state-of-the-art semiconductor and packaging technologies.

Building New Collaboration around AI, Advanced Computing, and Quantum

• Developing a government-to-government framework for promoting reciprocal investments in AI technology and aligning protections around the diffusion of AI technology;
• Strengthening cooperation around the national security applications of AI, following the U.S. government’s recent issuance of a National Security Memorandum on AI last fall, and promoting safe, secure, and trustworthy development of AI;
• Noting the importance of sustained engagement for cooperation on Quantum Information Science and Technology (QIST) as agreed to in the second meeting of the U.S.-India Quantum Coordination Mechanism held last August, during which both countries committed to achieving concrete outcomes;
• Initiating new cooperation in quantum science and technology, including through a workshop on post-quantum cryptography and quantum hardware held at the University of California, Los Angeles in September 2023 and facilitating visits of Indian technical experts from academia and the private sector to visit U.S. national laboratories and quantum institutions.

Bridging our People, Talent, and Innovation Bases

• Celebrating progress toward opening U.S. Consulate Bengaluru in early 2025 and continuing work to establish new Indian Consulates in Boston and Los Angeles;
• Advancing a “Bio-X” initiative that would promote biotechnology cooperation by leveraging the synergies between domestic programs and enhancing the competitiveness of the biotechnology industries in both countries;
• Celebrating steps that expand of the ability of top AI scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs from India to come to the United States, including rulemaking that modernized the U.S. H-1B application process, recent clarifications of the rules for O-1 visas and other visa categories, and other efforts that have streamlined visa processing;
• Noting the recently launched U.S.-India Advanced Materials R&D Forum, which convened its inaugural meeting in November 2024, to expand collaboration between U.S. and Indian universities, national laboratories, and private sector researchers.

White House OSTP Memo and Report on Open Access Direction for Federal Funded Research

On August 25, 2022, the U.S. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a memorandum and a report concerning open access publishing and the results and data of federally funded research.  The memorandum, in part, states:

Building on these important advances, the policy guidance laid out in the 2013 Memorandum can be improved to achieve delivery of federally funded research results and data to all of America. Years of public feedback have indicated that the primary limitation of the 2013 Memorandum is the optional 12-month embargo from public access of any publication resulting from federally funded research. This provision has limited immediate access of federally funded research results to only those able to pay for it or who have privileged access through libraries or other institutions. Financial means and privileged access must never be the pre-requisites to realizing the benefits of federally funded research that the American public deserves.

A federal public access policy consistent with our values of equal opportunity must allow for broad and expeditious sharing of federally funded research—and must allow all Americans to benefit from the returns on our research and development investments without delay. Upholding these core U.S. principles in our public access policy also strengthens our ability to be a critical leader and partner on issues of open science around the world. The U.S. is committed to the ideas that openness in science is fundamental, security is essential, and freedom and integrity are crucial. Improving public access policies across the U.S. government to promote the rapid sharing of federally funded research data with appropriate protections and accountability measures will allow for greater validity of research results and more equitable access to data resources aligned with these ideals. To promote equity and advance the work of restoring the public’s trust in Government science, and to advance American scientific leadership, now is the time to amend federal policy to deliver immediate public access to federally funded research.

The memorandum directs that:

In accordance with the provisions listed in Section 3, Federal agencies should develop new, or update existing, public access plans as soon as possible, and submit them to OSTP and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) no later than: (1) 180 days after the date of this memorandum for federal agencies with more than $100 million in annual research and development (R&D) expenditures; and (2) 360 days after the date of this memorandum for federal agencies with $100 million or less in annual R&D expenditures. This extended deadline is designed to accommodate a longer lead time for federal agencies who were not subject to the 2013 Memorandum.

There's more in the memo and report -- the memo and report are available, here.  Hat tip to Swaraj Barooah of the Spicy IP Blog. 

Trump Administration Releases Annual IP Report to Congress

The White House U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator has released its Annual Intellectual Property Report (Report) to Congress (around 170 pages!).  The Report outlines the Trump Administration’s approach to intellectual property policy and provides information concerning the activity of the various agencies in the U.S. government with duties related to intellectual property.  The bulk of the Report includes appendices which are descriptions of the work of each agency concerning intellectual property over the last year or so. 

The general thrust of the Trump Administration’s approach to intellectual property is stated by a President Trump quote:

“We will safeguard the copyrights, patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property that is so vital to our security and to our prosperity. We will uphold our values, we will defend our workers, and we will protect the innovations, creations, and inventions that power our magnificent country.” 

The Report outlines the Administration’s four-part strategic approach, which includes: 

• engagement with our trading partners; • effective use of all our legal authorities, including our trade tools; • expanded law enforcement action and cooperation, and • engagement and partnership with the private sector and other stakeholders.

Under the first strategic approach, the Report outlines various initiatives and activities across different agencies to engage and educate trading partners, including the USPTO’s Global Intellectual Property Academy.  Under the second strategic approach, the Report notes that the Trump Administration will strengthen the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States as well as utilize the WTO Dispute Settlement process.  On the third strategic approach, the Report notes:

 At the end of FY 2017, the FBI had 228 pending IPR investigations. The largest number of investigations deal with the theft of trade secrets (79), copyright infringement (79),31 and trademark infringement (64).32 During FY 2017, the FBI initiated 44 new investigations, made 31 arrests, got 23 convictions, and had seizures totaling $750,205, forfeitures totaling $86,949, restitution totaling $53,396,003, and FIRE (Frozen, Indicted, Restrained, Encumbered) totaling $750,000. 

In FY 2017, the number of CBP and HSI IPR seizures increased more than eight percent, to 34,143 (from 31,560 in FY 2016). The total estimated Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) of the seized goods, had they been genuine, was $1,206,382,219.

In FY 2017, ICE-HSI initiated 713 intellectual property investigations and had 457 arrests, 288 indictments, and 240 convictions.

In FY 2017, the IPR Center vetted 27,856 investigative leads; of these 16,030 were referred to law enforcement partners. Additionally, the IPR center de-conflicted 4,750 investigative targets for partner agencies and industry. While performing these de-conflictions, the IPR Center identified 321 situations where two or more entities were investigating the same target. Finally, the IPR Center referred 959 leads to private industry for follow-up.  . . .

U.S. law enforcement and Federal agencies participated in Operation Pangea X, which was conducted from August 19, 2017 to September 19, 2017, with the participation of 123 countries, and culminated with a week of action, where participating countries and agencies conducted and/or reported the results of their respective operations. U.S. and Mexican authorities typically participate in Pangea independent of each other. However, in FY 2017, ICE-HSI, CBP, and Mexico collaborated during the U.S. operational phase of this operation. On September 25, 2017, INTERPOL issued a press release highlighting the results of Operation Pangea X, which resulted in 3,584 websites taken off-line, 400 arrests worldwide, and the seizure of 470,000 packages with an estimated value of $51 million in potentially dangerous medicine.

The IPR Center’s Operation Apothecary addresses, analyzes, and attacks potential vulnerabilities in the entry process that might allow for the Internet-facilitated smuggling of commercial quantities of counterfeit, unapproved, and/or adulterated drugs through international mail facilities, express courier hubs, and land borders. During FY 2017, Operation Apothecary resulted in 59 new cases, 38 arrests, 37 indictments, and 41 convictions, as well as 567 seizure incidents of counterfeit items.

On standard setting, the Report notes:

Standards Setting: Many of America’s economic competitors engage strategically in standards setting organizations (SSOs), often to the detriment of American innovators. As the Administration and American industry engage with SSOs, it will be important to ensure that SSOs are being used fairly to promote the adoption of new technologies, rather than impeding the ability for American innovators to continue creating and inventing.  And as SSOs promote the adoption of new technologies, such technologies should be available to industry under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.

Trump White House Releases Biopharmaceutical Pricing Reform White Paper

The White House Council of Economic Advisers recently released a report titled, “Reforming Biopharmaceutical Pricing at Home and Abroad.” [Report]  The Report points to basically two problems: 1) overpricing in the United States; and 2) underpaying outside the United States.  The Report states:

U.S. patients and taxpayers alike have mainly financed the returns on R&D investments to innovators. Unlike other developed countries with single payer systems, which nearly all impose some sort of price controls on pharmaceuticals, the U.S. drug market is less financed by the public sector and more open to private market forces. In a free market, prices of products reflect their value as opposed to prices in government-controlled markets, which reflect political tradeoffs. CEA estimates that because of the American market system, more than 70 percent of OECD patented pharmaceutical profits come from sales to U.S. patients even though the United States only represents 34 percent of OECD GDP at Purchasing Power Parity (OECD 2016). Thus, innovators across the world rely heavily on Americans paying market prices to underwrite the returns on investments into products that improve their health because governments abroad use their monopsony power to set prices below market-levels. The United States both conducts and finances much of the biopharmaceutical innovation that the world depends on, allowing foreign governments to enjoy bargain prices for such innovations. This indicates that our current policies are neither wise nor just.  Simply put, other nations are free-riding, or taking unfair advantage of the United States’ progress in this area. In addition, prices paid by Americans for many drugs are too high, particularly so when paid for in government programs. This is the result of poorly designed reimbursement policies and regulations that inhibit price competition, and it is therefore a poor use of taxpayer money. 

The Report further notes that, “The U.S. market makes up 46 percent of OECD sales of brand name innovative drugs, funds about 44 percent of world medical R&D, invests 75 percent of global medical venture capital, and holds the intellectual property rights for most new medicines (BMI 2017; Moses et al. 2015; TEC 2017). Furthermore, publicly funded medical research in the United States has produced two-thirds of the top-cited medical articles in 2009, underlying the university research that often leads to medical breakthroughs (Moses et al. 2015).”

The Report points to issues regarding Medicaid, including opportunity for pharmaceutical companies to game and artificially raise prices.  The Report further provides suggestions concerning Medicare as well as the Pharmacy Benefit Manager Market.  Notably, the Report fails to address biosimilars in very much detail, but notes that there may be two more years before final regulations concerning interchangeability are issued.  This delay is raised as a potential reason why interchangeability approval may be slow.

This Report could drive the Trump Administration's approach to dealing with the high cost of health care.  

Patent and Licensing Policies Disregard Government Standards on Information Quality and Impact Assessment

U.S. and European government agencies are ignoring government standards on information quality and impact assessment in pursuit of politically-driven policy goals. This disregard is illustrated by the White House’s adoption of wildly-exaggerated cost figures of $83 billion in social costs and $29 billion in direct costs to patent infringement defendants for the alleged “patent troll” problem. It is also manifest in DG GROW’s recent consultation on ICT standards and patents in which it makes unreliable and inflated appraisal of alleged information barriers and harms in standard-essential patent licensing. For example, it bases its assessments on interviews with very few respondents, most of whom are not even from the communications sector which accounts for most SEPs. Interviewee responses are not available for public review: not even in anonymous form.  The agency also neglects to make any impact assessment of its proposed “remedies” for these putative problems.

In these cases, the disregard is from politically-driven desires to undermine patents and the licence fees that are being derived from them.

Standards have been established to safeguard the quality of information and assessments presented to the public by governments in support of their policies. Governments are held to high quality standards because the public relies on information and assessments disseminated by governments and their agencies to a much greater extent than it does with other sources. These standards have been established over decades as elected administrations, and their political leanings and objectives have fluctuated.

                                  

The U.S. Congress enacted the Information Quality Act (“IQA”) in order to ensure that information disseminated by government agencies meet the standards of “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity.” 

The European Commission also has information quality standards such as that for questionnaires in surveys-based statistical measurement. According to EC-issued guidelines, “[i]mpact assessment is a set of logical steps to be followed when you prepare policy proposals. It is a process that prepares evidence for political decision-makers on the advantages and disadvantages of possible policy options by assessing their potential impacts.”  The EC has made clear that “all policy decisions should be based on sound analysis supported by the best data available.” At a minimum, non-legislative initiatives should describe “the most significant potential impacts of different approaches”.

My more extensive article, here, shows in greater detail how these quality standards for collecting and analysing information are being flouted.

A Very Active White House on IP: The 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on IP Enforcement

The White House, through its Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator, has released the new 2013 Joint Strategic Plan on IP Enforcement which builds upon the 2010 Joint Strategic Plan.  If anything, the White House is taking a proactive stance on IP.  Interestingly, some stakeholders who ordinarily may disagree seem to think this is generally a “fair” plan (see here and for more discussion see here).  For example, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the RIAA seem to both give it a cautious “thumbs up.”  One interesting action item concerns the examination of labor conditions of manufacturers of counterfeits.  Here is the discussion of that interesting issue:

There have been anecdotal reports that poor and dangerous working conditions, sometimes involving child labor, are found to exist in facilities where counterfeit and pirated goods are being manufactured overseas or in illicit distribution networks. A deeper analysis of the issue would shed greater light on the problem and provide an opportunity to strengthen our engagement with foreign governments and improve efforts to combat manufacturing and distribution of illicit counterfeit and pirated goods. In addition, the resulting information could enhance public awareness of the direct connection between purchasing infringing goods, supporting illicit businesses, and the impact on working men and women across the globe. Going forward: DOS will begin an examination of the nexus between unacceptable working conditions and the production and distribution of counterfeit goods in certain countries. Further actions will be considered depending upon the outcome of that examination.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. 

Here is a list of the action items building on the 2010 Joint Strategic Plan (there are 26 including items included in the 2010 Joint Strategic Plan):

1) Facilitate voluntary initiatives to reduce online intellectual property infringement. IPEC will reach out to additional sectors (which may include data storage services, domain name registrars, and search engines) and will also encourage rightholders to adopt a set of best practices. USPTO will start a process to assess the voluntary initiatives; 2) Conduct a comprehensive review of domestic laws to determine needed legislative changes to improve enforcement;  3) Support small and medium-size enterprises in foreign markets. DOC will increase outreach and support to such enterprises through nationwide educational efforts;  4) Evaluate the enforcement process of exclusion orders issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). IPEC will chair an interagency working group to improve the process for enforcement of Section 337/ITC exclusion orders; 5) Coordinate international capacity-building and training. IPEC will reorganize the interagency working group on capacity-building and training and embassies will follow up on a regular basis with governments that receive training to evaluate results; 6) Improve transparency in intellectual property policymaking. IPEC will look for additional ways to hear concerns and gather input from a wide range of stakeholders; 7) Improve law enforcement communication with stakeholders. DOJ and ICE will look for additional ways to engage a broad range of stakeholders in an effort to increase understanding of law enforcement operations and expand stakeholder relationships; 8) Assess the economic impact of intellectual property-intensive industries. DOC will issue an annual report on the number of jobs and contribution to the GDP of such industries; 9) Use legal software. IPEC, with the Federal Procurement Policy Administrator and the U.S. Chief Information Officer will review the mechanisms that agencies have in place in order to share best practices and ensure legal use; 10) Examine labor conditions. DOS will examine the relationship between unacceptable labor conditions and the manufacture and distribution of counterfeits and take further action if necessary; 11) Improve IPR enforcement efficacy by leveraging advanced technology and expertise. IPEC will chair an interagency working group to identify and advance new and innovative technologies to improve enforcement capabilities at the border. In addition, law enforcement agencies will look for ways to engage outside technology experts and Internet engineers to increase expertise on online enforcement approaches; 12) Increase focus on counterfeits shipped through international mail and work with express carriers. CBP will work to obtain advance data from international post operators and express carrier companies to improve targeting; 13) Educate authors on “fair use” copyright doctrine. The U.S. Copyright Office will summarize current law and provide general guidance targeted to artists seeking to apply the law to their own situations;  14) Protect intellectual property at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and the FBI will work with ICANN, in collaboration with stakeholders, so that new top-level domains do not become new venues for infringement; and 15) Consider copyright and patent “small claims” courts. The U.S. Copyright Office and USPTO are considering alternative adjudicatory processes for hearing “small claims” cases brought by copyright and patent holders.

There is also an interesting list of government enforcement “successes” since 2010 and here is one of the items:

In April and May 2012, as a result of investigations generated by the IPR Center led Operation In Our Sites, in two separate cases ICE-HSI, working with DOJ, seized over $2 million in proceeds from online sales of counterfeit goods by Chinese perpetrators. The funds were seized from correspondent bank accounts located at the Bank of China in New York under 18 U.S.C. § 981(k), which permits the U.S. Government to seize funds from a foreign institution’s interbank accounts in the United States for forfeiture to the Treasury. This was ICE-HSI’s first use of section 981(k) to seize illicitly-derived proceeds identified as part of an intellectual property rights criminal investigation deposited in a Chinese bank.  . . . .

The White House Moves Against "Patent Trolls"

Today the Obama Administration announced “five executive actions and seven legislative recommendations to protect innovators from frivolous litigation and ensure the highest-quality patents in our system.”  The announcement is here.  The recommendations are below.  The recommendations that seem especially interesting include: expanding challenges to computer enabled patents at the PTO; changing the standard for issuance of injunctions at the International Trade Commission; incentivizing public disclosure of demand letters; increasing efforts to identify the real parties in interest; and making new rules concerning functional claiming in the software context. 

LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

In that spirit, the Administration recommends that Congress pursue at least seven legislative measures that would have immediate effect on some major problems innovators face.  These measures would:

1. Require patentees and applicants to disclose the “Real Party-in-Interest,” by requiring that any party sending demand letters, filing an infringement suit or seeking PTO review of a patent to file updated ownership information, and enabling the PTO or district courts to impose sanctions for non-compliance.
2. Permit more discretion in awarding fees to prevailing parties in patent cases, providing district courts with more discretion to award attorney’s fees under 35 USC 285 as a sanction for abusive court filings (similar to the legal standard that applies in copyright infringement cases).
3. Expand the PTO’s transitional program for covered business method patents to include a broader category of computer-enabled patents and permit a wider range of challengers to petition for review of issued patents before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB).
4. Protect off-the-shelf use by consumers and businesses by providing them with better legal protection against liability for a product being used off-the-shelf and solely for its intended use.  Also, stay judicial proceedings against such consumers when an infringement suit has also been brought against a vendor, retailer, or manufacturer.
5. Change the ITC standard for obtaining an injunction to better align it with the traditional four-factor test in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, to enhance consistency in the standards applied at the ITC and district courts.
6. Use demand letter transparency to help curb abusive suits, incentivizing public filing of demand letters in a way that makes them accessible and searchable to the public.
7. Ensure the ITC has adequate flexibility in hiring qualified Administrative Law Judges.

EXECUTIVE ACTIONS

Today the Administration is also announcing a number of steps it is taking to help bring about greater transparency to the patent system and level the playing field for innovators.  Those steps include:

1. Making “Real Party-in-Interest” the New Default.  Patent trolls often set up shell companies to hide their activities and enable their abusive litigation and extraction of settlements.  This tactic prevents those facing litigation from knowing the full extent of the patents that their adversaries hold when negotiating settlements, or even knowing connections between multiple trolls.  Today, the PTO will begin a rulemaking process to require patent applicants and owners to regularly update ownership information when they are involved in proceedings before the PTO, specifically designating the “ultimate parent entity” in control of the patent or application.
2. Tightening Functional Claiming.  The AIA made important improvements to the examination process and overall patent quality, but stakeholders remain concerned about patents with overly broad claims — particularly in the context of software.  The PTO will provide new targeted training to its examiners on scrutiny of functional claims and will, over the next six months develop strategies to improve claim clarity, such as by use of glossaries in patent specifications to assist examiners in the software field.
3. Empowering Downstream Users.  Patent trolls are increasingly targeting Main Street retailers, consumers and other end-users of products containing patented technology — for instance, for using point-of-sale software or a particular business method.  End-users should not be subject to lawsuits for simply using a product as intended, and need an easier way to know their rights before entering into costly litigation or settlement.  Today, the PTO is announcing new education and outreach materials, including an accessible, plain-English web site offering answers to common questions by those facing demands from a possible troll.
4. Expanding Dedicated Outreach and Study.  Challenges to U.S. innovation using tools available in the patent space are particularly dynamic, and require both dedicated attention and meaningful data.  Engagement with stakeholders — including patent holders, research institutions, consumer advocates, public interest groups, and the general public — is also an important part of our work moving forward.  Roundtables and workshops that the PTO, DOJ, and FTC have held in 2012 have offered invaluable input to this process.  Today, we are announcing an expansion of our outreach efforts, including six months of high-profile events across the country to develop new ideas and consensus around updates to patent policies and laws.  We are also announcing an expansion of the PTO Edison Scholars Program, which will bring distinguished academic experts to the PTO to develop — and make available to the public — more robust data and research on the issues bearing on abusive litigation.
5. Strengthen Enforcement Process of Exclusion Orders. Once the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) finds a violation of Section 337 and issues an exclusion order barring the importation of infringing goods, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the ITC are responsible for determining whether imported articles fall within the scope of the exclusion order. Implementing these orders present unique challenges given these shared responsibilities and the complexity of making this determination, particularly in cases in which a technologically sophisticated product such as a smartphone has been successfully redesigned to not fall within the scope of the exclusion order. To address this concern, the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator will launch an interagency review of existing procedures that CBP and the ITC use to evaluate the scope of exclusion orders and work to ensure the process and standards utilized during exclusion order enforcement activities are transparent, effective, and efficient.