Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 JULY 2019

Stronger Patents Act – Back Again

Ropes & Gray LLP
Ropes & Gray LLP
Contributor
Ropes & Gray LLP

Ropes & Gray LLP

Ropes & Gray is one of the world’s most respected law firms, with offices in key business and...

View firm profile
Explore more from Ropes & Gray LLP

The Stronger Patents Act just wont go away. While the bill has been introduced several times over the years

United StatesIntellectual Property
Scott A. McKeown
Scott A. McKeown
Author LinkedIn connections

2015, 2017, 2018, 2019...

The Stronger Patents Act just wont go away. While the bill has been introduced several times over the years, it has never gotten any significant traction. Since its initial introduction, several of the bill's Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB) provisions have been mooted by regulatory changes. What remains would effectively repeal the AIA to the point that the PTAB would no longer be a viable option — a non-starter for everyone but Bio/Pharma and small inventors.

So, what is different now?

Simply stated, the bill hasn't really changed much at all. The sponsors may sense an opportunity for the STRONGER Patents Act to ride the coattails of current 101 momentum.  But, more than likely this bill is serving as a foil to opponents of 101 change (i.e., Big Tech). Given the choice between the two, 101 reform is far more palatable to Big Tech.

Patent reform political theater will continue this summer with a draft 101 bill expected within the month.  Stay tuned!

(For those interested in a deeper dive on some of the few changes of the STRONGER Patents Act of 2019, you can find a great summary ( here)

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

PTAB/USPTO Update - September 2026

The USPTO has released its latest economic impact report on IP-intensive industries, announced a new community engagement office in North Carolina, and issued several administrative updates including relief for Japanese applicants affected by a severe earthquake. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has also designated new precedential and informative decisions addressing obviousness-type double patenting and Markush groupings.
United StatesIntellectual Property
WilmerHale
WilmerHale
Article

BMS And Ono File BPCIA Suit Against Amgen For Nivolumab Biosimilar

Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical have filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amgen over its proposed nivolumab biosimilar ABP 206, asserting seven patents related to OPDIVO. The complaint follows earlier inter partes review challenges and patent dance negotiations that narrowed the dispute to specific claims covering the antibody sequence, cancer treatment methods, and dosing regimens.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Goodwin Procter LLP
Goodwin Procter LLP
Article

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Article

The Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of DMCA CMI Removal Claim Against AI Code Generator – Output Is A New Work Not A Copy Of Training Data

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Sheppard
Sheppard
Article

Courts Expand The DTSA’s Reach To Foreign Trade Secret Misappropriation Following Motorola v. Hytera

The Seventh Circuit's 2024 decision in Motorola Solutions v. Hytera Communications established that the Defend Trade Secrets Act can reach conduct outside the United States and permit recovery of damages based on worldwide sales. District courts have begun applying this precedent, expanding the potential scope of liability for cross-border trade secret disputes. The ruling raises important questions about how minimal a US connection may be before federal trade secret protection no longer applies.
GlobalIntellectual Property
Goodwin Procter LLP
Goodwin Procter LLP