The legal department has for too long been cast to the background and circumvented with its image of pushing back projects with lengthy validation processes. While the IP department puts out fires, this also means that the wider company does not see the successes that take place behind-the-scenes, noticing only when something goes wrong. In house IP counsels must be equipped to raise awareness around the importance of IP within the compliance, privacy and brand protection framework, in order to ensure themselves a seat at the business table.
In April 2024, the FTC issued a final rule banning non-compete agreements in most employment contracts across the US. Though new businesses, raised worker wages, lower healthcare costs and boosted innovation are set to result from the new measure, the rule would nonetheless eliminate a tool many businesses have used to protect trade secrets. With litigation set to explode, companies are indeed increasingly concerned about the risk of trade secret misuse and of breaches now that employees are able to work for competitors. Patent filings are also set to increase, be it from former employees starting their own business or companies choosing patent protection over trade secrets. Though nondisclosure and non-solicitation agreements remain available, it is imperative companies equip themselves now with a strategy to tackle this new law and protect their assets.
In May 2024, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking suggesting changes to terminal disclaimer practices. Believed to stifle competition and lead to infringement cases involving too many similar patents, a patent subject to a terminal disclaimer would no longer be enforceable if a final, non-appealable decision has been made by a federal court of the USPTO that any one claim in the first patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103, or if a statutory disclaimer of a claim is filed for the first patent after any challenge to that claim has been made. Such a change necessarily means the increasing need to understand and agilely navigate rules against obviousness type double patenting for in-house counsel.
Counterfeit products are no longer just physical threats; they have evolved into sophisticated digital schemes that challenge brands and consumers alike. In this interactive roundtable, we will delve into the evolution of counterfeits, examining both physical items and their modern sales tactics. Through a hands-on unboxing experience, participants will explore how to distinguish between authentic and counterfeit goods while discussing the legal and reputational challenges these items create.
We’ll also uncover how counterfeiters are leveraging social media and fake ads to not only sell fake products but also drive unsuspecting consumers to phishing sites that impersonate legitimate brands. This session is designed for legal professionals and brand representatives aiming to stay ahead of these emerging threats and safeguard intellectual property in a rapidly changing digital landscape.
Building a global patent portfolio presents a number of significant challenges for in-house counsel. Conflicting and diverse patent laws across local and foreign jurisdictions, for instance, demand a robust strategy, as well as extensive legal expertise, in order to be navigated correctly. Prioritization also poses an issue – on limited budgets and resources, in-house counsel can often only file in a certain number of countries, meaning they must be aware of potential infringements globally. In addition to further challenges, such as translation capacities and navigating ever-evolving legal landscapes, a global patent portfolio, though necessary for competitive advantage and business development, is a tricky task to tackle amidst such restraints.
Budget limitations continue to be the prime inhibitor for IP departments. Startups may struggle with a lack of resources, while more established companies might find it difficult to highlight the importance of IP to management, resulting in a disadvantage during budget allocation decisions. The issue also stems from the labyrinthine nature of IP budgeting, from the range of costly activities to the navigation of foreign filings. Within this context, it can be difficult to devise an IP strategy that will be able to protect assets and potentially drive revenue. In-house counsel must in this sense be equipped to adapt to the changing economic landscape.
While the EU passed its AI Act in March 2024, the US has experienced somewhat of a complicated start regarding regulation on AI. With President Biden’s Executive Order in October 2023 and Colorado’s first in the nation AI law in May 2024, as well as the USPTO and FDA releasing their own guidance about the use of AI, the regulatory landscape is blurry for companies who are eager to trial but worried about compliance and ethics without the necessary laws to follow. The question, then, becomes how companies can push ahead with innovation and documentation whilst remaining compliant, ethical and respectful of customer and employee data.