INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Process for challenging patent validity scrutinized The Supreme Court is considering whether a streamlined system created by Congress in 2011 for challenging the validity of patents violates the U.S. Constitution. The court is expected to rule by the end of June on a case that technology companies and the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries are watching closely. Specifically, the justices are weighing whether the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office’s administrative adjudicatory body—the Patent Trial & Appeal Board—can toss out patents after they’ve been granted or if that can be done only by a federal court. Since the streamlined administrative process was established, some 7,600 petitions have been filed. In 1,800 final decisions, the appeals board revoked all or part of a patent in about 80% of the cases. Arguing that an administrative process to challenge patents is unconstitutional, Allyson N. Ho The standard for revoking a patent represented Oil States Energy Services before the Supreme Court on Nov. 27, 2017. is lower in the administrative prothreat to innovation because it makes it too easy ceeding than in federal court. for a government agency to cancel their valuable Silicon Valley companies say the administrapatent rights. tive appeals process is a quicker and less expenIn briefs filed with justices, AbbVie, Allergan, sive way to settle patent disputes than litigation. Celgene, and industry trade groups argue that High-technology firms have frequently used the patents create constitutionally protected properprocedure to challenge the validity of patents ty rights that belong to the inventor and may be that they are alleged to have infringed. revoked only by a federal court and jury. The case In contrast, drugmakers, who rely on strong patent protections to attract investment, say the is Oil States Energy Services LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group LLC.—GLENN HESS, special to C&EN system is unfair. They see the appeal board as a
Controversy continues over labeling genetically modified food The U.S. Department of Agriculture is facing a July 2018 deadline to finalize a rule for labeling foods that contain genetically modified ingredients. The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard was enacted in July 2016 and mandates that USDA establish a standard and procedures for labeling genetically modified foods within two years. USDA has yet to decide what type of labeling to require. Congress
gave USDA the option of considering alternatives to on-package text, such as the use of QR codes and toll-free phone numbers. Food safety advocates argue that such alternatives should not replace clear, on-package labeling, claiming that other options are burdensome to consumers and inaccessible to those who don’t have smartphones and high-speed internet access.—BRITT ERICKSON
USDA may allow the use of QR codes instead of on-package text to inform consumers that food contains genetically modified ingredients.
26
C&EN | CEN.ACS.ORG | JANUARY 15, 2018
C R E D I T: S H UT T E RSTO CK ( A P P LE ) ; A RT H UR LI EN ( CO U RT)
FOOD INGREDIENTS
