5,879 results on '"PATENT law"'
Search Results
2. Inventions-Not Trees in the Forest.
- Author
-
Caltrider, Steven P.
- Subjects
ARTIFICIAL intelligence ,PATENT law ,TECHNOLOGY - Abstract
The article discusses the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on the concept of inventorship within the framework of U.S. patent law, questioning whether AI-generated inventions can be legally recognized as such under current guidelines. It critically examines how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's (USPTO) Inventorship Guidance might misapply legal standards by conflating AI's role with traditional notions of human inventorship and conception.
- Published
- 2024
3. THE A.I. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OFFICE OF THE FUTURE: A PROPOSAL TO GRANT AUTHORSHIP AND INVENTORSHIP RIGHTS TO A.I.
- Author
-
Kaden, Ally E.
- Subjects
INTELLECTUAL property ,ARTIFICIAL intelligence ,PATENT law ,LEGAL recognition - Abstract
The article focuses on addressing the challenges and opportunities presented by the advancement of artificial intelligence (A.I.) technology within the context of intellectual property laws in the U.S. It argues for the inclusion of A.I. as authors and inventors within copyright and patent laws, advocating for legal recognition and protection of A.I.-generated creative works and innovations.
- Published
- 2023
4. Amgen v. Sanofi : The U.S. Supreme Court Reviews Patent Enablement.
- Author
-
Huberfeld, Nicole, McClain, Linda C., Ahmed, Aziza, Curfman, Gregory, and Boumil, Marcia M.
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *JUDGMENT (Psychology) , *MONOCLONAL antibodies , *CONFLICT (Psychology) , *COURTS , *REWARD (Psychology) , *PHARMACEUTICAL industry , *JURY , *LEGAL procedure - Abstract
On June 18, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of Amgen, Inc. et al. v. Sanofi, et al. 1 unanimously upheld the 2021 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,2 striking down as overbroad Amgen's patent claim to an entire functional genus of monoclonal antibodies. Amgen's patent claims were not limited to antibody structure or antibody amino acid sequences. This is significant because Amgen's patent claims did have amino acid sequences, but they were directed to the epitope. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2023
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
5. THE ROLE OF PATENT (IN)ELIGIBILITY IN PROMOTING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE INNOVATION.
- Author
-
Datzov, Nikola L.
- Subjects
PATENT law ,ARTIFICIAL intelligence ,LEGISLATION ,DEBATE - Abstract
The article focuses on the intersection of patent eligibility law and artificial intelligence (AI) innovation in the U.S. It discusses the ongoing debate and legislative efforts to modify patent eligibility law in response to the rise of AI technology. It further suggests a more measured approach to assessing the impact of patent eligibility on AI innovation and presents a novel three-layer taxonomy for analyzing this impact.
- Published
- 2023
6. The $5 Billion Hop: Glatiramer Acetate and the US Patent System.
- Author
-
Patel, Neeraj G. and Kesselheim, Aaron S.
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *MULTIPLE sclerosis treatment , *PUBLIC administration , *HEALTH care reform , *PEPTIDES ,DRUGS & economics - Abstract
New research and a government investigation have shed light on an anticompetitive practice called "Product Hopping" and specifically how it was employed in the case of the multiple sclerosis treatment glatiramer acetate beginning in 2014, which cost payers billions of dollars. We examine this case as well as a separate, impending instance of product hopping. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
7. The big cost of big medicine – calculating the rent in private healthcare.
- Author
-
Stelzner, Mark Joseph and Nam, Daniel Taekmin
- Subjects
- *
MEDICAL care costs , *HEALTH insurance , *PATENT law , *MARKET power ,DEVELOPED countries - Abstract
As a country, the United States spends significantly more on healthcare than other advanced industrialized countries, and Americans have comparably worse health outcomes. Both are developments of the last four decades. In this paper, we look at how change in antitrust and patent law and thus change in market power in the largest four subsectors of healthcare, hospitals, physician groups, prescription drugs, and net medical insurance, have contributed to the increasing cost of medical care in the United States. We show that the annual rent – the degree to which health care is overpriced as a result of market power – was between 2.47 and 4.30 percent of GDP in 2016 – truly a big cost for big medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
8. Government Patent Use to Promote Public Health in the United States: Overcoming Nonpatent Exclusivities.
- Author
-
Wolitz, Rebecca E., Kesselheim, Aaron S., and Darrow, Jonathan J.
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *DRUG approval , *HEALTH services accessibility , *PUBLIC health , *MEDICAL care costs , *PATENTS , *GOVERNMENT policy , *DRUGS , *HEALTH promotion - Abstract
The authors address government patent use to promote public health in the U.S. Topics discussed include statutes that protected new medications which includes the Hatch-Waxman Act, one way to facilitate public access to high-cost medications, and challenges facing government manufacture of patented drugs without a license.
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
9. The effect of coordination requirements on sourcing decisions: Evidence from patent prosecution services.
- Author
-
Chondrakis, George, Melero, Eduardo, and Sako, Mari
- Subjects
PATENT law ,PATENTS ,VERTICAL integration ,PATENT applications ,THEORY of the firm - Abstract
Research Summary: Although the link between coordination requirements and vertical integration is theoretically well established, empirical tests of this relationship are hard to implement due to the simultaneous determination of both variables. In this study, we take advantage of regulatory changes in patent prosecution in the United States to provide plausibly causal evidence linking increases in coordination requirements with insourcing. Moreover, we examine the role of plural sourcing, that is, simultaneously making and buying, when responding to changes in coordination requirements. We find that the move toward insourcing is more pronounced for plural‐sourcing firms as compared to firms relying on outsourcing. These results are consistent with the view that plural sourcing provides firms with flexibility to switch between sourcing modes when facing changing coordination requirements. Managerial Summary: We study the sourcing of patent prosecution services in large innovative companies and show that in‐house production is more beneficial when coordination requirements between inventors and attorneys increase. Importantly, we find that plural‐sourcing firms, that is, firms that work with both internal attorneys and external law firms, are more likely to respond to these increases and move toward insourcing as compared to firms relying only on outsourcing. This suggests that plural sourcing can be regarded as a strategic investment in sourcing flexibility, allowing firms to respond to changing coordination requirements. This is an adaptive capability which is especially useful in knowledge‐intensive sectors. video abstract [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
10. Standard Essential Patents Versus the World: How the Internet of Things Will Change Patent Licensing Forever.
- Author
-
Storm, Christopher S.
- Subjects
- *
LICENSE agreements , *PATENT licenses , *PATENT law , *INDUSTRIAL laws & legislation - Abstract
Our connected world depends on proper licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Decades of intra-industry SEP disputes have shaped how modern courts resolve SEP licensing issues. Emerging cross-industry SEP disputes, however, present new reasons to question the assumptions made by courts and scholars during the era of intra-industry SEP disputes. This Article examines cross-industry SEP disputes between telecommunications companies and Internet of Things (loT) implementers to demonstrate how SEP owners use the "exhaustion-avoidance licensing model" to capture more value than they are entitled to receive under U.S. patent damages law. This loT fact pattern will force U.S. courts to choose one of two paths. Courts could choose to protect established licensing practices by deemphasizing the apportionment rule; this path, however, would erode a bedrock legal doctrine responsible for keeping patent damages tethered to reality. Instead, this Article recommends rigorously enforcing the patent apportionment and misuse doctrines in SEP disputes, even if such enforcement disrupts established SEP licensing practices. No matter which path courts choose, patent licensing will never be the same. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2022
11. Intellectual Property.
- Author
-
Dubis, Joe
- Subjects
PATENT law ,INTERNATIONAL Patent Classification ,ACTIONS & defenses (Law) - Abstract
The article focuses on recent judicial rulings in patent law, particularly two cases involving the University of Minnesota and multiple cellular network companies. It is reported that these cases address complex issues such as the designation of the U.S. in international patent applications and the validity of reissued patents under the original patent rule.
- Published
- 2024
12. Breaking the Status Quo of International Design Law: How the United States' Design Law Frustrates the Purpose of the Hague Agreement.
- Author
-
Mack, Nicholas P.
- Subjects
- *
DESIGN protection , *CONTRACTS , *INTERNATIONAL law , *INDUSTRIAL design , *PATENT law - Abstract
This Note explores how the United States' substantive law frustrates the purpose of an international procedural agreement. The Hague Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Industrial Designs revolutionized the process of applying for industrial design protections on a global scale. The Hague Agreement's purpose is to support easily and efficiently acquired industrial design protections in contracting parties to the agreement by simplifying procedures for obtaining protection. The United States--a country without a coherent and dedicated industrial design law--joined this agreement with effect in 2015, allowing designers around the world to easily apply for industrial design protections in the United States. If this seems counterintuitive, that is because it is. Because of this legal conundrum, the United States executes its responsibilities under the Hague Agreement by applying its design patent law to international industrial design applications. The United States' imputation of design patent law onto industrial design applications firmly places it as an outlier among the rest of the world's industrial design protection regimes. Not only are international designers unfamiliar with US design patent law, the added substantive requirements and associated ramifications of using a design patent standard to review industrial design applications confuses and impedes the international system. Thus, although global designers can now easily apply for design protections in the United States, these applications face challenges that are unknown to the rest of the world's design regimes. Therefore, substantive harmonization shouldered by the contracting parties is the way forward for the Hague Agreement to better streamline the availability of design protections worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
13. Gender Inequality in Pharmaceutical Patent Law.
- Author
-
Tu, S. Sean and Hardesty, Tess
- Subjects
GENDER inequality ,PHARMACEUTICAL industry ,WOMEN lawyers ,PATENT law - Abstract
This article focuses on a recent study that reveals a gender inequality issue in the domain of pharmaceutical patent law in the U.S. It states that despite being the majority of law school students with natural sciences degrees, women are notably underrepresented as leading pharmaceutical patent litigators. It highlights that the study suggests engaging law firms and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to actively address and eliminate the barriers and biases that contribute to this issue.
- Published
- 2023
14. FDA Regulation and Approval of Medical Devices: 1976-2020.
- Author
-
Darrow, Jonathan J., Avorn, Jerry, and Kesselheim, Aaron S.
- Subjects
- *
MEDICAL equipment laws , *MEDICAL equipment design , *MEDICAL supplies , *HEALTH policy , *USER charges , *COMPUTER software laws , *PATENT law , *PATENTS -- History , *MEDICAL laws , *COMPUTER software , *RESEARCH , *GOVERNMENT regulation , *RESEARCH methodology , *MEDICAL cooperation , *EVALUATION research , *COMPARATIVE studies , *COMMERCIAL product evaluation , *NEW product development laws , *HISTORY - Abstract
Importance: US law generally requires testing of high-risk medical devices prior to approval, as well as premarket evaluation of moderate-risk medical devices, with the goal of ensuring that the benefits of these products exceed their risks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempts to balance the need for evidence generation with an approval process that facilitates access and encourages innovation.Objective: To review the development of laws and standards affecting the evaluation and oversight of medical devices by the US regulatory system and the outcomes of this system from 1976 to 2020.Evidence Review: Laws enacted by US Congress and regulations promulgated by the FDA through 2020; databases maintained by the FDA of device authorizations from 1976 to 2020; and annual reports of user fees paid to the FDA by industry.Findings: Since Congress and the FDA initiated premarket review of medical devices in 1976, some fundamental innovations in the device regulation system have included special pathways to accelerate availability of investigational devices, more flexible evidence and review requirements, and increased funding to the FDA through industry-paid user fees. From 1987 to 2020, the annual number of novel devices granted premarket approval (which excludes supplements) ranged from 8 to 56 (median, 32), and the number of clearances for 510(k) devices (those that are "substantially equivalent" to marketed devices) ranged from 2804 to 5762 (median, 3404). User fee funding for devices was established in 2002 and annual fees collected increased from $30 million in 2003 (in 2019 dollars) to more than $208 million in 2019; this represented 43% of FDA funding related to the review of medical devices. Although many new devices have led to considerable patient benefit, such as hypodermic needles and magnetic resonance imaging machines, important adverse events caused by some devices, such as an implanted device for birth control and a surgical mesh implant for pelvic organ prolapse, have led to calls to reexamine the regulatory system for such products.Conclusions and Relevance: Over the last 45 years, medical device regulation has become more complex, with more regulatory pathways and greater variations in the evidence and controls required for authorization. Increased FDA support from industry and concern about flexible authorization requirements reflect the tension between efficient access and the need for assurances that products will safely benefit patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
15. Poder hegemónico en las patentes: concentración del conocimiento en el Norte y exclusión de los innovadores del Sur.
- Author
-
Gaspar Olvera, Selene and Javier Caballero Anguiano, Francisco
- Subjects
RETURN migration ,INTELLECTUAL property ,VIRTUAL networks ,EDUCATION costs ,PATENTS ,PATENT law - Abstract
Copyright of Migración y Desarrollo is the property of Red Internacional de Migracion y Desarrollo and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
16. Improving the Patent Notice System: Replacing the Duty to Mark with a Unified Patent-Product Database.
- Author
-
Nguyen, Dylan
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *PATENTS , *PATENT infringement , *PATENT suits - Abstract
The U.S. patent system is deficient in giving the public proper notice of what technologies are under patent protection. The current system relies on patent marking, which involves imprinting products with patent information that cover the product, to give constructive notice to the public. Recent data indicates that marking products with a website? called virtual marking? is not widely used. The problem lies with the overall costs, risks, and impracticability of marking certain products. Given the already dubious nature of constructive notice, the lack of virtual marking is a sign that patent law should improve its notice system. The lack of notice contributes to innocent infringement and an overall high societal cost that cuts against innovation. This Note argues that a unified patent-product database would improve notice to inventors to prevent infringement and generally encourage innovation. The database could borrow ideas from an effective database like the Food and Drug Administration's "Orange Book," a well-established drug database for the pharmaceutical industry. This Note also looks into how other components of the Patent Notice System would be improved, including the current U.S. patent database and the patent disclosure system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
17. Nonobviousness: Before and After.
- Author
-
Karshtedt, Dmitry
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *PATENTS - Abstract
The requirement of nonobviousness, codified in 35 U.S.C. § 103, has been called "the ultimate condition of patentability" because of its crucial function of keeping technically trivial inventions out of the patent system. The obviousness determination must be made based on the state of the invention's field at a particular point in time--in the Patent Act's current version, the date that the patent application was effectively filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO"). However, in spite of the critical role of time in patent law and the danger that hindsight bias could distort § 103 analysis when patentability is evaluated long after the relevant date (as it usually is), the seminal Supreme Court obviousness opinion in Graham v. John Deere said little about temporal considerations. Instead, Graham's lasting contribution was to suggest that the § 103 inquiry is to be divided into two stages based on the source of the proffered evidence. The Court said that as an initial matter, the PTO or a court should look to pre-patent publications and other materials in the public domain and determine the differences between those disclosures and the patent claim at issue. Further, should the parties introduce additional evidence that the Court called "secondary considerations," such as commercial success of the patented product or failure of others to come up with the claimed invention, decision-makers would need to continue the analysis to determine the relevance and weight of this evidence before making a final judgment on validity. Although courts and commentators disagree vigorously about the relative roles of these two aspects of the nonobviousness calculus, the primarysecondary framework has a central place in the law of § 103. This Article shows that Graham's apparent creation of two tiers of obviousness evidence has caused confusion and error, and should be rejected in favor of a different approach that is focused on time. First, the rigid segmenting of the patentability inquiry into two steps, which is seen in some lower-court decisions interpreting Graham, has caused certain evidence to be arbitrarily discounted or bolstered depending on whether it falls into the primary or secondary silo. Second, and more pernicious, these evidentiary tiers have obscured the significance of time for patentability. This Article argues that, instead, the filing date of the patent application as the default dividing line between the pre- and post-invention state of the relevant field provides a more logical fulcrum around which to organize the § 103 analysis. Accordingly, obviousness evidence should be classified based on whether it came into existence independently of the patent and generally prior to filing (ex ante) or, instead, whether it appeared in response to the invention or during its further, post-filing, development (ex post). This Article demonstrates that the proposed scheme would pave the way to a more rational approach to § 103 by helping decision-makers determine the relevance and weight of various obviousness evidence with greater accuracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
18. Originality’s Other Path.
- Author
-
Fishman, Joseph P.
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *COPYRIGHT , *INTELLECTUAL property infringement laws , *PATENTS - Abstract
Although the U.S. Supreme Court has famously spoken of a “historic kinship” between patent and copyright doctrine, the family resemblance is sometimes hard to see. One of the biggest differences between them today is how much ingenuity they require for earning protection. Obtaining a patent requires an invention so innovative that it would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Copyright, by contrast, makes no such demand on authors. It requires an original work of only minimal creativity. Except sometimes it doesn’t. Puzzlingly, in some copyright cases dealing with musical arrangements, courts have demanded a patentlike level of creativity from putative authors. While these cases might seem like outliers, they have a pedigree that is both lengthy and largely unrecognized. The proposition that copyright originality should require patent-style inventiveness beyond artisans’ everyday creations dates back to an 1850 music-infringement decision by Justice Samuel Nelson. In fact, only four months later, Nelson himself would author the Supreme Court patent opinion that is now credited as the touchstone for patent law’s own non-obviousness doctrine. His corresponding vision for copyright, though, came first. Drawing on original archival research, this Article challenges the standard account of what originality doctrine is and what courts can do with it. It identifies Nelson’s forgotten copyright legacy: a stillgrowing line of cases that treats music differently, sometimes even more analogously to patentable inventions than to other authorial works. These decisions seem to function as a hidden enclave within originality’s larger domain, playing by rules that others couldn’t get away with. They form originality’s other path, much less trod than the familiar one but with a doctrinal story of its own to tell. Originality and non-obviousness’s parallel beginnings reveal a period of leaky boundaries between copyright and patent, when many of the Justices considered a rule for one to be just as good for the other. Their recurring intersections, meanwhile, muddy today’s conventional narrative about copyright’s historic commitment to protecting even the most modestly creative works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
19. Will the Supreme Court Nix Reviews of Bad Patents?
- Author
-
Samuelson, Pamela
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *CONSTITUTIONAL law - Abstract
The article discusses the implications of a U.S. Supreme Court case involving a lawsuit by the firm Oil States Energy Services against the firm Greene's Energy Group. Topics include the implications of the 2011 U.S. law America Invents Act (AIA) for the U.S. Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB), aspects of the U.S. Constitution related to patent review, and the relationship of the U.S. Congress to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in relation to the powers of the PTAB.
- Published
- 2018
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
20. Inclusive Patents for Open Innovation.
- Author
-
Takenaka, Toshiko
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *PATENTS , *PATENT infringement - Abstract
The post-internet era has greatly affected commercial firms' innovation processes. The complexity and cumulative nature of emerging technologies under the post-internet era has made commercial firms reevaluate their innovation processes and has increased the role of individual innovators. Firms dealing with emerging technologies cannot make products without infringing on patents held by others, as their products are covered by numerous overlapping patents. Many of these firms work with individual innovators and embrace the open-source philosophy that ensures open access to technologies. These firms can no longer use patents for excluding others without risking infringement counterclaims, leading to the development of new uses of patents: defensive use to avoid litigation and proactive use to promote open innovation. The current U.S. patent has become increasingly outdated for failing to take into account these new uses of patents. Although firms have implemented self-help arrangements by retooling patents with licenses and privateordering mechanisms, the arrangements still fall short as they result in: (1) no defensive function against patent assertion entities (PAEs) and (2) insufficient proactive use if innovators fail to disclose their invention through USPTO, due to expensive patent costs. Patent reform is necessary to overcome such shortcomings. In light of recent changes, this article proposes issuing inclusive patents as an alternative option to current exclusive patents. The proposed inclusive patents allow anyone who licenses their patented inventions to practice the protected invention, and are only enforced defensively when the owners are charged with infringement. The inclusive patents enable owners to request a preliminary procedure to grant a compulsory license in light of the eBay factors when they are charged with infringement of blocking patents. The compulsory license enhances the defensive use of inclusive patents to avoid litigation with PAEs, and guarantees owners the freedom to operate and innovate on their inventions. Because of the limited exclusivity, the USPTO should allow simplified patent applications and issue inclusive patents without examination. With low patent costs, all types of innovators can take advantage of the proactive use of inclusive patents through USPTO disclosures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
21. Realizing Public Rights Through Government Patent Use.
- Author
-
Kapczynski, Amy
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *MEDICAL care cost laws , *HUMAN rights , *COVID-19 , *COVID-19 vaccines , *PRIVATE sector , *ANTIVIRAL agents , *ENDOWMENT of research , *GOVERNMENT aid , *PHARMACEUTICAL industry ,DRUGS & economics - Abstract
A substantial portion of biomedical R&D is publicly funded. But resulting medicines are typically covered by patents held by private firms, and priced without regard to the public's investment. The Bayh-Dole Act provides a possible remedy, but its scope is limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
22. The Library of Babel for Prior Art: Using Artificial Intelligence to Mass Produce Prior Art in Patent Law.
- Author
-
Yordy, Lucas R.
- Subjects
- *
PRIOR art doctrine (Patent law) , *ARTIFICIAL intelligence laws , *PATENT law , *INDUSTRIAL laws & legislation , *PATENTS - Abstract
Artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly important role in the invention and innovation processes of our society. To date, though, much of the academic discussion on the interaction of artificial intelligence and the patent system focuses on the patentability of inventions produced by artificial intelligence. Little attention has been paid to organizations that are seeking to use artificial intelligence to defeat the patentability of otherwise patent-worthy inventions by mass producing prior art. This Note seeks to highlight the consequences of allowing mass-produced, AI-generated prior art to render valuable inventions unpatentable. Specifically, this Note concludes that AIgenerated prior art decreases the incentive for researchers to disclose valuable knowledge through the patent system without providing an adequate substitute source of such knowledge. This Note also examines a number of patent law doctrines that should, but likely will not, prevent deficient AI-generated prior art from rendering valuable inventions unpatentable. To resolve these issues, this Note proposes a solution that modifies the current novelty inquiry and breathes new life into the patent law doctrine of conception. This solution advances the patent system's purpose of promoting technological advancement while still allowing artificial intelligence to play a large role in that technological advancement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
23. "SUBSTANTIAL EMBODIMENTS" AND "READILY REPLACEABLE PARTS": A CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDING OF THE DOCTRINE OF PERMISSIBLE REPAIR.
- Author
-
Richter, Natali
- Subjects
- *
REPAIR & maintenance services , *PATENT law , *PATENTS , *PATENT infringement - Published
- 2021
24. Modernizing the Business of Health: Pharmaceuticals in Britain, in comparison with Germany and the United States, 1890–1940.
- Author
-
Liebenau, Jonathan
- Subjects
INNOVATION adoption ,INTELLECTUAL property ,DRUG laws ,INDUSTRIES ,DRUG patents ,PHARMACEUTICAL industry ,PATENT law ,HISTORY - Abstract
The pharmaceutical industry adopted technology in markedly different ways in Germany, the United States, and Britain. During the early 20th century, useful knowledge became a commercial asset, but British intellectual property and drug regulation laws created neither pressures nor rewards for growth. Key differences emerged in the ways in which intellectual property was used, in the development of testing and standardization, and in the links between researchers and industry. We show how firms sought to control the new knowledge assets that built the business of health. This also helps to explain the choices made in the three countries as to what forms of investments best further industry goals. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]
- Published
- 2013
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
25. A New Way to Contain Unaffordable Medication Costs - Exercising the Government's Existing Rights.
- Author
-
Engelberg, Alfred B., Avorn, Jerry, and Kesselheim, Aaron S.
- Subjects
- *
INDUSTRIAL laws & legislation , *LEGISLATION , *USER charges , *PATENT law , *MEDICAL care cost laws , *DRUG laws , *GENERIC drugs , *FEDERAL government - Abstract
The article reports that legislation permitting the U.S. government to negotiate Medicare drug prices has been weakened after pushback from the pharmaceutical industry. Topics include government's costs for filling prescriptions in federal programs; and medications by means of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund biomedical research.
- Published
- 2022
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
26. Patenting Personalized Medicine: Molecules, Information, and the Body.
- Author
-
Biagioli, Mario and Pottage, Alain
- Subjects
- *
INDIVIDUALIZED medicine , *PATENT law , *LEGAL history , *MEDICAL patents , *PATENTS - Abstract
The histories of patent law and medical practice in the United States have intersected in various ways over the past 150 years, beginning with the professional campaign against "patent medicines" in the late nineteenth century, and culminating, for now, in attempts to patent the diagnostic procedures discussed in this article. The patenting of diagnostic procedures provokes a set of fundamental questions about the episteme of patent law. These questions are not new. They emerged at the very origins of patent jurisprudence, centered on the question of what distinguished an invention from a law of nature, and this question of patentability has persistently reemerged over the past century in the contexts of plant breeding, biotechnology, and now diagnostic medicine. So far, the question has been addressed in terms that imagine the invention as a machine, understood in the figurative sense of a transformative organization of forces and elements. But diagnostic procedures, because they address the body informationally, as a system based on the recursive patterning of signals rather than a linear transformation of inputs into outputs, stretch the figure of the machine to the point at which it ceases to be effective. How then should one define and delimit invention? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
27. Law, Fact, and Patent Validity.
- Author
-
Gugliuzza, Paul R.
- Subjects
- *
TRADE regulation , *PATENT law , *ADMINISTRATIVE law , *GOVERNMENT agencies - Abstract
Judges, not juries, typically decide questions of law. Likewise, it is judges who usually review the legality of actions taken by government agencies. And when judges or juries decide fact-laden issues in civil litigation, those decisions commonly receive deference on appeal. Patent law, however, does all of this precisely backwards. In patent infringement cases, juries often decide the legal question of patent validity. When a jury rules on a patent's validity, it is reviewing the work of an administrative agency, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. And decisions on the case-specific, fact-specific issue of patent validity are reviewed de novo by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which has exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases. These unusual features of patent litigation create significant inefficiencies: patent jury trials are expensive and jury decisions on technologically complex questions of patentability can be unpredictable; stringent standards of appellate review encourage prolonged litigation and result in costly postappeal do-overs. All of this occurs because the Federal Circuit has drawn a strict, bright line between questions of law and questions of fact, leaving little room for a middle category of questions that require applying the law to the facts of a particular case. In most areas of law--but not often in patent law--those questions are called mixed questions of law and fact. This Article advances a simple thesis: that all questions of patent validity are, ultimately, mixed questions of law and fact. This approach would greatly simplify Federal Circuit doctrine, which currently treats some validity issues as questions of law, others as questions of fact, and still others as questions of law based on underlying facts. It would also clarify ambiguities in Supreme Court precedent on the law-fact distinction in patent litigation, which similarly resists using the phrase "mixed question." In addition, treating patent validity as a mixed question would improve the procedure of patent litigation in numerous ways: patent validity would be resolved in reasoned opinions by a judge rather than in the black box of a general jury verdict, those on-the-record judicial decisions would receive appropriate deference on appeal, and judicial review of Patent Office actions would be brought further into the mainstream of administrative law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
28. The Research Patent.
- Author
-
Seymore, Sean B.
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *PATENTS , *COPYRIGHT licenses , *PATENT reform , *INTELLECTUAL property - Abstract
The patent system gives courts the discretion to tailor patentability standards flexibly across technologies to provide optimal incentives for innovation. For chemical inventions, the courts deem them unpatentable if the chemical lacks a practical, non-research-based use at the time patent protection is sought. The fear is that an early-stage patent on a research input would confer too much control over yet-unknown uses for the chemical, thereby potentially hindering downstream innovation. Yet, denying patents on research inputs can frustrate patent law's broad goal of protecting and promoting scientific and technological advances. This Article addresses this problem by proposing a new form of intellectual property--a "research patent." This regime would allow inventors to obtain patents on research inputs and extract their full value through licensing and enforcement. Research patents would impose minimal administrative costs on the patent system and ultimately promote the disclosure, development, and use of early-stage inventions. At a broader level, the proposed regime raises the theoretical question of how allowing patent protection on early-stage inventions like research inputs serves patent law's instrumental justification of promoting scientific progress. It also raises significant normative and policy questions about technology-specific patentability standards and their role in furthering the goals of the patent system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
29. Power Over the Patent Right.
- Author
-
Reilly, Greg
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *TRADE regulation , *PATENTS , *PROPERTY rights - Abstract
The natue of' the rights confrred by a U.S. patent is increasingly debated among scholars, industry stakeholders, and even United States Supreme Court Justices. The debate often jocuses on labeling patent rights as private property rights or public regulatory tools. Commentators assume that the chosen label dictates the set of rights granted by the patent, with the divide being over the extent of government control and involvement, the amount of patent owner exclusivity and power, and the relevance of public interest considerations, Opponents of recent and proposed patent retbrms increasingly contend that these reforms are illegitimate or unconstitutional because they are inconsistent with the long-standing treatment of' patents as private property rights. This Article puts these contentions in context, showing that they mistake the familiar for the necessary. Before American patent rights came to have characteristics associated with traditional property rights in the middle of the nineteenth century, patent rights in the colonies and states before the Constitution and in the initial U.S. patent system shai,ed characteristics with modern regulatory entitlements and benefits. There is no reason from the constitutional text, originalism, long-standing practice, or otherwise to limit Congress to the private property model of patent rights. Rather, whether to design patents with characteristics more akin to traditional property rights or regulatory entitlements and benejits, and whether to weaken or strengthen patent rights, is a policy question for Congress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
30. EXTRATERRITORIAL DAMAGES IN PATENT LAW.
- Author
-
COTTER, THOMAS F.
- Subjects
PATENT law ,PATENT suits ,PATENTS ,PATENT infringement - Abstract
In 2018, the Supreme Court in WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysleal Corp. held that the owner of a U.S. patent could recover its lost profit on sales it would have made outside the United States, but for the defendant's violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(2)- rarely used provision of the Patent Act that prohibits, subject to certain conditions, the export of patented components for combination abroad. The Court left open the queslion of whether owners also can recover extraterritorial damages resulting from the (much more common) setting in which the defendant is accused of an initial act of making, using, or selling the invention within the United States, in violation of section 271(a). Consideration of this question exposes an ostensible tension between two long-established principles of U.S. patent law: first, that owners are, in general, entitled to.full compensation for their losses: and second, that patent rights are territorial-that is, unenforceable against conduct occurring outside a nation's borders. This Article argues that allowing patent owners to recover damages for extraterritorial losses stemming from violations of section 271(a) does not, in fact, undermine the territoriality principle, as long as courts are consistent in their application of three limiting principles. The first is that the domestic infringement must be the cause-in-fact (or "but-for" cause) of the defendant's subsequent foreign sales. While this requirement might seem obvious, in the present context it means that, if the defendant could have avoided infringing the U.S. patent by outsourcing production, then, as a matter of economic logic, the domestic infringement is not a cause-in-fact of the extraterritorial sales, and at most the patent owner is entitled to a royalty reflecting the lower cost, if any, of domestic manufacture. Second, even if the domestic infringement is the cause-in-fact of foreign sales, the patent owner cannot recover damages unless those sales also are proximately caused by the domestic infringement. Contrary to the views of some commentators, however, there is nothing inherently unforeseeable, indirect, remote, or speculative about foreign sales tied to domestic infringement, and there is no sound public policy reason for categorically excluding them from consideration. The third principle is that courts should not compensate patent owners twice for the same loss. Fortunately, courts in the United States and elsewhere have considerable experience applying, under a range of circumstances, the "single recovery" rule (otherwise known as the rule against double recovery). Taken together, application of these principles should enable courts to avoid the parade of horribles that some commentators fear will result from any slackening of the territoriality principle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
31. FRAND, RAND, & THE PROBLEM AT HAND: INCREASING CERTAINTY IN INFRINGEMENT DAMAGES FOR STANDARD-ESSENTIAL PATENTS.
- Author
-
Howard, Samuel
- Subjects
PATENT infringement ,PATENT law - Published
- 2021
32. QUANTUM PATENTS.
- Author
-
HANEY, BRIAN
- Subjects
PATENT law ,PATENTS - Abstract
Quantum Patents are patents with claims relating to quantum computing. The number of Quantum Patents granted by the USPTO is rapidly increasing each year. In addition, Quantum Patents are increasing in total market value. While the literature on technology patents is visibly scaling, literature specifically focused on Quantum Patents is non-existent. This Article draws on a growing body of quantum computing, intellectual property, and technology law scholarship to provide novel Quantum Patent analysis and critique. This Article contributes the first empirical Quantum Patent review, including novel technology descriptions, market modeling, and legal analysis relating to Quantum Patent claims. First, this Article discusses the two main technical approaches to Quantum Computing. This discussion explores the relationship between Adiabatic Quantum Computers and Gate-Model Quantum Computers, as well as various quantum software frameworks. Second, this Article models an evolving Quantum Patent dataset, offering economic insights, claims analysis, and patent valuation strategies. The data models provide insight into an uncharted patent market alcove, shining light on a completely new economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
33. BARGAINING FOR INNOVATION.
- Author
-
WINSTON, ELIZABETH
- Subjects
PATENT law ,TRADEMARKS ,COPYRIGHT ,INTELLECTUAL property ,COMMERCIAL law - Abstract
Reward drives innovation. For this reason, Congress has enacted a system of patents, trademarks, and copyrights to incentivize innovation. Such publicly ordered intellectual property regulation supports public and private interests-mandating disclosure of the innovation while legislating protection of that disclosure. Increasingly, though, the legislated incentives are proving insufficient for innovation, and innovators are relying on private incentives, undermining the fundamental balance of our legal framework and maximizing the reward to innovators at the cost of the public's interest. Enforcement of contracts that supplant legislation rather than supplement it contravenes public policy and vitiates the public's interest. It is time to reform public ordering to protect the public's interest while providing sufficient reward to incentivize innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
34. RECALIBRATING THE DISGORGEMENT REMEDY IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CASES.
- Author
-
SAMUELSON, PAMELA, GOLDEN, JOHN M., and GERGEN, MARK P.
- Subjects
- *
DISGORGEMENT (Law) , *INTELLECTUAL property , *TRADEMARK laws , *ANTITRUST remedies , *PATENT law - Abstract
The five major U.S. intellectual property ("IP") regimes--trademark, trade secrecy, copyright, design patent, and utility patent ("patent") laws--have quite different rules about the availability of disgorgement of infringer profits as a remedy. Traditional principles of restitution and unjust enrichment support awards of disgorgement of profits insofar as they are (1) levied against conscious wrongdoers, (2) attributable to the wrongful conduct, and (3) subject to equitable discretion. Unlike awards of actual damages, which aim primarily to compensate plaintiffs for harms suffered because of a defendant's wrongdoing, disgorgement awards primarily seek to deter wrongdoing by ensuring that wrongdoers do not profit thereby. This Article presents a formal model that supports our judgment that these principles are consistent with the goal of optimal deterrence of IP infringement. This Article presents a close study of the doctrinal structure of the five IP regimes' approach to disgorgement. We find that trademark law is the most consistent of the five regimes with traditional restitutionary principles and the goal of optimal deterrence. Trade secrecy law, like trademark law, is substantially consistent. Design patent, copyright, and patent laws deviate in more significant ways. Disgorgement awards are always available to owners of copyrights or design patents, even against innocent infringers. Moreover, design patent law even deviates from traditional approaches to restricting awards to amounts attributable to infringement. Instead, design patent law requires awards of total profits on the manufacture or sale of whatever "article of manufacture" to which an infringing design has been applied. Further, courts have rarely recognized that disgorgement awards should be subject to equitable adjustments in copyright and design patent cases, although this may change after the Supreme Court's characterization of disgorgement as an equitable remedy for copyright infringement. Patent law deviates from traditional restitutionary principles in a very different way: courts have ruled that Congress repealed disgorgement as a general remedy for patent infringement in 1946, but patent law's reasonable royalty awards can, in effect, result in a partial disgorgement of infringer profits. This Article concludes by making recommendations about how courts can, within the statutory bounds of each IP regime, render disgorgement awards that are more consistent with traditional restitutionary principles in a manner that will promote the overall goals of the IP laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2020
35. UNREGISTERED PATENTS.
- Author
-
Marcowitz-Bitton, Miriam and Morris, Emily Michiko
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *PATENTS , *INTELLECTUAL property , *ARTIFICIAL organs , *RECORDING & registration - Abstract
Although all should be treated equally under the law, patent law has long been known to favor some less than others. Patentable technology is highly heterogeneous, covering everything from minute improvements in electronics to pioneering new artificial organs, but patent protection itself is purely a one-size-fits-all system. Patents thus overreward some while underrewarding others. On the one hand, patents overreward low-investment, low-value inventions by granting them the same twenty-year term of protection as those that required much higher investments and yield much higher social value. The resulting glut of low-quality patents has contributed greatly to the "patent crisis" of opportunistic "patent trolls," heightened transaction costs, and costly litigation that have ultimately stalled innovation. On the other hand, patents also underreward in two significant ways. First, patents often fail to give some high-investment, high-value inventions enough protection. Second, many inventors are shut out from patent protection altogether if they lack the resources necessary to navigate the patent system's costly, complex, and frequently biased examination process. This latter phenomenon disproportionately affects female and minority inventors, among others, thereby creating significant distributive effects. This Article argues that both of these effects--the overprotection of low-value inventions and the underprotection of inventions by women and minorities--could be alleviated by altering one particular but seldom-appreciated aspect of the patent system's one-size-fits-all approach: its registration-only design. Copyright and trademark law allow for both registered and unregistered rights, but the patent system grants rights only to those who register their inventions and undergo subsequent examination. If the patent system were to follow the twotiered approach of copyright and trademark law, however, and implement a regime of automatic but very limited unregistered rights in addition to registered rights, it could help address both problems. First, providing a much lower-cost alternative for obtaining protection, such a two-tiered regime could, with varying degrees of aggressiveness, channel lowinvestment, low-value inventions away from the system-clogging overprotections of the full, twenty-year, broad rights currently granted to registered patents. Second, as the authors of this Article have previously argued, by providing automatic rights without having to go through the resource-intensive registration and examination process, unregistered patent protection could help women and other disadvantaged inventors gain greater access to patent protections. Maintaining a two-tiered regime of both registered and unregistered patent rights thus offers a promising way to mitigate the inefficiencies of the current system by attenuating certain aspects of the current patent crisis while promoting a more egalitarian playing field for inventors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2020
36. COMPULSORY LICENSING OF CLIMATE ENGINEERING PATENTS: HOW EMBRACING TECHNOLOGY- AND RESEARCHING-SHARING STRATEGIES BRINGS US ONE STEP CLOSER TO SOLVING CLIMATE CHANGE.
- Author
-
Hardin, Buzz
- Subjects
COMPULSORY licensing of patents ,PATENT law ,PATENTS - Published
- 2020
37. Patent Law--35 U.S.C. § 271(g) Does Not Impose Single-Entity Requirement--Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC v. Willowood, LLC, 944 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied, No. 19-1147, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 4735 (U.S. Oct. 5, 2020).
- Author
-
Stewart-Sloan, Charlotte
- Subjects
PATENT law ,PATENT infringement - Published
- 2020
38. FINTECH: NEW BATTLE LINES IN THE PATENT WARS?
- Author
-
La Belle, Megan M. and Schooner, Heidi Mandanis
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *PATENT infringement , *TRADE regulation - Abstract
Historically, financial institutions have relied on trade secrets and first-mover advantages, rather than patents, to protect their inventions. For the few financial patents that were issued, conventional wisdom was that they weren't terribly interesting or important. In our 2014 study on financial patents, we showed that banks were breaking from past patterns and increasingly seeking patent protection. We explained that financial institutions were primarily building their patent portfolios as a defensive measure--i.e., to protect themselves from infringement suits. Indeed, the finance industry successfully lobbied Congress to include provisions in the America Invents Act of 2011 that made it easier to invalidate financial patents through administrative review. Yet, two significant developments call for a revisit of our 2014 study: first, the rise of fintech and, second, the recent $300 million verdict in the first bank-on-bank patent infringement suits--United Services Automobile Association (USAA) v. Wells Fargo. This paper explores how the rise of fintech has changed the purpose of patenting among banks, and what a possible fintech patent war would mean for the future of both the financial and patent systems in this country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2020
39. IS THE USPTO TURNING ALICE INTO EPC ARTICLE 52?
- Author
-
Tobin, Garrett
- Subjects
- *
TECHNOLOGY , *APPELLATE courts , *PATENT law - Abstract
Despite recent technological advances, the statutory basis under which U.S. courts evaluate patent-eligible subject matter has remained substantially unchanged for over 200 years. As a result, the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have decided patent eligibility for software-based inventions without legislative input. Most notably, in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International the Supreme Court created a twopart test for analyzing eligibility that determines (1) whether a claimed invention is directed towards an abstract idea, and if so, (2) whether the claim recites "significantly more" such that the abstract idea is transformed into patent-eligible subject matter. This test has been criticized for its lack of clarity and predictability. Conversely, in European patent law, courts consult a statutory framework that excludes enumerated groups of unpatentable subject matter. Moreover, a claimed invention may avoid falling within one of the excluded groupings if it integrates the excluded subject matter into a practical, technical application. Interestingly, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") recently created a guidance document to help examiners apply the Alice two-part test consistently, and it is strikingly similar to the European approach to subject matter eligibility. Not only does this guidance document employ enumerated groups of excluded subject matter, it also states that a claimed invention may avoid falling within one of the excluded groupings if it integrates the excluded subject matter into a practical, technical application. Although the USPTO guidance document does not carry the force of law, it is likely to encourage legislative action amending the controlling statute, moving the United States closer to European patent law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2020
40. Equitable Defenses in Patent Law.
- Author
-
LASER, CHRISTA J.
- Subjects
PATENT law ,PATENT misuse ,PATENT infringement ,EQUITY pleading & procedure - Abstract
In patent law, "unenforceability" can have immense consequences. At least five equitable doctrines make up the defense of "unenforceability" as it was codified into the Patent Act in 1952: laches; estoppel; unclean hands; patent misuse; and according to some, inequitable conduct. Yet in the seventy years since incorporation of equitable defenses into the patent statute, the Supreme Court has not clarified their reach. Indeed, twice in the last four years, the Supreme Court avoided giving complete guidance on the crucial questions of whether, and when, such equitable defenses are available to bar damages in cases brought at law. Several interpretive methods have been proposed for determining the reach of generally worded statutes like the Patent Act. Under a dynamic statutory interpretation, courts would be permitted to develop such statutes in accordance with what the law ought to be. Under a traditional faithful agent approach, in contrast, courts would try to determine the scope as set forth by the legislature, piecing together context and history to frame limited words. The scope of equitable defenses in patent law is an ideal proving ground between these methods, having both historical background for use in traditional approaches and high-stakes social questions that factor into a dynamic approach--what conduct do we allow patentees to engage in before we cut off remedies for infringement on innovations that support our health and modern lifestyle? Setting the stage of the statutory interpretive battle, this Article examines the historical and statutory bases of equitable limits on patent law, with a particular focus on the substantive equitable defenses of unclean hands and patent misuse. It contrasts the history of equitable defenses such as estoppel, which crossed fully into courts of law well before the merger of law and equity and the Patent Act, with equitable defenses such as laches, unclean hands, and misuse. This Article walks through these defenses' pre-codification roots and potential statutory interpretations and presents normative and constitutional considerations under the competing interpretive approaches. It also presents a surprising approach to inequitable conduct, arguing that it is not an equitable defense and should no longer result in infectious invalidity. This Article is the first to provide a comprehensive framework for the analysis of equitable defenses in patent law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2020
41. Context to Overcome Definition: How the Supreme Court Used Statutory Interpretation to Define "Person" and "Sex".
- Author
-
Moylan, Shelby Sternberg
- Subjects
- *
PATENT infringement , *PATENT law , *GENDER identity laws , *HUMAN sexuality & law ,CIVIL Rights Act of 1964 - Published
- 2020
42. Judicial Policing of Patent Damages Experts.
- Author
-
Golden, John M.
- Subjects
- *
PATENTS , *JUDGE-made law , *UNITED States appellate courts , *PATENT law , *PATENT infringement - Abstract
The calculation of patent damages such as a reasonable royalty presents significant challenges for which the use of expert testimony is predictable, if not unavoidably vital. Struggles to employ and at the same time guide and restrain expert testimony on reasonable royalty damages have become prominent in the last two decades, in substantial part because of the rise of patent assertion entities (PAEs) that have intensified stresses on the United States patent system. Patent law's peculiarly centralized court of appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has responded to such stresses by limiting the admissibility or cognizable sufficiency of expert evidence on reasonable royalties for patent infringement. Although seemingly more aggressive than the general appellate norm, this appellate-level activity has so far appeared in line with general understandings of the proper judicial role in regulating expert testimony and reliance on it. A strict understanding of the Federal Circuit's rule of apportionment based on the smallest salable patent-practicing unit (SSPPU) might lead to an undue downward distortion of reasonable royalty awards under certain circumstances, but there currently seems enough flex in the articulation of the rule to accommodate corrective adjustments. Although imperfect, the current approach to regulating expert testimony on patent damages seems to embody at least a plausibly satisfactory form of "muddling through, " approximating the demands for reasoned analysis that courts commonly impose on the work of expert administrative agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2020
43. BATTEN DOWN THE HATCH[ES]! RESTORING THE PATENT SYSTEM'S ROLE WITHIN THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY.
- Author
-
Screnci, Rocco
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *DRUG patents , *PHARMACEUTICAL industry , *PATENTABILITY , *PATENTS - Abstract
The article addresses how the Hatch-Waxman Act's unforeseen consequences conflict with contemporary patent-law policy in the U.S. Topics include relationship between the history of the patent system, fundamental patent law concepts, and contemporary rules governing patent law; pharmaceutical regulation in the U.S.; and amendments made within Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.
- Published
- 2020
44. The quality factor in patent systems.
- Author
-
van Pottelsberghe de la Potterie, Bruno
- Subjects
PATENT law ,SYSTEMS development ,SYSTEMS design ,SYSTEM analysis ,INTELLECTUAL property ,METHODOLOGY - Abstract
This article develops a methodology to compare the quality of examination services in three major patent systems. Quality is defined as the extent to which patent systems comply with the patentability conditions in a transparent way. The methodology consists of a two-layer analytical framework encompassing “legal standards” (LS) and their “operational design” (OD) which includes several interdependent components that affect the stringency and transparency of the filtering process. The comparison of patent systems in Europe, Japan, and the United States shows that their operational designs differ substantially: the European system provides higher-quality and more expensive examination services than the United States one, while the Japanese Patent system is in an intermediate position. The results illustrate that different system designs lead to different outcomes in terms of backlogs, patent propensity, and the number of dubious patent rights in force. In this respect, these findings (i) provide an empirical validation of the conjecture of a vicious cycle linking the quality of examination and demand for patents and (ii) highlight the need for a multifaceted convergence of patent systems before mutual recognition is put in place. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]
- Published
- 2011
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
45. Inside the atomic patent office.
- Author
-
Wellerstein, Alex
- Subjects
- *
PATENT law , *CENSORSHIP - Abstract
This article describes how the atomic patenting program of the U.S. government controlled the early development of nuclear technologies. In 1942, William Asahel Shurcliff was appointed the atomic patent censor, a secret job that gave Shurcliff a comprehensive view of the entire atomic research program. Vannevar Bush, head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development, was concerned that others would secure patents for atomic energy and would jeopardize the U.S. Manhattan Project. Shurcliff's job was to find patent applications for atomic energy and to keep them secret during the war.
- Published
- 2008
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
46. A Comparative Analysis of Libraries' Approaches to Copyright: Israel, Russia, and the U.S.
- Author
-
Shachaf, Pnina and Rubenstein, Ellen
- Subjects
- *
COPYRIGHT , *INTELLECTUAL property , *CONTENT analysis , *SOCIAL responsibility , *PATENT law , *PUBLISHING - Abstract
While librarians are concerned about copyright and intellectual property, the extent of their compliance with ethical guidelines and copyright laws is unclear. This study examines, through content analysis, libraries' approaches toward copyright concerns in three countries (Israel, Russia, and the United States), and suggests a model of library response to social responsibility issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2007
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
47. End co-formulant secrecy.
- Author
-
Straw, Edward A.
- Subjects
NON-target organisms ,AMERICAN law ,PATENT law ,REVERSE engineering - Abstract
Pesticides, widely used in modern agriculture, are applied in formulations that contain the main ingredient (active ingredient) and additional chemicals like solvents and surfactants (co-formulants). Both active ingredients and co-formulants can cause human and environmental toxicity. However, under European Union and United States law, the full details of the co-formulant composition are kept secret from the public and researchers. Only the producer and regulators know the full details. Here I argue that legislators should end 'co-formulant secrecy' and require all the ingredients in a pesticide be listed openly, including their concentrations. To this end I draw parallels between the legislation for pesticides with that of medicines, review the counterarguments, and discuss the impacts on research and regulation. Co-formulants can be toxicologically relevant, and some are even more toxic than the active ingredient in the formulation. Pesticide users, consumers and scientists deserve to have transparency in understanding what co-formulants are included in pesticide formulations. The stated rationale for secrecy is to protect innovation and reward companies for undertaking expensive research and development. However, secrecy is ineffective at protecting innovation, as it is possible to reverse engineer a formulation's composition. Further, patents are already utilised, so secrecy adds no additional benefit to industry. I argue that co-formulant secrecy only serves to stifle and limit the ability of independent scientists to conduct research. • Pesticide formulations contain both active ingredients and co-formulants. Both can cause toxicity to non-target organisms. • Under European Union and United States law, the details of the co-formulant composition are not publicly disclosed. • This limits the capacity for researchers to understand and test their impacts on non-target organisms. • The rationale for secrecy is to protect innovation, but this is ineffective and patent law already protects innovation. • Consumers and pesticide end users deserve to have transparency as to what is included in pesticide products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2024
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
48. Blind Trust: Market Control, Legal Environments, and the Dynamics of Competitive Intensity in the Early American Film Industry, 1893-1920.
- Author
-
Mezias, Stephen J. and Boyle, Elizabeth
- Subjects
MOTION picture industry licenses ,MOTION picture history ,PATENT law ,ANTITRUST law ,CIVIL law ,PATENTS ,MARKET share ,ACTIONS & defenses (Law) - Abstract
This study of the emergence of the film industry in the U.S. between 1893 and 1920 contributes to the growing literature linking legal environments and population dynamics. This was an era characterized by a shift to active anti-trust policy, which manifested itself in legal action to disband a trust that had dominated the industry, the Motion Pictures Patents Corporation (MPPC). We use archival data to show that mortality was reduced by trust membership and increased with the market share of the trust members. The effects of litigation are varied, with litigation filed by trust members enhancing mortality and litigation filed against trust members decreasing mortality. Analysis of coded headlines from media reports on the emerging industry shows that a shift in the view of the trust in the normative environment toward a more negative view was also associated with decreased mortality. Results also show that learning and the compensatory fitness enjoyed before anti-trust law was enforced prevented the MPPC members from recognizing changes in the marketplace; as a result, they were less likely to move from making short films to making increasingly popular feature-length films. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2005
- Full Text
- View/download PDF
49. 100 TOP STORIES of 2013.
- Author
-
HADHAZY, ADAM, RAFFENSPERGER, LISA, YULSMAN, TOM, WEINBERGER, SHARON, WHEELWRIGHT, JEFF, MCGOWAN, KAT, REHMEYER, JULIE, DRAXLER, BREANNA, PALUS, SHANNON, TARLACH, GEMMA, FRITZ-LAYUN, LILIAN, CARPENTER, MEREDITH, FOX, DOUGLAS, MARSA, LINDA, BAKICH, MICHAEL E., SCOLES, SARAH, ROSS, VALERIE, INMAN, MASON, MERALI, ZEEYA, and WINTER, ALLISON
- Subjects
- *
MARTIAN exploration , *PATENT law , *CARBON dioxide & the environment , *ACTIONS & defenses (Law) - Abstract
The article discusses the top 100 science-related stories of 2013 according to "Discover" magazine. Topics include the evidence found by the rover Curiosity that the planet Mars was once inhabitable, the Supreme Court ruling that DNA patents, including that of Myriad Genetics for the gene BRCA1 filed in 1994, are invalid because naturally occurring DNA sequences cannot be patented, and the milestone 400 parts per million measurement for the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2).
- Published
- 2014
50. CAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES PATENT THEIR RESEARCH?: THE TENSION BETWEEN OPEN RECORDS LAWS AND PATENTABILITY.
- Author
-
Rantanen, Jason and Colon, Madison Murhammer
- Subjects
- *
PUBLIC universities & colleges , *PATENTABILITY -- Lawsuits & claims , *PATENTS , *PATENT law , *COLLEGE records - Abstract
Under state open records laws, which typically preference public access to governmental records, various documents relating to research can be "public records" accessible to the public through an open records request. In many states, such as Iowa, these laws apply just as much to public universities as they do other governmental units. The accessibility of a public university's documents under state open records laws presents a particular patentability problem. A public university may not be entitled to a patent on inventions developed by university faculty due to a fundamental rule of patent law--that an invention cannot be patented if it was previously described in a printed publication. Under blackletter patent law, the touchstone for determining whether something is a "printed publication" is whether it was "publicly accessible." And documents available under a state's open records law would certainly seem to be publicly accessible. This Article takes seriously the idea that documents associated with research conducted by faculty and staff of public universities in the United States constitute "printed publications" or are "otherwise available to the public" for purposes of patent law's novelty requirement. Whether this is actually the case turns out to be surprisingly complex and depends in part on the specifics of each state's open records laws. This Article builds on existing work in this area by rigorously analyzing the Federal Circuit's law on printed publications, examining the question under post-America Invents Act law, and focusing specifically on Iowa's open records law, before concluding with a specific recommendation for Iowa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
- Published
- 2021
Catalog
Discovery Service for Jio Institute Digital Library
For full access to our library's resources, please sign in.