Technology and Innovation Commons^™

A Little Common Sense Is A Dangerous Thing: The Inherent Inconsistency Between Ksr And Current Official Notice Policy, Eli M. Sheets

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “The question of whether an invention is an obvious variation of existing technology is one that has troubled courts for decades. From its roots in nineteenth century case law to the recent Supreme Court decision KSR v. Teleflex, Inc., the doctrine of obviousness has waxed and waned—moving through a variety of judicially-created tests to a current state that is still far from perspicuous.

This paper will examine obviousness through a particular lens: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO,” “PTO”) tool known as “official notice”—the practice of declaring a patent application’s claims unpatentable as obvious based on undocumented reasoning, …

Controlling Patent Prosecution History, Thomas G. Field Jr.

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “One of the most salient effects of patent prosecution history arises in the context of the doctrine of equivalents. Under that doctrine, although patent claims may be found to be broader than their literal scope, territory surrendered during prosecution cannot be encompassed as equivalent. Nor can territory forfeited by initial failure to claim be captured under the doctrine of equivalents. Most attorneys who prosecute applications are apt to be aware of such problems and to take measures to avoid them.”

Egyptian Goddess, Inc. V. Swisa, Inc.: A Dramatic Change In The Law Of Design Patents?, Evan Szarenski

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “On September 22, 2008, the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, handed down the most important decision in design patent law in nearly twenty-five years. Egyptian Goddess, Inc. v. Swisa, Inc. (Egyptian Goddess III) abolished the point-of-novelty test first set out in Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Talge and adopted by the Federal Circuit in Litton Systems, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. The point-of novelty test required patent holders to prove that an accused design appropriated the element which sets the patented design apart from the prior art—in addition to the ordinary-observer standard’s requirement of having substantially the same appearance—in order …

Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights: A Methodology For Understanding The Enforcement Problem In China, Justin Mccabe

The University of New Hampshire Law Review

[Excerpt] “Intellectual property rights are neither protected nor enforced in strict uniformity throughout the world. However, it can be said that in most developed countries, intellectual property is preciously guarded, as evidenced by a plethora of intellectual property statutes, penalties for infringement, and consistent attempts to convince less developed nations to adopt strong—or stronger—intellectual property protections. Despite continued vigilance by developed countries in bringing about increased international harmony among intellectual property regimes, some developing countries sustain questionable enforcement policies. What the driving force is behind intellectual property enforcement policies—or more appropriately, the lack thereof—is a matter of disagreement. In order …