Law Commons^™

Securing Patent Law, Charles Duan

Belmont Law Review

A vigorous conversation about intellectual property rights and national security has largely focused on the defense role of those rights, as tools for responding to acts of foreign infringement. But intellectual property, and patents in particular, also play an arguably more important offense role. Foreign competitor nations can obtain and assert U.S. patents against U.S. firms and creators. Use of patents as an offense strategy can be strategically coordinated to stymie domestic innovation and technological progress. This Essay considers current and possible future practices of patent exploitation in this offense setting, with a particular focus on China given the nature …

Parallel Play: The Simultaneous Professional Responsibility Campaigns Against Unethical Ip Practitioners By The United States And China, Mark A. Cohen

Akron Law Review

“Parallel Play: The Simultaneous Professional Responsibility Campaigns Against IP Practitioners by the United States and China” describes efforts by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the China National IP Administration to discipline trademark and patent practitioners through contemporaneous campaign-style approach directed to bad faith filings. At the USPTO, many of these bad faith filings have originated from China. In both countries, these bad faith activities have imposed significant burdens on IP agencies, the courts, and legitimate rights holders. The campaign is likely the largest professional responsibility campaign undertaken by an IP agency, and the largest cross-border IP disciplinary …

The Future Of Healthcare Is Generic: Expanding Hatch-Waxman To Equitably Regulate The Healthcare Products Industry, George Encarnacion Jr.

DePaul Journal of Health Care Law

This article serves to address the statutory disconnect in the healthcare industry regarding generic products. There has been marked success in the generics market pertaining to pharmaceutical drugs, but the same cannot be said for medical devices and, in more recent times, biosimilars. The end result for consumers is higher product prices, limited access of care, and a more burdensome healthcare system. This article explores the statutory history of drug and medical device approval and production. It also explores differences between modern regulation of generic drugs and generic medical devices, focusing on key issues of FDA approval, consumer safety and …

Thaler V. Vidal, 43 F.4th 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022), Matthew Messina

DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

The Inherent Monetary Incentive Of Intellectual Property Rights And The Failure Of Intellectual Property Waivers To Recognize This Motive, Ellaheh D. Sims

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Perks Of Being Human, Max Stul Oppenheimer

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

The power of artificial intelligence has recently entered the public consciousness, prompting debates over numerous legal issues raised by use of the tool. Among the questions that need to be resolved is whether to grant intellectual property rights to copyrightable works or patentable inventions created by a machine, where there is no human intervention sufficient to grant those rights to the human. Both the U. S. Copyright Office and the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office have taken the position that in cases where there is no human author or inventor, there is no right to copyright or patent protection. …

Determining What’S Not Obvious: Should A Reasonable Expectation Of Success Invalidate Patent Applications?, Natalie Peters

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Patents are necessary to incentivize innovation because they grant owners the right to protect inventions. To be patentable, an invention must be useful, it must be novel, and it must not be obvious. But the judiciary has struggled to apply the latter requirement, non-obviousness, particularly for highly technical innovations subject to FDA regulations. For these innovations, the progression through the regulatory jungle can take ten to twenty years and millions of dollars (2.6 billion for a pharmaceutical drug). The complexities of the regulatory process can also render an innovation unprotected by patent rights because, by the end of the process, …

Renewing Faith In Antitrust: Unveiling The Hidden Network Behind Pharmaceutical Product Hopping, Victoria Field

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

Patents grant time-limited market exclusivity to drug manufacturers, meaning that other companies are prohibited from copying and selling the patented pharmaceutical. This allows manufacturers to lawfully charge monopoly prices. Generic competition starts at the expiration of the patent. To maintain coveted monopoly power, manufacturers often release an alternative formulation of the drug with a fresh patent that enjoys continued market exclusivity. Manufacturers who can convert their consumer base to the new formulation can continue charging peak prices. This process, called “product hopping,” has been the target of significant antitrust inquiry, with mixed results.

A product hop may be the result …