Law Commons^™

Case Comment, John C. Herman

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Section 337 of the recently amended Tariff Act of 1930 permits United States patent owners to bar from importation goods that infringe upon their patents. In Amgen, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit refused to grant relief to the patent owner because it had no claim on either the final product imported or the process to create the product. The alleged infringer, however, had to use the patented product to create the final product, which, if done in the United States, would infringe the patent.

This Comment argues for an extension of section 337 to cover …

The Impact Of The Deposit Requirement For Patenting Biotechnology: Present Concerns, Proposed Solutions, Brandi L. Wickline

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

Patenting the fruits of biotechnological research often involves problems unique to that scientific field, especially when the resulting inventions employ micro-organisms that cannot be described easily because of their novelty to the field. The importance of satisfactorily resolving these problems increases because most developed states now allow biotech inventors to patent the novel organism itself. In response to the concern that words are often inadequate to identify completely these microbes, states began allowing biotech patent applicants to deposit a sample culture of the novel micro-organism as a supplement to the written description. This Note addresses the shortcomings of the deposit …

Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Taxpayers Asset Project Of The Center For Study Of Responsive Law In Support Of Petitioners, Genetics Institute, Inc., Et. Al. V. Amgen Inc., 502 U.S. 856 (1991), Michael H. Davis

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

Although a patent appears to be a private right, that private right is only "secondary," as this Court has stated, to the public bargain of which it is but a part. The focus must always be whether the public has received full information about the nature of the invention so that future inventors may reuse and improve it. The decision below reflects a failure to recognize the patent's monopoly nature and as a result abandons the "best mode" rule forbidding the inventor form concealing the best way of replicating the invention. By turning the subjective test of "best mode" into …