Law Commons^™

Correlative Obligation In Patent Law: The Role Of Public Good In Defining The Limits Of Patent Exclusivity, Srividhya Ragavan

Srividhya Ragavan

In light of the recent outrageous price-spiking of pharmaceuticals, this Article questions the underlying justifications for exclusive rights conferred by the grant of a patent. Traditionally, patents are defined as property rights granted to encourage desirable innovation. This definition is a misfit as treating patents as property rights does a poor job of defining the limits of the patent rights as well as the public benefit goals of the system. This misfit gradually caused an imbalance in the rights versus duties construct within patent law. After a thorough analysis of the historical and philosophical perspectives of patent exclusivity, this Article …

Nontechnical Disclosure, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

One of the primary goals of the patent system is the broad dissemination of technical knowledge. But, as this Article argues, there is also an underappreciated amount of nontechnical knowledge contained in a patent, information that may in certain cases be more valuable to readers than the technical disclosure contained in a patent. This Article looks at various types of nontechnical disclosure to argue that appreciating the nontechnical aspects of patent disclosure can increase our understanding of what information patents are disseminating to the general public.

Nontechnical Disclosure, Jonas Anderson

J. Jonas Anderson

In Defense Of Patent Trolls: Patent Assertion Entities As Commercial Litigation Funders, Jean Xiao

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

This paper is the first to defend and commend the role of patent trolls in litigation. It argues that trolls either are not the sole source of patent litigation ills or are not responsible for these ills in the first place. Next, it demonstrates that trolls provide the same litigation-related benefits as commercial litigation funders, which also finance patent lawsuits. Troll commentators have ignored these benefits, for which funders are praised, in the evaluation of trolls. Finally, this paper explains that eliminating trolls will not only close off a source of these benefits but also worsen problems by shifting trolling …

Newsroom: Guiding Startups Through Legal Pickles 11-14-2016, Jill Rodrigues, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Analysis Of Recent Proposals To Reconfigure Hatch-Waxman, Laura J. Robinson

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Regulating Patent Assertions, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

Recent years have seen a proliferation of statutes regulating and lawsuits challenging patent enforcement conduct. The Federal Circuit, however, has held that acts of patent enforcement are illegal only if there is clear and convincing evidence both that the patent holder’s infringement allegations were objectively baseless and that the patent holder knew or should have known its allegations were baseless. This chapter summarizes recent efforts by state governments and the federal government to control patent enforcement behavior, questions the broad immunity the Federal Circuit has conferred on patent holders, and seeks to improve pending federal legislation governing patent enforcement. In …

The Biotechnology Process Patent Act Of 1995: Providing Unresolved And Unrecognized Dilemmas In U.S. Patent Law, Becca Alley

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

How Do The Social Benefits And Costs Of The Patent System Stack Up In Pharmaceuticals?, Daniel J. Gifford

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

This paper explores the workings of the patent system in the context of the generation of new pharmaceutical products. First it identifies the relevant characteristics of the patent system and its relation to the market. The paper concedes that, in general, the patent system is probably the best way of generating new technology, in substantial part because that system uses the market to provide both incentives and rewards. The paper also identifies downsides of this patent/market system: deadweight loss and the unresponsiveness of that patent/market system to the needs of the poor. The paper then explores the social costs and …

Shifting The Burden Of Proving Patentability Vel Non In View Of Dickinson V. Zurko, Dawn-Marie Bey

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

This paper addresses the Patent Office's misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's ruling in Dickinson v. Zurko regarding the applicability of the factual review standards of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to Patent Office findings. More particularly, in accordance with this misinterpretation, recent guidelines promulgated by the Patent Office violate the APA and controlling precedent.

To date, the proper procedures for prosecuting a patent application have been carefully honed through a myriad of statutes, rules, and controlling legal opinions. The resulting procedures are set forth in exemplary prose in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) issued and revised periodically by …

Correlative Obligation In Patent Law: The Role Of Public Good In Defining The Limits Of Patent Exclusivity, Srividhya Ragavan

Faculty Scholarship

In light of the recent outrageous price-spiking of pharmaceuticals, this Article questions the underlying justifications for exclusive rights conferred by the grant of a patent. Traditionally, patents are defined as property rights granted to encourage desirable innovation. This definition is a misfit as treating patents as property rights does a poor job of defining the limits of the patent rights as well as the public benefit goals of the system. This misfit gradually caused an imbalance in the rights versus duties construct within patent law. After a thorough analysis of the historical and philosophical perspectives of patent exclusivity, this Article …

Don’T Give Up Section 101, Don’T Ever Give Up, Brady P. Gleason

Catholic University Law Review

In an era of tremendous and rapid technological advancement, coupled with the massive influence patents have on the global economy, determining the specific categories of inventions eligible for patent protection is of great importance. The statute governing patent eligible subject matter, 35 U.S.C. § 101, has unfortunately fallen steadily into a morass, wherein a great number of judicial philosophies as to the proper role and scope of § 101 occupy the statutes jurisprudence. This frustrates the utilitarian purpose of the patent system as research companies are uncertain whether certain categories of inventions will maintain their eligibly for patent protection. Because …

Comment To The Sec In Support Of The Enhanced Disclosure Of Patent And Technology License Information, Colleen Chien, Jorge L. Contreras, Carol Corrado, Stuart Graham, Deepak Hegde, Arti K. Rai, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Historical and Topical Legal Documents

Intangible assets like IP constitute a large share of the value of firms, and the US economy generally. Accurate information on the intellectual property (IP) holdings and transactions of publicly-traded firms facilitates price discovery in the market and reduces transaction costs. While public understanding of the innovation economy has been expanded by a large stream of empirical research using patent data, and more recently trademark information this research is only as good as the accuracy and completeness of the data it builds upon. In contrast with information about patents and trademarks, good information about IP licensing is much less publicly …

Permanent Injunctions In Patent Litigation After Ebay: An Empirical Study, Christopher B. Seaman

Scholarly Articles

The Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in eBay v. MercExchange is widely regarded as one of the most important patent law rulings of the past decade. Historically, patent holders who won on the merits in litigation nearly always obtained a permanent injunction against infringers. In eBay, the Court unanimously rejected the “general rule” that a prevailing patentee is entitled to an injunction, instead holding that lower courts must apply a four-factor test before granting such relief. Ten years later, however, significant questions remain regarding how this four-factor test is being applied, as there has been little rigorous empirical examination of …

Permanent Injunctions In Patent Litigation After Ebay: An Empirical Study, Christopher B. Seaman

Christopher B. Seaman

Improving Patent Quality With Applicant Incentives, Stephen Yelderman

Stephen Yelderman

This Article offers an alternative approach to the widely recognized problem of low-quality patents being granted by the patent office. Traditional reforms have focused almost exclusively on making the patent office more effective at examination. This Article instead looks at patent quality from an applicant’s perspective, and evaluates how certain patent rules might be encouraging inventors to file higher or lower quality claims. It proposes a variety of reforms to take advantage of applicants’ existing interests in obtaining patents that are both broad enough to create infringing activity and narrow enough to be valid. The result is a distinctive set …

Strategic Decision Making In Dual Ptab And District Court Proceedings, Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Arti K. Rai, Jay P. Kesan

Faculty Scholarship

The post-grant review proceedings set up at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent and Trial Appeal Board by the America Invents Act of 2011 have transformed the relationship between Article III patent litigation and the administrative state. Not surprisingly, such dramatic change has itself yielded additional litigation possibilities: Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee, a case addressing divergence between the manner in which the PTAB and Article III courts construe patent claims, will soon be decided at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Of the three major new PTAB proceedings, two have proven to be popular as well as controversial: inter partes …

Frand Market Failure: Ipxi’S Standards-Essential Patent License Exchange, Jorge L. Contreras

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

This case study pertains to Intellectual Property Exchange International, Inc. (IPXI), which was formed in 2008 to create a market-based trading exchange for aggregated patent license rights, particularly standards-essential patents (SEPs). IPXI based its model on existing commodities exchanges, proposing that non-exclusive patent licenses could be standardized, commoditized, and traded on an open market, thus eliminating costly and inefficient bilateral negotiations and providing a royalty rate likely to be viewed as “reasonable”. IPXI’s most ambitious offering involved a portfolio of 194 U.S., European and other patents deemed essential to IEEE’s 802.11n “Wi-Fi” standard. IPXI offered up to 50,000 tradable Unit …

Stop The Bleeding: Medimmune Ends The Unjustified Erosion Of Patent Holders' Rights In Patent Licensing Agreements, Richard Weil Goldstucker

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

First Steps In Building An Intellectual Property Program And Portfolio, Jeffrey D. Sullivan

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

What’S So Special About Patent Law?, Michael Goodman

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

The widespread belief that patent law is special has shaped the development of patent law into one of the most specialized areas of the law today. The belief in patent law’s exceptionalism manifests itself as two related presumptions with respect to the judiciary: first, that generalist judges who do not have patent law expertise cannot effectively decide patent cases, and second, that judges can develop necessary expertise through repeated experience with patent cases. Congress showed that it acquiesced to both views when it created the Federal Circuit and the Patent Pilot Program. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has …

Lost In Translation: How Practical Considerations In Kirtsaeng Demand International Exhaustion In Patent Law, Dustin M. Knight

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Early Filing And Functional Claiming, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

A major problem in the patent system is that many patents claim far more than the patentee actually invented. In his perceptive article, Ready for Patenting, Mark Lemley argues that this overclaiming is caused in part by legal doctrines that encourage inventors to file a patent application as early as possible, often before — or even instead of — building their invention. Patents issued from early-filed applications, Lemley argues, tend to be overly broad because the applicant does not yet know how the invention actually works.

This response essay, part of the Boston University Law Review’s symposium on Notice Failure …

Losing The Forest Among The Trees In The Festo Saga-Rationalizing The Doctrine Of Equivalents And Prosecution History Estoppel In View Of The Historical Justifications For Patent Protection, Ryan Thomas Grace

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Patent Quality And The Dedication Rule, Scott R. Boalick

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Trips Article 31(B) And The Hiv/Aids Epidemic, Johanna Kehl

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Network Effects In Technology Markets: Applying The Lessons Of Intel And Microsoft To Future Clashes Between Antitrust And Intellectual Property, John T. Soma, Kevin B. Davis

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Patenting Marijuana Strains: Baking Up Patent Protection For Growers In The Legal Fog Of This Budding Industry, Joseph Dylan Summer

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Useless Information: Genetic Patenting, The Usefulness Requirement, And The Effect On The “Big Freeze”, David T. Bennett

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This note considers the current state of affairs regarding patentability in the field of biotechnology, especially that of genes and DNA. Part II gives a brief background of patents in general, including the requirements that must be met for a patent to be granted, the way in which the patent process works, and the options available to a patent holder once a patent has been granted. Part III explores the history of biotechnology patents. Part IV takes a look at the relationship between patents and biotechnology, and sheds light on some of the common arguments both in favor of and …

Obviousness As Fact: The Issue Of Obviousness In Patent Law Should Be A Question Of Fact Reviewed With Appropriate Deference, Ted L. Field

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

One of the most common defenses that an accused infringer raises in a patent infringement lawsuit is that the patent claims at issue are invalid for obviousness. The question of obviousness is based on several factual determinations, and the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit should sensibly review these determinations with deference to the jury’s or trial court’s findings. But these courts instead treat the ultimate determination of obviousness as a question of law to be reviewed de novo. This Article challenges the correctness of this standard of review and argues that courts …