Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation Settlements: Implications For Competition And Innovation, John R. Thomas
Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation Settlements: Implications For Competition And Innovation, John R. Thomas
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Although brand-name pharmaceutical companies routinely procure patents on their innovative medications, such rights are not self-enforcing. Brand-name firms that wish to enforce their patents against generic competitors must commence litigation in the federal courts. Such litigation ordinarily terminates in either a judgment of infringement, which typically blocks generic competition until such time as the patent expires, or a judgment that the patent is invalid or not infringed, which typically opens the market to generic entry. As with other sorts of commercial litigation, however, the parties to pharmaceutical patent litigation may choose to settle their case. Certain of these settlements have …
Process Patents: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 110th Cong., May 1, 2007 (Statement Of John R. Thomas, Geo. U. L. Center), John R. Thomas
Process Patents: Hearing Before The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 110th Cong., May 1, 2007 (Statement Of John R. Thomas, Geo. U. L. Center), John R. Thomas
Testimony Before Congress
No abstract provided.
Panel 1: Ksr V. Teleflex: The Nonobviousness Requirement Of Patentability, John R. Thomas, John Richards, Herbert F. Schwartz, Steven J. Lee
Panel 1: Ksr V. Teleflex: The Nonobviousness Requirement Of Patentability, John R. Thomas, John Richards, Herbert F. Schwartz, Steven J. Lee
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
KSR is a big case because it addresses the only significant patentability requirement that exists under U.S. law. I count four fundamental patentability requirements: statutory subject matter, utility, novelty, and nonobviousness. It is plain that in the United States statutory subject matter is as broad as human experience itself. Utility, a very lenient requirement, is also easily met in most areas of technology. Novelty too is also easily satisfied. So what we are really left with is the fundamental gatekeeper to patentability. Should the Supreme Court raise that standard, it will effectively cede a great deal of proprietary subject matter …
Perspectives On Patents: Post-Grant Review Procedures And Other Litigation Reforms: Hearing Before The Subcomm. On Intellectual Property Of The S. Comm. On The Judiciary, 109th Cong., May 23, 2006 (Statement Of Professor John R. Thomas, Geo. U. L. Center), John R. Thomas
Testimony Before Congress
No abstract provided.
Brief Of International Business Machines Corporation As Amicus Curiae Supporting Neither Party, Laboratory Corporation Of America Holdings V. Metabolite Laboratories Inc., No. 04-607 (U.S. Dec. 23, 2005), John R. Thomas
U.S. Supreme Court Briefs
No abstract provided.
Patent Quality Improvement: Hearing Before The H. Comm. On The Judiciary, 108th Cong., July 24, 2003 (Statement Of John R. Thomas, Prof Of Law, Geo. U. L. Center), John R. Thomas
Testimony Before Congress
No abstract provided.
The Responsibility Of The Rulemaker: Comparative Approaches To Patent Administration Reform, John R. Thomas
The Responsibility Of The Rulemaker: Comparative Approaches To Patent Administration Reform, John R. Thomas
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Patent administrators across the globe currently face the most challenging operating environment they have ever known. Soaring application rates, lean fiscal policies and an increasingly ambitious range of patentable subject matter are among the difficulties faced by the world's leading patent offices. These trends have resulted in persistent concerns over the quality of issued patents. Responding to recent writings questioning the value of maintaining high levels of patent quality, Professor Jay Thomas asserts both that patent quality matters, and that increasing the responsibilities of patent applicants provides a fair and efficient mechanism for improving patent office work product. This Article …
Patent Scope And Innovation In The Software Industry, Julie E. Cohen, Mark A. Lemley
Patent Scope And Innovation In The Software Industry, Julie E. Cohen, Mark A. Lemley
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Software patents have received a great deal of attention in the academic literature. Unfortunately, most of that attention has been devoted to the problem of whether software is or should be patentable subject matter. With roughly eighty thousand software patents already issued, and the Federal Circuit endorsing patentability without qualification, those questions are for the history books. The more pressing questions now concern the scope to be accorded software patents. In this Article, we examine the implications of some traditional patent law doctrines for innovation in the software industry. We argue that patent law needs some refinement if it is …
Collusion And Collective Action In The Patent System: A Proposal For Patent Bounties, John R. Thomas
Collusion And Collective Action In The Patent System: A Proposal For Patent Bounties, John R. Thomas
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Persistent commentary contends that the Patent Office is issuing patents that appropriate public domain concepts at an alarming frequency. Complaints of low patent quality enjoy growing resonance with regard to business methods, computer software, and other inventions for which patents were not traditionally sought. In this article, Professor Jay Thomas explains how the judiciary's lenient view of patentable subject matter and utility standards, along with miserly congressional funding policies, have rendered the Patent Office an increasingly porous agency. Professor Thomas next reviews existing proposals for improving patent quality, including the conventional wisdom that adoption of an opposition system will contribute …