Law Commons^™

Confusing Patent Eligibility, David O. Taylor

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Patent law — and in particular the law governing patent eligibility — is in a state of crisis. This crisis is one of profound confusion. Confusion exists because the current approach to determining patent eligibility confuses the relevant policies underlying numerous discrete patent law doctrines, and because the current approach lacks administrability. Ironically, the result of all this confusion is seemingly clear: the result seems to be that, when challenged, patent applications and issued patents probably do not satisfy the requirement of eligibility. At least that is the perception. A resulting concern, therefore, is that the current environment substantially reduces …

Patent Assertion Entities, Reasonable Royalties, And A Restitution Perspective, W. Keith Robinson

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

No abstract provided.

Foreword: The Food Law Era, Nathan Cortez

SMU Science and Technology Law Review

No abstract provided.

Only A Pawn In The Game: Rethinking Induced Patent Infringement, W. Keith Robinson

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A party that causes another to infringe a patent may be liable for induced infringement. Recently, the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit have interpreted the inducement statute in a way that may be problematic. For example, in a suit for induced patent infringement a plaintiff must show that an accused party had specific intent to cause infringement. The defendant can rebut allegations of induced infringement by showing that he had a good faith belief that he did not infringe the patent. However, a defendant’s good faith belief that the patent is invalid is no longer a defense to inducement. …

Awarding Attorney Fees And Deterring 'Patent Trolls', W. Keith Robinson

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A court may award attorney fees to a prevailing party in a patent trial under exceptional circumstances. Since 2005, courts had applied a rigid formula to determine whether a case was exceptional. In the summer of 2014, the Supreme Court rejected this rigid test. Instead, the Court held that an exceptional case is “simply one that stands out from others.” Finding a case exceptional, the Court said, was at the discretion of the district court and only reviewable on appeal for an abuse of discretion.

A little over a year later, one interesting question is: how do district courts now …

International Intellectual Property Law, Caroline Berube, Susan Brushaber, Amanda Covington, Manish Dhingra, Robin S. Fahlberg, Carolina Keller Jupitz, Jennifer Kwon, Mrityunjay Kumar, Daniel Marugg, Bruce A. Mcdonald

The International Lawyer

No abstract provided.