Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Patently Absurd: Critiquing The Uspto’S Disparate Treatment Of Tribal And State Immunity In Inter Partes Review, Maya Ginga
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
Taking Patents, Gregory Dolin, Irena D. Manta
Taking Patents, Gregory Dolin, Irena D. Manta
Washington and Lee Law Review
The America Invents Act (AIA) was widely hailed as a remedy to the excessive number of patents that the Patent & Trademark Office issued, and especially ones that would later turn out to be invalid. In its efforts to eradicate “patent trolls” and fend off other ills, however, the AIA introduced serious constitutional problems that this Article brings to the fore. We argue that the AIA’s new “second-look” mechanisms in the form of Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Covered Business Method Review (CBMR) have greatly altered the scope of vested patent rights by modifying the boundaries of existing patents. The …
Trademark Laundering, Useless Patents, And Other Ip Challenges For The Marijuana Industry, Sam Kamin, Viva R. Moffat University Of Denver College Of Law
Trademark Laundering, Useless Patents, And Other Ip Challenges For The Marijuana Industry, Sam Kamin, Viva R. Moffat University Of Denver College Of Law
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.
Brief Amicus Curiae Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Neither Party: Halo Elecs. Inc. V. Pulse Elecs. Inc. And Stryker Corp. V. Zimmer, Inc., Christopher B. Seaman, Jason Rantanen
Brief Amicus Curiae Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Neither Party: Halo Elecs. Inc. V. Pulse Elecs. Inc. And Stryker Corp. V. Zimmer, Inc., Christopher B. Seaman, Jason Rantanen
Scholarly Articles
This amicus brief was filed on behalf of several intellectual property law professors in Halo v. Pulse and Stryker v. Zimmer regarding the appropriate standard for enhancing (increasing) damages under section 284 of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 284. It advances three primary arguments. First, it asserts that in light of the history of the statutory text and judicial precedent, willful infringement is the appropriate standard (and thus the only valid basis) for awarding enhanced damages under § 284. Second, it contends that Federal Circuit’s two-part, objective/subjective test for determining willfulness articulated in In re Seagate Technology, LLC, …
Regulatory Monopoly And Differential Pricing In The Market For Patents , Neel U. Sukhatme
Regulatory Monopoly And Differential Pricing In The Market For Patents , Neel U. Sukhatme
Washington and Lee Law Review
Patents are limited-term monopolies awarded to inventors to incentivize innovation. But there is another monopoly that has been largely overlooked at the heart of patent law: the monopoly of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) over the granting of patents. This Article addresses this topic by developing the notion of a regulatory monopoly, where a single governmental actor has the power to set prices in a regulatory area. The Article explains how regulatory monopolists like the PTO could enhance social welfare via differential pricing—by charging regulated entities differing fees based on their willingness and ability to pay. In particular, …
Facing Down The Trolls: States Stumble On The Bridge To Patent-Assertion Regulation , David Lee Johnson
Facing Down The Trolls: States Stumble On The Bridge To Patent-Assertion Regulation , David Lee Johnson
Washington and Lee Law Review
No abstract provided.