Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Patent law (28)
- Federal Circuit (19)
- United States Supreme Court (15)
- Law reform (12)
- Patent infringement (7)
-
- Patent and Trademark Office (6)
- Patent system (6)
- Patentability (6)
- Public policy (5)
- Trademark dilution (5)
- Blurring (4)
- Competition (4)
- Patent claims (4)
- Patent reform (4)
- Technology (4)
- Trademark law (4)
- Biotechnology (3)
- Claim construction (3)
- Copyright infringement (3)
- Copyright law (3)
- District courts (3)
- Drugs (3)
- EBay v. MercExchange (3)
- Federal Trademark Dilution Act (3)
- Incentives (3)
- Infringement (3)
- Innovation (3)
- Inventions (3)
- Judicial interpretation (3)
- Judicial review (3)
- Publication Year
Articles 1 - 30 of 54
Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law
The "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" And Applying Issue Preclusion To Administrative Patent Claim Construction, Jonathan I. Tietz
The "Broadest Reasonable Interpretation" And Applying Issue Preclusion To Administrative Patent Claim Construction, Jonathan I. Tietz
Michigan Law Review
Inventions are tangible. Yet patents comprise words, and words are imprecise. Thus, disputes over patents involve a process known as “claim construction,” which formally clarifies the meaning of a patent claim’s words and, therefore, the scope of the underlying property right. Adversarial claim construction commonly occurs in various Article III and Article I settings, such as district courts or the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). When these proceedings ignore each other’s claim constructions, a patent’s scope can become inconsistent and unpredictable. The doctrine of issue preclusion could help with this problem. The Supreme Court recently reemphasized in B & …
Substantial Similarity: Kohus Got It Right, Gabriel Godoy-Dalmau
Substantial Similarity: Kohus Got It Right, Gabriel Godoy-Dalmau
Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review
This Note is organized as follows. Part I discusses the historical development of the substantial similarity inquiry and its role in a Plaintiff’s prima facie case of copyright infringement. Part II evaluates more recent developments in the substantial similarity inquiry. Part III argues that the various standards that lower courts have developed are themselves substantially similar to each other. This analysis is in line with the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Kohus. Although largely ignored by the scholarly community, the Sixth Circuit’s decision in Kohus got it right.
The Supreme Assimilation Of Patent Law, Peter Lee
The Supreme Assimilation Of Patent Law, Peter Lee
Michigan Law Review
Although tensions between universality and exceptionalism apply throughout law, they are particularly pronounced in patent law, a field that deals with highly technical subject matter. This Article explores these tensions by investigating an underappreciated descriptive theory of Supreme Court patent jurisprudence. Significantly extending previous scholarship, it argues that the Court’s recent decisions reflect a project of eliminating “patent exceptionalism” and assimilating patent doctrine to general legal principles (or, more precisely, to what the Court frames as general legal principles). Among other motivations, this trend responds to rather exceptional patent doctrine emanating from the Federal Circuit in areas as varied as …
How Not To Apply The Rule Of Reason: The O’Bannon Case, Michael A. Carrier
How Not To Apply The Rule Of Reason: The O’Bannon Case, Michael A. Carrier
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The case of O’Bannon v. NCAA has received significant attention. On behalf of a class of student-athletes, former college basketball star Ed O’Bannon sued the NCAA, challenging rules that prohibited payment for the use of names, images, and likenesses (NILs) in videogames, live game telecasts, and other footage. A Ninth Circuit panel, in a 2-1 decision, found that this restraint had anticompetitive effects and procompetitive justifications. And it considered “less restrictive alternatives,” upholding payment for incidental educational expenses beyond tuition and fees, room and board, and required books, but rejecting a deferred $5,000 payment for NILs. Straddling the intersection of …
District Courts Versus The Usitc: Considering Exclusionary Relief For F/Rand-Encumbered Standard-Essential Patents, Helen H. Ji
District Courts Versus The Usitc: Considering Exclusionary Relief For F/Rand-Encumbered Standard-Essential Patents, Helen H. Ji
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Technological standards allow manufacturers and consumers to rely upon these agreed-upon basic systems to facilitate sales and further invention. However, where these standards involved patented technology, the process of standard-setting raises many concerns at the intersection of antitrust and patent law. As patent holders advocate for their patents to become part of technological standards, how should courts police this activity to prevent patent holdup and other anti-competitive practices? This Note explores the differing approaches to remedies employed by the United States International Trade Commission and the United States District Courts where standard-essential patents are infringed. This Note further proposes that …
Interactive Methods And Collaborative Performance: A New Future For Indirect Infringement, Josh Rychlinski
Interactive Methods And Collaborative Performance: A New Future For Indirect Infringement, Josh Rychlinski
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
An individual is liable for patent infringement if he infringes one or more patented claims either directly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) or indirectly under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) or § 271(c). In 2012, the Federal Circuit clarified its interpretation of § 271(b) and § 271(c) in the case of Akamai v. Limelight. However, the court failed to address issues of “divided” direct infringement, where two or more entities combine and together complete each and every step of a method claim, but no single entity does all of the steps. This Note walks through the history of the judicial interpretation …
Getting Down To (Tattoo) Business: Copyright Norms And Speech Protections For Tattooing, Alexa L. Nickow
Getting Down To (Tattoo) Business: Copyright Norms And Speech Protections For Tattooing, Alexa L. Nickow
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
What level of First Amendment protection should we afford tattooing? General public consensus formerly condemned tattoos as barbaric, but the increasingly diverse clientele of tattoo shops suggests that tattoos have become more mainstream. However, the law has struggled to adjust. The recent proliferation of municipal near-bans on tattooing has brought tattooing to the forefront of First Amendment debates, with cases such as Anderson and Coleman leading the way toward recognizing tattooing as pure speech. Tensions between formal and informal copyright norms in the tattoo industry further highlight the collaborative and expressive nature of the artist-customer relationship and its resulting products, …
An Explicit Policy Lever For Patent Scope, Anna B. Laakmann
An Explicit Policy Lever For Patent Scope, Anna B. Laakmann
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Since its inception in 1982, the Federal Circuit has declined to take an overt role in setting patent policy. Dan Burk and Mark Lemley have observed that the court instead implicitly engineers patent policy through selective application of its patentability rules, which operate as "policy levers." Recent decisions on the patentability of diagnostic and therapeutic methods illustrate a significant problem with this approach. By maintaining a façade of adjudicative rule formalism while tacitly manipulating its rules to approximate policy goals, the court perpetuates empirical uncertainty about the patent law's practical effects. This Article proposes that the Federal Circuit use the …
Teva V. Eisai: What's The Real Controversy, Grace Wang
Teva V. Eisai: What's The Real Controversy, Grace Wang
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
This Note examines the changing role of declaratory judgment actions in challenging patents upon generic entry and evaluates alternative regulatory schemes to the FDA's current system of patent enforcement in the drug approval setting. Part I reviews the Federal Circuit's recent decisions regarding generic drug entry, focusing on how the courts justify declaratory judgments in the current system and when a "controversy" exists to create Article III jurisdiction. Part II examines the complex system of regulating generic drug entry and how attempts to stop the exploitation of loopholes have resulted in a patchwork of regulation by various parties. It challenges …
Protecting Nominative Fair Use, Parody, And Other Speech-Interests By Reforming The Inconsistent Exemptions From Trademark Liability, Samuel M. Duncan
Protecting Nominative Fair Use, Parody, And Other Speech-Interests By Reforming The Inconsistent Exemptions From Trademark Liability, Samuel M. Duncan
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
Federal trademark law exempts certain communicative uses of a trademark from liability so that the public can freely use a trademark to comment on the markowner or to describe its products. These exemptions for "speech-interests" are badly flawed because their scope is inconsistent between infringement and dilution law, and because the cost and difficulty of claiming their protection varies significantly from court to court. Many speech-interests remain vulnerable to the chilling threat of litigation even though they are "protected" by current law. This Note proposes a simple statutory reform that will remedy this inconsistency by creating an express safe harbor …
Insterstitial Exclusivities After Association For Molecular Pathology, Mary Mitchell, Dana A. Remus
Insterstitial Exclusivities After Association For Molecular Pathology, Mary Mitchell, Dana A. Remus
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The high profile cases Bilski v. Kappos and Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office have renewed public debate about the proper scope of patentable subject matter. The subject matter inquiry has traditionally been treated as a threshold inquiry in patent law, serving a gate-keeping function by defining the types of inventions that are eligible for patent protection. The Patent Office and courts have approached the subject matter inquiry both by determining whether an invention falls into a statutory category-processes, machines, manufactures, or compositions of matter-as well as by determining whether an invention falls into a …
Not So Technical: An Analysis Of Federal Circuit Patent Decisions Appealed From The Itc, Holly Lance
Not So Technical: An Analysis Of Federal Circuit Patent Decisions Appealed From The Itc, Holly Lance
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
A widespread perception among the patent law community is that the patent system would be more effective if judges with technical backgrounds and patent law experience decided patent disputes. Proponents believe that if judges all had similar baseline knowledge of technological analysis, there would be more consistency in decision-making, leading to more predictability for parties. Some district courts have unofficially become semi-specialized in patent law disputes, and Congress is debating whether to institute a more formalized Patent Pilot Program in which district court judges specialize in patent law cases. This Note joins the debate and examines patent law cases at …
Pioneers Versus Improvers: Enabling Optimal Patent Claim Scope, Timothy Chen Saulsbury
Pioneers Versus Improvers: Enabling Optimal Patent Claim Scope, Timothy Chen Saulsbury
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Arising most commonly as a defense to an infringement claim, enablement requires a patent to describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail to permit a person having ordinary skill in the relevant field to replicate and use the invention without needing to engage in "undue experimentation." If a patent claim is not "enabled"--i.e., if a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) who studied the patent cannot make or use the invention without undue experimentation--the claim is invalid and can no longer be asserted. This penalty deters patent applicants from claiming more than they invented and allows others to …
Appellate Review Of Patent Claim Construction: Should The Federal Circuit Be Its Own Lexicographer In Matters Related To The Seventh Amendment, Eileen M. Herlihy
Appellate Review Of Patent Claim Construction: Should The Federal Circuit Be Its Own Lexicographer In Matters Related To The Seventh Amendment, Eileen M. Herlihy
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
The Federal Circuit stated in an en banc decision in Cybor Corp. v. FAS Technologies, Inc. that the construction of patent claims is "a purely legal issue," and is therefore subject to de novo review on appeal. The Cybor decision reaffirmed the position of the majority of the Federal Circuit which had been announced in its en banc Markman decision, and proclaimed that the de novo standard of review is supported by the Supreme Court's Markman decision, a Seventh Amendment opinion. However, Cybor included strong opposition to a de novo standard of review from some of the judges of the …
Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Study Of Claim Construction Reversal Rates In Patent Cases, David L. Schwartz
Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Study Of Claim Construction Reversal Rates In Patent Cases, David L. Schwartz
Michigan Law Review
This Article examines whether U.S. district court judges improve their skills at patent claim construction with experience, including the experience of having their own cases reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In theory, higher courts teach doctrine to lower courts via judicial decisions, and lower courts learn from these decisions. This Article tests the teaching-and-learning premise on the issue of claim construction in the realities of patent litigation. While others have shown that the Federal Circuit reverses a large percentage of lower court claim constructions, no one has analyzed whether judges with more claim construction appeal …
The Claim Construction Effect, Lee Petherbridge
The Claim Construction Effect, Lee Petherbridge
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Claim construction refers to the task of construing, or interpreting, the words of patents' claims to establish the metes and bounds of a patent. Theoretically, the task of claim construction serves to operationalize the concept of "invention," which lies at the heart of the U.S. patent system.[...] Rather than focusing on the set of cases in which the Federal Circuit addresses claim construction, this study focuses on a set of cases defined by a different patent doctrine. The basic idea is to explore the impact of claim construction on other areas of patent law.[...] The hypothesis of the claim construction …
Research Tool Patents After Integra V. Merck - Have They Reached A Safe Harbor, Wolrad Prinz
Research Tool Patents After Integra V. Merck - Have They Reached A Safe Harbor, Wolrad Prinz
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
The saga surrounding the Integra v. Merck cases has rekindled a heated debate about the proper scope of both common law exemption and the safe harbor provision, causing significant concern for owners of research tool patents. This Article will argue that the next judicial decision addressing the question of research tool patents should clarify that they are in a safe harbor because none of the two exemptions from infringement referenced above extends to the use of research tools in experiments in order to preserve the necessary incentives for their creation in the first place. Allowing access to research tools under …
Trolling For Trolls: The Pitfalls Of The Emerging Market Competition Requirement For Permanent Injunctions In Patent Cases Post-Ebay, Benjamin H. Diessel
Trolling For Trolls: The Pitfalls Of The Emerging Market Competition Requirement For Permanent Injunctions In Patent Cases Post-Ebay, Benjamin H. Diessel
Michigan Law Review
In eBay v. MercExchange, a unanimous Supreme Court announced that a new four-factor test should be employed by district courts in determining whether to award an injunction or damages to an aggrieved party whose intellectual property has been infringed. In the context of permanent injunctions in patent cases, district courts have distorted the four-factor test resulting in a "market competition requirement." Under the new market competition requirement, success at obtaining an injunction is contingent upon a party demonstrating that it is a market competitor After consistent application in the first twenty-five district court cases post-eBay, the market competition requirement …
Exclusion Confusion? A Defense Of The Federal Circuit's Specific Exclusion Jurisprudence, Peter Curtis Magic
Exclusion Confusion? A Defense Of The Federal Circuit's Specific Exclusion Jurisprudence, Peter Curtis Magic
Michigan Law Review
Specific exclusion has become a controversial limitation on the doctrine of equivalents, which is itself an essential and controversial area of patent law. The doctrine of equivalents allows a patentee to successfully claim infringement against devices that are outside of the literal reach of the language used by the patentee in her patent to describe what she claims as her invention. The Supreme Court has prescribed some of the outer limits of the doctrine of equivalents and articulated the underlying policy concerns that inform its analysis-noting that courts should balance protection of the patentee's intellectual property with the public's reasonable …
Now That The Courts Have Beaten Congress To The Punch, Why Is Congress Still Punching The Patent System?, Robert A. Armitage
Now That The Courts Have Beaten Congress To The Punch, Why Is Congress Still Punching The Patent System?, Robert A. Armitage
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The U.S. House of Representatives began September by passing the Patent Reform Act of 2007. This bill, if enacted, would make major changes to U.S. patent law. Given the universally recognized need for improvements to the U.S. patent system, passing a patent reform bill in the House should have been easy. It was not. The Patent Reform Act of 2007 made it through the House only after a spirited debate. There were a host of complaints by House members that the bill was not ready for floor action. In the end, it passed the House by a relatively narrow margin, …
Making Sense Of Ksr And Other Recent Patent Cases, Harold C. Wegner
Making Sense Of Ksr And Other Recent Patent Cases, Harold C. Wegner
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The recent Supreme Court review of KSR International Inc. v. Teleflex Inc., eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC, and Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. manifests the Court’s current interest in the patent jurisprudence of the Fed-eral Circuit. Now it is evident that the Court has a level of concern sufficient to guarantee the possibility of grant of certiorari—whereas formerly a case could rarely generate sufficient interest for review. For long-range impor-tance in patent law, KSR stands alone as the single most important Supreme Court patent decision on the bread and butter standard of “obviousness” in the more than forty years since …
Ksr's Effect On Patent Law, Stephen G. Kunin, Andrew K. Beverina
Ksr's Effect On Patent Law, Stephen G. Kunin, Andrew K. Beverina
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. clarified its 1966 decision in Graham v. John Deere, avoiding the sea change to a synergy- based standard that many had expected—and perhaps feared. KSR has raised the bar set in Graham for seeking patent protection—by providing a flexible test for obviousness—while simultaneously making it easier for accused infringers to defend themselves. Moreover, KSR will change the strategies of both patent prosecutors and litigators. Before KSR, the Supreme Court’s last major decision on nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 was Graham, in which the Court established three factual inquiries for …
Restoring The Genetic Commons: A Common Sense Approach To Biotechnology Patents In The Wake Of Ksr V. Teleflex , Anna Bartow Laakmann
Restoring The Genetic Commons: A Common Sense Approach To Biotechnology Patents In The Wake Of Ksr V. Teleflex , Anna Bartow Laakmann
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
In this Article, I argue that a new approach to biotechnology patenting is necessary to fully realize the tremendous potential of recent advances in our understanding of the human genome. Part I places the gene patenting debate in context by highlighting the key landmarks that have shaped the biotechnology industry and outlining the products and stakeholders that comprise the industry. Part II describes the current state of the law on biotechnology patents, summarizing the Federal Circuit's application of the various doctrines that collectively define the patent landscape's parameters. In this Part, I explain how the Federal Circuit's jurisprudence is tied …
Patent Injunctions And The Problem Of Uniformity Cost, Michael W. Carroll
Patent Injunctions And The Problem Of Uniformity Cost, Michael W. Carroll
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
In eBay v. MercExchange, the Supreme Court correctly rejected the Federal Circuit's general rule requiring that a permanent injunction follow from a finding that a patent is valid and infringed. Recognizing that one size does not fit all in patent law, the Court returned traditional equitable discretion to the district courts. With this discretion, district courts can now deploy remedies for patent infringement that are sensitive to relevant differences among industries, technologies, and entities. This Essay sets the Court's rejection of a uniform remedial regime in a larger context concerning the role of uniformity in patent law. It then explores …
What Is Hiding In The Bushes - Ebay's Effect On Holdout Behavior In Patent Thickets, Gavin D. George
What Is Hiding In The Bushes - Ebay's Effect On Holdout Behavior In Patent Thickets, Gavin D. George
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Importantly, at least a few relevant patent holders are inevitably left out of an industry organization's collection of patents. These left-out patent holders, known as "holdouts," can undermine the collective arrangement with demand letters and infringement suits.[...] The first part of this Note explains why holdouts exist in the first place, given the benefits of joining an organization of collected patents. In the second part of this Note, I explore the lack of legal protections against holdout demands offered by pre-eBay patent law. The third part of this Note introduces the eBay decision as revolutionary addition to list of legal …
Ksr V. Teleflex: Predictable Reform Of Patent Substance And Procedure In The Judiciary, John F. Duffy
Ksr V. Teleflex: Predictable Reform Of Patent Substance And Procedure In The Judiciary, John F. Duffy
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Though KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc. is now widely acknowl-edged in the bar and the academy to be the most significant patent case in at least a quarter century, that view dramatically underestimates the impor-tance of the decision. The KSR decision has immense significance not merely because it rejected the standard of patentability that had been applied in the lower courts for decades, but also because it highlights many separate trends that are reshaping the patent system. This Commentary will touch upon four such trends that are clearly evi-dent in KSR. First, the case was a predictable continuation of …
Pathological Patenting: The Pto As Cause Or Cure, Rochelle Dreyfuss
Pathological Patenting: The Pto As Cause Or Cure, Rochelle Dreyfuss
Michigan Law Review
The Patent Act was last revised in 1952. The hydrogen bomb was exploded that year, vividly demonstrating the power of the nucleus; in the ensuing postwar period, the Next Big Thing was clearly the molecule. Novel compounds were synthesized in the hopes of finding new medicines; solid-state devices exploited the special characteristics of germanium and other semiconductors; as investments in polymer chemistry soared, advice to the college graduate soon boiled down to "one word ... just one word[:] ... Plastics." Over the next half-century, things changed dramatically. "Better living through chemistry" has begun to sound dated (if not sinister). Genomics …
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act Of 2006: A Welcome—And Needed—Change, Dale M. Cendali, Bonnie L. Schriefer
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act Of 2006: A Welcome—And Needed—Change, Dale M. Cendali, Bonnie L. Schriefer
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Some have argued that the changes to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (the “FTDA”) embodied in the recently enacted Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006 (the “TDRA”) threaten to infringe upon the right to free speech. This is simply not the case. The FTDA has always protected First Amendment rights, and the TDRA clarifies and strengthens those protections. While the concept of dilution was introduced in 1927, there was no federal dilution law in the United States until 1995, when Congress passed the FTDA. Since then, various federal courts have reached different conclusions regarding issues such as: (1) what constituted …
The Dilution Solution: Populating The Trademark A-List, Scott C. Wilcox
The Dilution Solution: Populating The Trademark A-List, Scott C. Wilcox
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In our celebrity-conscious culture, the media serve as arbiters of fame. The editors of Us Weekly and People wield significant influence over public recognition of celebrities. Since the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (“FTDA”) amended the Lanham Act in 1995, federal courts have adopted similar roles as arbiters of fame, determining which trademarks are sufficiently famous to receive federal protection against dilution. Recent changes to the Lanham Act, however, reserve the availability of dilution actions to “A-list” marks. These changes fulfill the objectives of trademark law while achieving Congress’s intent in enacting the FTDA.
What Is Dilution, Anyway?, Stacey L. Dogan
What Is Dilution, Anyway?, Stacey L. Dogan
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Ever since the Supreme Court decided Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc. in 2003, an amendment to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act (“FTDA”) has appeared inevitable. Congress almost certainly meant to adopt a “likelihood of dilution” standard in the original statute, and the 2006 revisions correct its sloppy drafting. Substituting a “likelihood of dilution” standard for “actual dilution,” however, does not resolve a deeper philosophical question that has always lurked in the dilution debate: what is dilution, and how does one prove or disprove its probability? The statutory definition notwithstanding, this issue remains largely unanswered, leaving the courts with the …