Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
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 & …
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 …
Patents - Option Of The Court To Permit Contempt Proceedings Or To Require A New Suit
Patents - Option Of The Court To Permit Contempt Proceedings Or To Require A New Suit
Michigan Law Review
A final injunction was issued by the federal district court of Massachusetts against A, a Michigan corporation. The terms of the injunction were that A should not make, use, or sell lasts, or any colorable imitation thereof, embodying the invention covered by certain enumerated claims belonging to the present complainant. In a subsequent term of court the complainant alleged a violation of the injunction and brought contempt proceedings against A in the district court. The alleged infringement consisted in the manufacture and sale of a device which was slightly changed in form from that which the defendant had made prior …