Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law
Brief Of Thirty-Four Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants: Altera Corp. V. Papst Licensing Gmbh, Christopher B. Seaman
Brief Of Thirty-Four Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Appellants: Altera Corp. V. Papst Licensing Gmbh, Christopher B. Seaman
Scholarly Articles
The amici curiae are law professors who teach and write on civil procedure and/or patent law and policy. As such, amici are interested in the effective functioning of the courts and the patent system in general. Amici believe that this Court’s rigid rule restricting personal jurisdiction in patent declaratory judgment actions both flouts Supreme Court precedent and frustrates the public policy of clearing invalid patents. Although amici hold different views on other aspects of modern patent law and policy, they are united in their professional opinion that this Court should overturn its inflexible jurisdictional rule.
Brulotte'S Web, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
Brulotte'S Web, Herbert J. Hovenkamp
All Faculty Scholarship
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment held that stare decisis required the Supreme Court to adhere to the half century old, much criticized rule in Brulotte v. Thys. Justice Douglas' Brulotte opinion concluded that license agreements requiring royalties measured by use of a patent after its expiration are unenforceable per se. The court need not inquire into market power nor anticompetitive effects, effects on innovation, and it may not accept any defense. Congress can change the rule if it wants to, but has resisted many invitations to do so.
Under Brulotte a hybrid license on patents and trade secrets requires a royalty …
Supreme Court Asked To Consider Role Of Post-Filing Evidence In Assessing Obviousness Of Pharmaceutical Inventions, Christopher M. Holman
Supreme Court Asked To Consider Role Of Post-Filing Evidence In Assessing Obviousness Of Pharmaceutical Inventions, Christopher M. Holman
Faculty Works
On January 20, 2015, Bristol-Myers Squibb petitioned for certiorari in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Teva Pharmaceutical, asking whether an assessment of obviousness should "consider post-filing evidence showing the actual differences between a patented invention and the prior art." The district court had found patent claims directed towards Entacavir (an anti-hepatitis drug) obvious in view of structural similarity between the drug and a prior art compound, in spite of the fact that the prior art compound was highly toxic and therefore not a viable candidate for use as a human drug. A Federal Circuit panel affirmed the district court's decision to disregard …