Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law
Why Pharmaceutical Firms Support Patent Trolls: The Disparate Impact Of Ebay V. Mercexchange On Innovation, Jeremiah S. Helm
Why Pharmaceutical Firms Support Patent Trolls: The Disparate Impact Of Ebay V. Mercexchange On Innovation, Jeremiah S. Helm
Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review
Before the unanimous decision in eBay v. MercExchange, patent holders were almost always granted an injunction against an infringer. In fact, the Federal Circuit, in deciding eBay, noted that, upon a finding of infringement, an injunction would issue unless there were extraordinary circumstances. The Court, in a brief opinion, disagreed with the Federal Circuit and explained that the injunction issue in a patent case must be analyzed under the traditional four-factor test.[...] Is the four-factor test fairer or better than the Federal Circuit's near-automatic injunction rule? It is certainly more difficult to administer a factor test as compared to a …
Merck V. Integra: Bailing Water Without Plugging The Hole, Benjamin G. Jackson
Merck V. Integra: Bailing Water Without Plugging The Hole, Benjamin G. Jackson
Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law
No abstract provided.
Has The Supreme Court Incorrectly Expanded § 271(E)(1) To Risk A Regulatory Taking?, 5 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 216 (2006), Tara Stuart
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The U.S.S.C. expanded the scope of the Hatch-Waxman Act’s safe harbor provision in Merck III to include protection for infringing use of any type of invention as long as a researcher intended to perform research reasonably relevant to FDA approval. This broad interpretation is inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Hatch-Waxman Act, and the policies of the U.S. patent system. Many patent owners may unnecessarily experience such a reduction in their property rights as to constitute a regulatory taking. The proposed narrow interpretation would rectify the constitutional problems and inconsistencies in infringement exemptions. Section 271(e)(1) should apply only to …
Suppression Of Innovation Or Collaborative Efficiencies?: An Antitrust Analysis Of A Research & Development Collaboration That Led To The Shelving Of A Promising Drug, 5 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 348 (2006), Saami Zain
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
This article discusses antitrust issues present in research and development collaborations between competitors. In particular, it illustrates that, although often very beneficial, these collaborations may have the potential for considerable harm via suppression of innovation. The article examines a recent case involving a collaboration to develop drugs, which arguably resulted in the suppression of a promising drug.