Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

Intellectual Property And The Myth Of Nonrivalry, James Y. Stern

Notre Dame Law Review

The concept of rivalry is central to modern accounts of property. When one per-son’s use of a resource is incompatible with another’s, a system of rights to determine its use may be necessary. It is commonly asserted, however, that informational goods like inventions and expressive works are nonrivalrous and that intellectual property rights must therefore be subject to special limitation, if they should even exist at all. This Article examines the idea of rivalry more closely and makes a series of claims about the analysis of rivalrousness for purposes of such arguments. Within that frame-work, it argues that rivalry should …

The Ai Quid Pro Quo Problem: Suggesting A Framework For Patents Involving Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Or -Created Inventions, Daniel Wicklund

William & Mary Business Law Review

Innovation involving artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly expanding and diffusing into other areas of technology. Additionally, inventors have been using AI to assist in new technology for quite a while and have likely received patents from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or “Office”) for their inventions without disclosing the AI involved in the patentable subject matter. As AI has become increasingly present in the implementation of new technology, the question of whether an AI can be an inventor has arisen. In Thaler v. Iancu and on appeal, the courts have affirmatively said no. However, this decision implicates …

Determining What’S Not Obvious: Should A Reasonable Expectation Of Success Invalidate Patent Applications?, Natalie Peters

University of Massachusetts Law Review

Patents are necessary to incentivize innovation because they grant owners the right to protect inventions. To be patentable, an invention must be useful, it must be novel, and it must not be obvious. But the judiciary has struggled to apply the latter requirement, non-obviousness, particularly for highly technical innovations subject to FDA regulations. For these innovations, the progression through the regulatory jungle can take ten to twenty years and millions of dollars (2.6 billion for a pharmaceutical drug). The complexities of the regulatory process can also render an innovation unprotected by patent rights because, by the end of the process, …

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 & …

Using Signal Theory To Determine Nonobviousness Of Inventions, Michael O'Brien, Idonah Molina

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

University Ip: The University As Coordinator Of The Team Production Process, Samuel Estreicher, Kristina A. Yost

Indiana Law Journal

This Article focuses on intellectual property (IP) issues in the university setting. Often, universities require faculty who have been hired in whole or in part to invent to assign inventions created within the scope of their employment to the university. In addition, the most effective way to secure compliance with the Bayh-Dole Act, which deals with ownership of inventions involving federally funded research, is for the university to take title to such inventions. Failure to specify who has title can result in title passing to the government. Once the university asserts ownership, it then decides whether to process a patent …

State Street Bank & Trust Co. V. Signature Financial Group, Inc.: Ought The Mathematical Algorithm And Business Method Exceptions Return To Business As Usual?, Claus D. Melarti

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Does Your Claim Conform To Means-Plus-Function Format Under Section 112, Paragraph Six?: 0.1 Corp. V. Tekmar Co., Fidel D. Nwamu

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It: The Unnecessary Scope Of Patent Reform As Embodied In The "21st Century Patent System Improvement Act" And "The Omnibus Patent Act Of 1997", Jeffery E. Robertson

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Schendel V. Curtis: Dna Standards Misapplied To Fusion Protein Patents, Lisa C. Elsevier

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

When Is A Patent Exhausted? Licensing Patents On A Claim-By-Claim Basis, Lucas Dahlin

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The patent exhaustion doctrine is meant to protect legitimate purchasers of patented items from post-sale restrictions imposed by patent owners. The courts, however, have recently expanded the doctrine of patent exhaustion by holding that the sale of a device which “partially” practices a patent exhausts that patent in its entirety. This holding essentially precludes patent owners from licensing their patents on a claim-by-claim basis. As inventions become more complex and require more parties working in concert to bring an idea to market, the inability to license patents on a claim-by-claim basis will lead to inventors being unable to fully monetize …

Reinventing Copyright And Patent, Abraham Bell, Gideon Parchomovsky

Michigan Law Review

Intellectual property systems all over the world are modeled on a one-size-fitsall principle. However important or unimportant, inventions and original works receive the same scope of protection, for the same period of time, backed by the same variety of legal remedies. Essentially, all intellectual property is equal under the law. This equality comes at a heavy price, however. The equality principle gives all creators access to the same remedies, even when those remedies create perverse litigation incentives. Moreover, society overpays for innovation through more monopoly losses than are strictly necessary to incentivize production. In this Article, we propose a solution …

Predictability And Nonobviousness In Patent Law After Ksr, Christopher A. Cotropia

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed the doctrine of nonobviousness, the ultimate question of patentability, for the first time in thirty years. In mandating a flexible approach to deciding nonobviousness, the KSR opinion introduced two predictability standards for determining nonobviousness. The Court described predictability of use (hereinafter termed “Type I predictability”)— whether the inventor used the prior art in a predictable manner to create the invention—and predictability of the result (hereinafter termed “Type II predictability”)—whether the invention produced a predictable result—both as a means for proving obviousness. Although Type I predictability is easily explained as …

Structure From Nothing And Claims For Free: Using A Whole-System View Of The Patent System To Improve Notice And Predictability For Software Patents, Holly K. Victorson

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

No uniform or customary method of disclosure for software patents is currently employed by inventors. This Note examines the issues that develop from software patent claims disclosed at various levels of abstraction, and the difficulties encountered by courts and the public when investigating the contours of the software patent space. While the courts have placed some restrictions on the manner in which software inventions are claimed, they are easily bypassed by clever patent applicants who desire to claim the maximum scope of their inventions. In the long run, however, a large “patent thicket” of overlapping and potentially overbroad inventions will …

What Is The "Invention"?, Christopher A. Cotropia

William & Mary Law Review

Patent law is in flux, with recent disputes and changes in doctrine fueled by increased attention from the Supreme Court and en banc activity by the Federal Circuit. The natural reaction is to analyze each doctrinal area involved on its own. Upon a closer look, however, many patent cases concern a single, fundamental dispute. Conflicts in opinions on such issues as claim interpretation methodology and the written description requirement are really disagreements over which “invention” the courts should be considering.

There are two concepts of invention currently in play in patent decisions. The first is an “external invention” definition, in …

The Myth Of The Sole Inventor, Mark A. Lemley

Michigan Law Review

The theory of patent law is based on the idea that a lone genius can solve problems that stump the experts, and that the lone genius will do so only if properly incented. But the canonical story of the lone genius inventor is largely a myth. Surveys of hundreds of significant new technologies show that almost all of them are invented simultaneously or nearly simultaneously by two or more teams working independently of each other. Invention appears in significant part to be a social, not an individual, phenomenon. The result is a real problem for classic theories of patent law. …

Student Intellectual Property Issues On The Entrepreneurial Campus, Bryce C. Pilz

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

This article examines issues that are more frequently arising for universities concerning intellectual property in student inventions. It seeks to identify the issue, explain the underlying law, identify actual and proposed solutions to these issues, and explain the legal ramifications of these potential solutions.

Statutory Invention Registration: Defensive Patentability, Wendell Ray Guffey

Golden Gate University Law Review

Congress recently enacted legislation that provides for Statutory Invention Registration (SIR) as an alternative for an inventor who does not want to obtain a patent. To obtain a SIR, an inventor must file a complete application for a patent accompanied by a waiver of the rights obtained under a patent grant. This waiver of rights takes effect when the SIR is published and leaves the inventor with only defensive protection. The inventor completely loses his offensive rights, i.e., the right to exclude others from making, using, or selling the invention. In exchange for an inventor's right to exploit his invention, …

Breaking Aro's Commandment: Recognizing That Inventions Have Heart, Bernard Chao

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

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 …

The New Invention Creation Activity Boundary In Patent Law, Margo A. Bagley

William & Mary Law Review

This Essay identifies a new boundary in patent law-illegal or immoral invention creation activity-and explores the possible challenges and opportunities it may facilitate. The boundary currently is neither robust nor extensive, and whether and under what circumstances it should exist at all is open to debate.

Is Novelty Obsolete - Chronicling The Irrelevance Of The Invention Date In U.S. Patent Law, Dennis D. Crouch

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

This paper presents a normative study of patent prosecution by examining the role that invention-date-based novelty rights play in U.S. patent law. Three sources inform the primary results: the prosecution history files of 21,000+ patent applications filed in the past decade; a survey of 1,000+ patent practitioners regarding their use of the novelty provisions of the Patent Act; and a collection of 11,000,000+ prior art references cited in recently-issued patents. Additional compilations of prosecution file histories for patents identified as either (1) valuable or (2) worthless supplement these data sets and allow for an evaluation of the differential importance of …

The Angel Is In The Big Picture: A Response To Lemley, Samson Vermont

Michigan Law Review

An invention within close reach of multiple inventors differs from an invention within distant reach of a lone inventor. The differences between these two archetypes of invention -"reinventables" and "singletons"- remain unexploited under current U.S. law. Should we reform the law to exploit the differences? Mark Lemley and I agree that we should. To date, those economists who have closely examined the issue concur. What are the differences between reinventables and singletons? First, reinventables can be brought into existence with incentives of lower magnitude. This suggests that we can obtain reinventables at a lower price than we currently pay-i.e., with …

Inherency, Dan L. Burk, Mark A. Lemley

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Planting A Standard: Proposing A Broad Reading Of In Re Elsner, Alicia L. Frostick

Michigan Law Review

This Note will show that one can read Elsner broadly to encompass both plant-type and widget-type inventions, and that applying Elsner to both plants and widgets is within the current statutory framework and case law. Such a reading would change the § 102 bar for inventions patentable under § 10i29 (hereinafter referred to as "widgets") as well as for plants. Part I of this Note argues that congressional sources require a flexible test-one that does not prejudice any objects under the Patent Act. Part II discusses the judicial interpretation of the Patent Act prior to Elsner in order to argue …

Certainty, Fence Building, And The Useful Arts, Craig Allen Nard

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Post Expiration Royalty Payments And Mandatory Package Licensing As Patent Misuses, Thomas C. Sickman

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Concrete Forms Of Intellectual Property, Robert J. Fay

Cleveland State Law Review

The field of intellectual property as treated in this paper encompasses mental products of industrial importance: inventions or discoveries, literary or artistic works, trade secrets,and distinguishing trademarks or trade names used in commerce. Each of these is characterized by mental activity followed by embodiment in some concrete form. Protection in a measure for the originator is found both in the statutes and in common law.

What Is Prior Art, Virgil E. Woodcock

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inventors And Their Relations With Others, Howard I. Forman

Villanova Law Review

No abstract provided.