Law Commons^™

Is Dna Really A Natural Product? It's Time To Separate Fact From (Legal) Fiction: An Examination Of Dna Patentability As A Biological Algorithm In The Post-Myriad Era, Nicholas Ulen

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In 2013, the United States Supreme Court delivered its landmark decision in Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., holding isolated DNA unpatentable, thereby invalidating the claims of thousands of DNA patents in the process. The opinion, delivered by Justice Thomas, reasoned that the act of separating DNA from the body did not sufficiently transform the molecule beyond what naturally exists. Yet the Court found that line to be crossed when it held certain artificially synthesized complementary DNA molecules coding for the exact same gene patentable. Unlike the Federal Circuit, the Court focused its analysis not on the …

Consequences For Patent Owners If A Patent Is Unconstitutionally Invalidated By The Patent Trial And Appeal Board, Mark Magas

Chicago-Kent Law Review

There have been many constitutional challenges against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) since it was created by the America Invents Act in 2011. While the merits of these challenges have been widely debated, there has been little analysis of what would happen if one of these challenges succeeded and patents are found to have been unconstitutionally invalidated. This note examines how issues with waiver, retroactivity, and finality may prevent patent owners from getting their patent rights back, considering the type of constitutional challenge and the different stages of the PTAB process. While the odds are stacked against patent …

Enhanced Patent Infringement Damages Post-Halo And The Problem With Using The Read Factors, Betul Serbest

Chicago-Kent Law Review

The United States Patent Act allows a patent holder to recover treble damages for “willful infringement.” The standard for willful infringement has changed over the years, with the United States Supreme Court providing the most recent explanation of what is “willful” in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc. in 2016. Courts, however, continue to use a set of factors set forth in Read Corp. v. Portec, Inc. in 1992 to aid their discretion in awarding willful infringement enhanced damages. In this article, I argue that at least two of the Read factors are inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s Halo …

In Defense Of Patent Trolls: Patent Assertion Entities As Commercial Litigation Funders, Jean Xiao

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

This paper is the first to defend and commend the role of patent trolls in litigation. It argues that trolls either are not the sole source of patent litigation ills or are not responsible for these ills in the first place. Next, it demonstrates that trolls provide the same litigation-related benefits as commercial litigation funders, which also finance patent lawsuits. Troll commentators have ignored these benefits, for which funders are praised, in the evaluation of trolls. Finally, this paper explains that eliminating trolls will not only close off a source of these benefits but also worsen problems by shifting trolling …

Frand Market Failure: Ipxi’S Standards-Essential Patent License Exchange, Jorge L. Contreras

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

This case study pertains to Intellectual Property Exchange International, Inc. (IPXI), which was formed in 2008 to create a market-based trading exchange for aggregated patent license rights, particularly standards-essential patents (SEPs). IPXI based its model on existing commodities exchanges, proposing that non-exclusive patent licenses could be standardized, commoditized, and traded on an open market, thus eliminating costly and inefficient bilateral negotiations and providing a royalty rate likely to be viewed as “reasonable”. IPXI’s most ambitious offering involved a portfolio of 194 U.S., European and other patents deemed essential to IEEE’s 802.11n “Wi-Fi” standard. IPXI offered up to 50,000 tradable Unit …

Aspex Eyewear, Inc. V. Marchon Eyewear, Inc. And Brain Life, Llc. V. Elekta, Inc.: Irreconcilable Conflict In The Law Governing Claim Preclusion In Patent Cases, Christopher Petroni

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

In 1991, the Federal Circuit held that a judgment on the merits in a patent infringement action bars future claims based on products that are “essentially the same” as the product at issue in the former suit. This rule governed claim preclusion in patent actions until at least 2009. Then, in 2012, the Federal Circuit upended the apple cart with Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012), holding that a judgment in an infringement suit never bars future claims against products that could not have been accused in the former litigation, essentially the …

The 101 Conundrum: Creating A Framework To Solve Problems Surrounding Interpretation Of 35 U.S.C. § 101, Robert Mazzola

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Keynote Address: Stalemate Or Statesmen: What Is Needed To Move Forward Constructively With The Balancing Of America's Ip System?, David J. Kappos

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Keeping It Under Wraps: Trade Secrecy For Offshore Asset Protection Plans, Thomas A. Brunty

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Litigating Inequitable Conduct After Therasense, Exerge, And The Aia: Lessons For Litigants, Options For Owners, Lisa A. Dolak

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

Significant recent judicial and legislative developments have changed the way litigants and counsel need to plan for and litigate inequitable conduct allegations. Exergen and Therasense have heightened the standards for pleading and proving inequitable conduct, respectively, and Congress has expanded the patentee’s post-grant options for preempting or defeating inequitable conduct challenges. Without a doubt, the inequitable conduct litigation landscape has changed. Careful, thorough consideration of all of these developments and their implications is a must for any litigant or counsel faced with or considering asserting a charge of inequitable conduct. This paper discusses these significant recent inequitable conduct-related developments and …

What's A Name Worth?: Experimental Tests Of The Value Of Attribution In Intellectual Property, Christopher J. Buccafusco, Christopher Jon Sprigman, Zachary C. Burns

All Faculty Scholarship

Despite considerable research suggesting that creators value attribution – i.e., being named as the creator of a work – U.S. intellectual property (IP) law does not provide a right to attribution to the vast majority of creators. On the other side of the Atlantic, however, many European countries give creators, at least in their copyright laws, much stronger rights to attribution. At first blush it may seem that the U.S. has gotten it wrong, and the Europeans have made a better policy choice in providing to creators a right that they value. But for reasons we will explain in this …

Continuing The Conversation Of "The Economic Irrationality Of The Patent Misuse Doctrine", Christa J. Laser

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

This Article uses economic tools to find the best way for courts to construe or for Congress to modify the patent misuse doctrine. It attempts to continue the conversation begun by Professor Mark Lemley in his often-cited Comment, The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine. It argues that a partial economic equilibrium in patent misuse doctrine can be achieved by attempting to match Congress’s intended patent scope with the actual patent scope. It then holds that the ideal patent misuse doctrine should (1) adequately discourage patentees from seeking to exceed their patent scope while (2) continuing to encourage innovation …

The Plumpy'nut Predicament: Is Compulsory Licensing A Solution?, Umar R. Bakhsh

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Creativity Effect (With C. Sprigman), Christopher J. Buccafusco

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Dependent On The Jury: Anticipation And Obviousness Of Dependent Patent Claims And Irreconcilable Jury Verdicts, Patrick Bickley

Chicago-Kent Law Review

A jury verdict finding an independent claim valid but a related dependent claim either anticipated or obvious is irreconcilable. However, the Federal Circuit has used the inconsistencies between regional circuits on the issue of jury verdicts to reach different outcomes in similar cases based solely on the region in which the patent case originated. This note advocates a modification to the Federal Circuit's rule of deference to consider irreconcilable verdicts of independent and dependent claims under its own independent analysis. A consistent approach allowing for appellate review regardless of post-verdict motions is advocated, although a more modest position of requiring …

Explaining The Demise Of The Doctrine Of Equivalents, David L. Schwartz

All Faculty Scholarship

This article provides a novel theoretical model and extensive empirical evidence to explain the decline of a historically important patent law doctrine known as the “doctrine of equivalents.” In recent years, distinguished academics have studied the doctrine of equivalents. While these scholars noted that the doctrine of equivalents had decreased in its successful use and provided some grounds for the decline, none clearly explained why. As such, the cause and precise mechanism behind the so-called “demise” of the doctrine of equivalents have largely remained a mystery.

This article explains that the demise occurred because of two complementary forces discussed for …

Courting Specialization: An Empirical Study Of Claim Construction Comparing Patent Litigation Before Federal District Courts And The International Trade Commission, David L. Schwartz

All Faculty Scholarship

The United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has recently become an important adjudicator of patent infringement disputes, and the administrative law judges (ALJs) on the ITC are widely viewed as experts on patent law. This Article empirically examines the performance of the ITC in patent claim construction cases. The Article also compares the performance of the ITC on claim construction with that of federal district courts of general jurisdiction. This study does not find any evidence that the patent-experienced ALJs of the ITC are more accurate at claim construction than district court judges or that the ALJs learn from the …

Patents On Human Genes: An Analysis Of Scope And Claims, Lori B. Andrews, Jordan K. Paradise, Timothy R. Holbrooke

All Faculty Scholarship

There is significant domestic and international opposition to gene patents based on the fact that gene patents deter medical research and health care, as well as the policy position that genes are an inherent product of nature. Yet, equally troubling is the fact that gene patents have been issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office that are problematic with respect to existing federal patent law. The authors of this Policy Forum describe their study, which examined issued gene patents covering a variety of genetic diseases and described ways in which many claims fell short of USPTO patentability requirements.