Law Commons^™

The “Green Patent Paradox” And Fair Use: The Intellectual Property Solution To Fight Climate Change, Samuel Cayton

Seattle Journal of Technology, Environmental & Innovation Law

As the climate crisis consistently worsens, the United States’ response to the crisis has proven inconsistent. Even with the United States likely to recommit to the Paris Climate Agreement, political tensions will likely further delay a climate response. The polarized characterization of the Green New Deal, the inaction of scientifically misguided conservatives, and the incessant proposal for middle ground approaches lacking the urgency needed to change course all contribute to this delay. While swift action from the federal government is needed, looking to the private sector to transition to sustainability is equally important. Specifically, patent protection is a strong intellectual …

The Double-Edged Sword Of Medical Patents: How Monopolies On Healthcare Products Disparately Impact Certain American Populations, Sarah Mcgraw

The University of Cincinnati Intellectual Property and Computer Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Distorted Drug Patents, Erika Lietzan, Kristina M.L. Acri Née Lybecker

Washington Law Review

Drug patents are distorted. Unlike most other inventors, drug inventors must complete years of testing to the government’s specifications and seek government approval to commercialize their inventions. All the while, the patent term runs. When a drug inventor finally launches a medicine that embodies the invention, only a fraction of the patent life remains. And yet, conventional wisdom holds—and empirical studies show—that patent life is essential to innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps more so than any other inventive industry. Congress tried to address this in 1984, authorizing the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to “restore” a portion of the …

Broadening The Patent Experience: The Value Of Piug And Attending The Patent Information Users Group (Piug) Annual Conference, Paulina Borrego, Rachel Knapp

Journal of the Patent and Trademark Resource Center Association

No abstract provided.

Artificial Stupidity, Clark D. Asay

William & Mary Law Review

Artificial intelligence is everywhere. And yet, the experts tell us, it is not yet actually anywhere. This is because we are yet to achieve artificial general intelligence, or artificially intelligent systems that are capable of thinking for themselves and adapting to their circumstances. Instead, all the AI hype—and it is constant—concerns narrower, weaker forms of artificial intelligence, which are confined to performing specific, narrow tasks. The promise of true artificial general intelligence thus remains elusive. Artificial stupidity reigns supreme.

What is the best set of policies to achieve more general, stronger forms of artificial intelligence? Surprisingly, scholars have paid little …

University Inventions Reconsidered: Debunking The Myth Of University Ownership, Patricia E. Campbell

William & Mary Business Law Review

Most universities today assert ownership rights over all patentable inventions (and many other types of intellectual property) created by members of the university community, including faculty, staff, students, visitors, and others. Universities then attempt to license that intellectual property (IP) to third parties, in order to generate revenue for the university and to give the public the benefit of innovations developed by the institution, often with the use of federal funds. This Article provides an evaluation of the technology transfer policies and practices of U.S. universities. Part I surveys the IP policies of a representative group of universities, showing that …

Nonexcludable Surgical Method Patents, Jonas Anderson

William & Mary Law Review

A patent consists of only one right: the right to exclude others from practicing the patented invention. However, one class of patents statutorily lacks the right to exclude direct infringers: surgical method patents are not enforceable against medical practitioners or health care facilities, which are the only realistic potential direct infringers of such patents. Despite this, inventors regularly file for (and receive) surgical method patents. Why would anyone incur the expense (more than $20,000 on average) of acquiring a patent on a surgical method if that patent cannot be used to keep people from using the patent?

The traditional answer …

A Siri-Ous Societal Issue: Should Autonomous Artificial Intelligence Receive Patent Or Copyright Protection?, Samuel Scholz

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

Whiskey Sour: An Ip Evaluation Of Nathan Green's Contribution To Jack Daniel's Whiskey And How That Contribution Led To An Inequitable Distribution Of Generational Wealth, Emmanuel Onochie

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

None.

Fiddling With Federal Circuit Precedent: The Commercial And Qualitative Impact Of Recent Supreme Court Reversals On The U.S. Patent System, Christopher J. Hamersky

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

Prior to 2006, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit enjoyed a fairly laissez-faire relation with the Supreme Court of the United States, enabling it to develop a patent law jurisprudence that patent practitioners could confidently rely on given that it had remained relatively stable for several decades. However, in 2006, the Supreme Court reviewed eBay v. MercExchange and subsequently began a string of frequent Federal Circuit reversals that have caused significant change to the U.S. patent system. Whereas the Supreme Court rarely took up patent appeals in the Federal Circuit’s early history, it now routinely reviews patent questions …

Double Jeopardy: Patents Of Invention As Contracts, Invention Disclosure As Consideration, And Where Oil States Went Wrong, N. Scott Pierce

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

Patents in England were once favors granted by the King with the requirement that the subject matter be practiced, or worked, for the benefit of the public. However, by the late eighteenth century patents were viewed as contracts with the government. Concomitant with this shift, the requirement to practice an invention was replaced by submission of a written specification disclosing to the public how to work the subject matter of the patent. In essence, advancement of the public good by grant of an exclusionary right to practice an invention at royal discretion was substituted with public disclosure as consideration for …

Can An Improved Disclosure Mechanism Moderate Algorithm-Based Software Patentability In The Public Interest?, Vinicius Sala

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

Anything You Can Do, Ai Can't Do Better: An Analysis Of Conception As A Requirement For Patent Inventorship And A Rationale For Excluding Ai Inventors, Kaelyn R. Knutson

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.