Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Unregistered Patents, Miriam Marcowitz-Bitton, Emily Michiko Morris
Unregistered Patents, Miriam Marcowitz-Bitton, Emily Michiko Morris
Washington Law Review
Although all should be treated equally under the law, patent law has long been known to favor some less than others. Patentable technology is highly heterogeneous, covering everything from minute improvements in electronics to pioneering new artificial organs, but patent protection itself is purely a one-size-fits-all system. Patents thus overreward some while underrewarding others. On the one hand, patents overreward low-investment, low-value inventions by granting them the same twenty-year term of protection as those that required much higher investments and yield much higher social value. The resulting glut of low-quality patents has contributed greatly to the “patent crisis” of opportunistic …
Defective Patent Deference, Tejas N. Narechania
Defective Patent Deference, Tejas N. Narechania
Washington Law Review
The Supreme Court’s implicit deference to the Office of the Solicitor General in patent cases is well-documented: What the Solicitor General requests, the Solicitor General typically receives. But we know far less about how the Solicitor General arrives at these preferred policy positions, or why the Solicitor General comes to advocate for some outcomes over others. This is problematic. In practically every other corner of the administrative state, an agency earns substantial deference to its views only where robust procedural protections attend to the policymaking process, where the agency’s outcome reflects its substantive expertise, and where the agency may, through …
Patents—Contributory Infringement And Patent Misuse Under 35 U.S.C. § 271—Dawson Chemical Co. V. Rohn & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176 (1980), Carlyn Joan Steiner
Patents—Contributory Infringement And Patent Misuse Under 35 U.S.C. § 271—Dawson Chemical Co. V. Rohn & Haas Co., 448 U.S. 176 (1980), Carlyn Joan Steiner
Washington Law Review
This casenote will discuss as background: (1) the judicial doctrines of contributory infringement and patent misuse as they developed before 1952; (2) section 271 of the Patent Act of 1952; and (3) the impact of this section on the contributory infringement/patent misuse doctrines in post-1952 Supreme Court cases. An analysis section will contrast the majority and minority interpretations of: (1) 35 U.S.C. §§ 271(c) and (d); (2) the legislative history of the Patent Act of 1952; and (3) post-1952 Supreme Court decisions as each impacts the result in Dawson. The final section will discuss patent policy considerations absent from the …
Chemical Compounds Related As Genus And Species And The Patentability Requirement Of Novelty, Patricia E. Roberts
Chemical Compounds Related As Genus And Species And The Patentability Requirement Of Novelty, Patricia E. Roberts
Washington Law Review
The patentability of chemical compounds related as genus and species presents a problem in deciding the proper scope of patent protection granted to an inventor. Should the inventor of a genus be granted a patent covering all of the often numerous compounds which the genus might include? Should disclosure of the genus automatically eliminate a later inventor's ability to patent individual members of the genus, or should a court consider genus size and similarity of structure and properties in deciding patentability of the individual species? The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals has examined some of these issues.This comment will …
Sources Of Prior Art In Patent Law, Donald S. Chisum
Sources Of Prior Art In Patent Law, Donald S. Chisum
Washington Law Review
The question of what is prior art involves at least four different dimensions. The first is the dimension of time. When does art become "prior"? When, if ever, is it too old and forgotten to be considered prior art? The second is the dimension of place. The patent statutes make both United States and foreign patents and publications prior art, but limit knowledge, use, and invention to "in this country." When is something "in this country," and why is this distinction made? The third is the dimension of scope. What is the pertinent art to which the invention pertains? How …