Law Commons^™

Patently Inconsistent: State And Tribal Sovereign Immunity In Inter Partes Review, John Mixon

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note is composed of four parts. Part I reviews the origins, development, and purpose of both tribal and state sovereign immunity, compares the two doctrines, and concludes that the two are functionally the same despite deriving from different historical roots. Part II provides an overview of the history and purpose behind the patent system, the America Invents Act, and IPRs. Part II also analyzes the constitutionality of IPRs, as decided by the Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. Part III introduces and addresses the five IPR decisions on state sovereign …

Is The Supreme Court’S Patentable Subject Matter Test Overly Ambiguous? An Empirical Test, Jason D. Reinecke

Utah Law Review

This Article shows that the new two-step patent-eligibility test is not as unadministrable as at least its most ardent critics have suggested. More research is necessary to ascertain how much better the attorneys would have predicted court outcomes had they spent more time on their predictions and had access to more information.

Automation & Predictive Analytics In Patent Prosecution: Uspto Implication & Policy, Tabrez Y. Ebrahim

Georgia State University Law Review

Artificial-intelligence technological advancements bring automation and predictive analytics into patent prosecution. The information asymmetry between inventors and patent examiners is expanded by artificial intelligence, which transforms the inventor– examiner interaction to machine–human interactions. In response to automated patent drafting, automated office-action responses, “cloems” (computer-generated word permutations) for defensive patenting, and machine-learning guidance (based on constantly updated patent-prosecution big data), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) should reevaluate patent-examination policy from economic, fairness, time, and transparency perspectives. By conceptualizing the inventor–examiner relationship as a “patenting market,” economic principles suggest stronger efficiencies if both inventors and the USPTO have better …

That Is Northern Lights Cannabis Indica . . . No, It's Marijuana: Navigating Through The Haze Of Cannabis And Patents, Dawson Hahn

Concordia Law Review

By their very nature, patents are exclusionary. A patent grants the right to exclude others from making use of an invention or process. But patents are also tools to promote innovation. However, when an invalid patent is granted, the patent becomes an exclusionary tool that also chills innovation. Invalid cannabis patents may be chilling innovation in the cannabis market, but they may not be the only thing. While the Controlled Substances Act continues to prohibit cannabis at a federal level, researchers and medical professionals will be unsure of the legality of their actions. This naturally leads to another chilling effect …

Repealing Patents, Christopher Beauchamp

Vanderbilt Law Review

The first known patent case in the United States courts did not enforce a patent. Instead, it sought to repeal one. The practice of cancelling granted patent rights has appeared in various forms over the past two-and-a-quarter centuries, from the earliest U.S. patent law in 1790 to the new regime of inter partes review and post-grant review. With the Supreme Court's recent scrutiny of the constitutionality of inter partes review, this history has taken on a new significance.

This Article uses new archival sources to uncover the history of patent cancellation during the first half-century of American patent law. These …

Does Patented Information Promote The Progress Of Technology?, Jonathan H. Ashtor

Northwestern University Law Review

This Article investigates the relationship between the exclusive rights of patents, their information disclosures, and the impact they have on the development of future technologies. An examination of over 1000 patents that courts have held valid or invalid reveals a significant positive relationship. Specifically, the private rights and technological impact of patents rise and fall together, and moreover, both are related to the quantity of new and useful technical information contained in their disclosures.

This Article identifies, for the first time, significant differences between the technological impact of valid patents and invalid patents, as measured by the future patented inventions …

A Mathematical Solution To The Sine Of Madness That Is Pharmaceutical Compulsory Licensing Under The Trips Agreement And The Doha Declaration, Ashley E. Sperbeck

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

A viable economic solution is necessary to address the shortcomings, textual ambiguities, and deficiencies engulfing international patent protection, leading to the inability of LDCs facing public health crises or national emergencies and lacking pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities to obtain generic pharmaceuticals. This Note poses a solution to this problem via another Amendment to the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration, which provides a mathematical framework to determine when and under what circumstances a compulsory license should be granted. Furthermore, this Note contemplates establishment of a WTO subcommittee to oversee this proposed solution and to ensure compliance with this Amendment. This concrete …

Opting Into Device Regulation In The Face Of Uncertain Patentability, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

This article examines the intersection of patent law, FDA regulation, and Medicare coverage in a particularly promising field of biomedical innovation: genetic diagnostic testing. First, I will discuss current clinical uses of genetic testing and directions for further research, with a focus on cancer, the field in which genetic testing has had the greatest impact to date. Second, I will turn to patent law and address two recent Supreme Court decisions that called into question the patentability of many of the most important advances in genetic testing. Third, I will step outside patent law to take a broader view of …

Tribal Sovereign Immunity As A Defense At The Patent Trial And Appeal Board? Or A Violation Of U.S. Antitrust Laws?, Samantha Roth

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

This Comment will address two primary issues. First, it will analyze the basis of sovereign immunity rights of tribes, with a focus on the relationship between intellectual property rights and sovereignty. Second, it will discuss whether this arrangement violates the antitrust laws of the United States. This Comment concludes that even if a claim of tribal sovereign immunity is legitimate, it is likely that such an arrangement still violates the relevant antitrust claims.

Finding A Forest Through The Trees: Georgia-Pacific As Guidance For Arbitration Of International Compulsory Licensing Disputes, Karen Mckenzie

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

This paper will examine the challenges of international compulsory licensing by examining the issue historically and legally as well as offer possible solutions. Thus, this paper will explore the challenge of balancing corporate interests against the affordability and availability of pharmaceuticals by focusing on discrete situations in developing countries, the history of compulsory licensing, and how the World Health Organization (the “WHO”) and the WTO have attempted to tackle these challenges through compulsory licensing, and it will suggest a possible framework for use in arbitration, which balances equities through a Georgia-Pacific analysis.

Protecting Wisconsinites From Trolls: The Federal Circuit's "Bad Faith" Preemption And Its Restrictive Effect, Andrew Salomone

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

In this comment, I use Wis. Stat. Ann. § 100.197 (“Wisconsin’s anti-PAE statute”) to demonstrate the significant degree to which the Federal Circuit’s current preemption regime restricts states’ abilities to regulate the behavior of PAEs. In Part II, I summarize Wisconsin’s legislative response to PAEs. In Part III, I contrast the Federal Circuit’s preemption doctrine and the Supreme Court’s doctrine as it relates to state laws similar to anti-PAE statutes. Paying particular attention to Wisconsin’s patent notification statute, I provide a brief preemption analysis in Part IV. Finally, in Part V, I conclude by arguing that the severe consequences of …