Law Commons^™

‘Substantial Portion’ Of A Patent: Quantitative Or Qualitative?, Matthew Rollin

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This Article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Life Technologies Corp., where the Court issued another requirement for patent infringement. Part II of this Article examines the text of the Patent Act and the history behind it. Part III further discusses the facts of Life Technologies Corp., to give more relevant background facts and history. Part IV focuses on the prior opinions of the case, including the district court’s ruling, appellate court’s decision, and the Supreme Court’s decision. Part V examines and concludes with the legal significance of Life Technologies Corp., the impact that it will have on future …

A Serendipitous Experiment In Percolation Of Intellectual Property Doctrine, Daniel R. Cahoy, Lynda J. Oswald

Indiana Law Journal

This Article fills a gap in the literature by providing novel and unique empirical evidence of the impact of percolated intellectual property doctrine versus the impact of isolated doctrine from a specialized court. It relies on the U.S. Supreme Court’s paired decisions in 2014 in Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.15 and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Systems, Inc.16 to highlight a natural forum for evaluating the effects of percolation on federal legal doctrine. At issue in those cases was the fee-shifting language of Section 285 of the Patent Act: “The court in exceptional cases may …

Gene Patents, Drug Prices, And Scientific Research: Unexpected Effects Of Recently Proposed Patent Eligibility Legislation, Charles Duan

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Recently, Congress has considered legislation to amend § 101, a section of the Patent Act that the Supreme Court has held to prohibit patenting of laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. This draft legislation would expand the realm of patent-eligible subject matter, overturning the Court’s precedents along the way. The draft legislation, and movement to change this doctrine of patent law, made substantial headway with a subcommittee of the Senate holding numerous roundtables and hearings on the subject.

This article considers some less-discussed consequences of that draft leg- islative proposal. The legislation likely opens the door to patenting …

Confusion, Conflict, And Case Law: Analyzing The Language Of The United States Patent Act And Conflicting Case Law Regarding The Transfer Of Patent Rights In The 21st Century, Lucas C. Logic

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Mystery Of Section 253(B), Matthew Gagnier

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

In 2014, Elon Musk, the renowned and socially-minded CEO of Tesla Motors, Inc., posted a blog on Tesla’s website that stated the company would be freeing up many of its patents involved in the creation of the company’s electric cars to any interested party. Yet again, Musk astounded the public by choosing the betterment of society over corporate profits—stirring up a more positive image than any other corporate personality. But there are numerous questions that Musk’s positive PR have drowned out: Where can you access the patents?; How did freeing up the patents get past the other executive officers and …

Private Or Public Right? Who Should Adjudicate Patentability Disputes And Is The Current Scheme Really Constitutional?, Jasmyne M. Baynard

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

“The patent bargain is the foundation upon which the patent system is built: in exchange for protections for an invention, the inventor agrees to make public their inventions so that others may build upon it.” The patent bargain creates a presumption of protection for the inventors, yet categorizing the patent a public right or a private right has diminished expectations for inventors and confusion for the masses. On October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court denied two petitions for writ of certiorari that challenged the constitutionality of Patent Trial and Review Board proceedings on the basis of the patent owner’s Seventh …

Claims As Pointers: The Statutory Approach To Claim Construction, Joseph Mueller

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Rules For Radicals: A Politics Of Patent Law, Kali N. Murray

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Bad Medicine: Economic Disadvantage And Claim Limitation In An Ailing Patent Office, Elisabeth Marie Koehnemann

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

What's The Deference?: Should Dickinson V. Zurko Apply In The Trademark Context?, Jonathan S. Digby

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

On Abstraction And Equivalence In Software Patent Doctrine: A Response To Bessen, Meurer And Klemens, Andrew Chin

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Of Mice And 'Manimal': The Patent & Trademark Office's Latest Stance Against Patent Protection For Human-Based Inventions, James P. Daniel

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

The Propagated Signal Claim: What Is It And What Are The Infringement Consequences?, Dana M. Wilson

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Ebay And The Blackberry: A Media Coverage Case Study, Lisa A. Dolak, Blaine T. Bettinger

Akron Intellectual Property Journal

This paper centers on media coverage relating to eBay and related patent system developments. In particular, it provides a quantitative comparison between media coverage of eBay and that relating to another recent patent case: the litigation between NTP, Inc. and Research in Motion, Ltd. involving the popular BlackBerry® handheld wireless communications device, and examines the extent and nature of the NTP-related coverage in light of the co-pendency of the two cases and the issues they share in common. In so doing, it facilitates consideration of the experience of news coverage consumers - including, presumably, Supreme Court Justices - while eBay …

The "On-Sale" Bar To Patentability: Actual Reduction To Practice Not Required In Pfaff V. Wells Electronics, Inc., Daniel J. Whitman

Akron Law Review

A patent grants to an inventor the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, or selling his invention throughout the United States. However, an inventor is statutorily barred from receiving a patent for an invention that was “on sale” prior to one year before his U.S. filing date. An offer to sell cannot bar patentability until an invention exists. The general issue in applying the “on sale” bar is “[a]t what point is the invention sufficiently developed such that, coupled with an offer to sell, the inventor’s commercial activities invoke the on sale bar?” The United States Supreme Court’s …

Festo Corp. V. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.: A Fog Between The Bars, Mark R. Hull

Akron Law Review

This Note examines the interplay between the judicially-created patent law rules of prosecution history estoppel and the doctrine of equivalents. Part II explores the development of these rules as well as their effects and underlying goals. Part II also discusses landmark Supreme Court decisions regarding the doctrine of equivalents and prosecution history estoppel and how the Federal Circuit has applied these rules. Part III discusses the United States Supreme Court decision in Festo Corporation v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co.

Finally, Part IV analyzes the Festo decision, explains that the decision will likely increase the cost and complexity of patent …

The Disclosure Requirements Of The 1952 Patent Act: Looking Back And A New Statute For The Next Fifty Years, Harold C. Wegner

Akron Law Review

The 1952 Patent Act was a major event in terms of cutting and pasting together the various patent laws from the previous eighty or so years into the first patent law codification of the twentieth century. The great bulk was a mere codification of principles, going back in some cases to the earliest patent laws of the eighteenth century, that was the work of P. J. Federico.2 Of the three major changes made to the patent law in 1952, each was primarily the work of the late Giles Sutherland Rich,3 with his revision of Section 112 to introduce “means” claiming-perhaps …

Ebay V. Mercexchange: Traditional Four-Factor Test For Injunctive Relief Applies To Patent Cases, According To The Supreme Court, Sue Ann Mota

Akron Law Review

This article will examine the eBay litigation and landmark Supreme Court decision and its important impact. This decision may temporarily forestall patent reform by removing the threat of near-mandatory injunctive relief if patent infringement and validity is found and will let the court weigh the factors when deciding patent injunctive relief.

Protection Of Computers And Computer Software Before The United States International Trade Commission: In Re Certain Personal Computers And Components Thereof, Nicholas N. Leach

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Whodunnit? Divided Patent Infringement In Light Of Akamai Technologies, Inc. V. Limelight Networks, Inc., Mark Tomlinson

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

This Note provides background information on divided patent infringement in the United States with emphasis on landmark cases and the previous understanding of the Patent Act. Part II provides background information on the underlying controversies and the software at issue in each case. Part III discusses the opinions of the factions of the court, and Part IV dissects the reasoning of each. Part V examines the implications of Akamai on businesses and other method patent holders while acknowledging that the future of the court's holding remains uncertain.

Myspace, Inc. V. Graphon Corp.: Ignoring The Basic Premise That 101 Must Come Before 102 And 103, Emmanuel A. Fishelman

Journal of Business & Technology Law

No abstract provided.

Dissenting State Patent Regimes, Camilla A. Hrdy

IP Theory

No abstract provided.

I 4 An I: Why Changing The Standard For Overcoming The Presumption Of Patent Validity Will Cause More Harm Than Good, John A. Morrissett

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Bad facts make bad law. The Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of what constitutes the appropriate standard of proof for invalidating an issued patent. The Patent Act provides a presumption of patent validity. Therefore, a party challenging a patent’s validity bears the burden of overcoming this presumption. However, the Patent Act is silent as to the standard of proof required to satisfy this burden. Despite the Act’s silence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“Federal Circuit”) has consistently held that the Patent Act’s presumption of validity can only be overcome by a showing of clear and …

Software Wars: The Patent Menace, Andrew Nieh

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Uncomfortable Fit?: Intellectual Property Policy And The Administrative State, Kali Murray, Sapna Kumar, Jason Mazzone, Hannibal Travis

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

The Southeastern Association of Law Schools (SEALS) panel responds to the considerable scholarship on the increasing integration of administrative law into intellectual property policy. The discussion was conducted August 4, 2009, as part of SEALS' day-long Intellectual Property Workshop in West Palm Beach, Florida. Kali Murray moderated the panel, which included Sapna Kumar, Jason Mazzone, Hannibal Travis, and Jasmine Abdel-khalik.

Trying To Understand Software: Why Microsoft V. At&T Was Mistakenly Decided, Drew J. Koning

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Combining The Components Of Life: The Application Of Patent Extraterritoriality Doctrine To Biotechnology, Jennifer L. Schuster

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Contains Cover, Table Of Contents, Letter From The Editor, And Masthead, Eileen R. Geller

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

The Richmond Journal of Law and Technology is proud to present its first issue of the 2007–2008 academic school year. To start off the new academic year, our authors present new ideas on the age old topic of Patent Law.

The “First-To-File” Patent System: Why Adoption Is Not An Option!, Rebecca C.E. Mcfadyen

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

As the United States’ national pastime, baseball has taught valuable lessons to generations of Americans. For example, players often learn how to be good teammates, how to set goals, and how to exercise discipline. Baseball has other important life lessons to share as well such as the value of “chemistry.” Chemistry is that intangible quality that allows individual players, each with a differing skill set and personal agenda, to work together and propel the team forward. It is what makes a team, a team.

To Mark Or Not To Mark: Application Of The Patent Marking Statute To Websites And The Internet, Eugene Goryunov, Mark Polyakov

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

Patentees, and persons making, offering for sale, or selling within the United States any patented article for or under them, or importing any patented article into the United States, may give notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word "patent" or the abbreviation "pat.", together with the number of the patent, or when, from the character of the article, this can not be done, by fixing to it, or to the package wherein one or more of them is contained, a label containing a like notice. In the event of failure so to …