Law Commons^™

Inherency, Dan L. Burk, Mark A. Lemley

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dispute Over The Meaning Of ‘Invention’ In Article 52(2) Epc: The Patentability Of Computer-Implemented Inventions In Europe, Justine Pila

Justine Pila

In 2002, the European Economic and Social Committee (ESC) described the doctrinal premise of the European Patent Office´s interpretation of Art. 52(2) of the European Patent Convention as "the product of legal casuistry". The purpose of the current article is to consider that description, and ask whether it is fair, or whether the EPO´s approach to Art. 52 is better ascribed to problems inherent in the EPC itself. Three issues are addressed to that end. The first is the object of the ESC´s criticism: Art. 52(2) and its interpretation by the EPO´s Boards of Appeal. The second is the context …

Using Liability Rules To Stimulate Local Innovation In Developing Countries: Application To Traditional Knowledge, Jerome H. Reichman, Tracey Lewis

Faculty Scholarship

When economists speak of an underlying legal structure that imposes an "absolute permission" requirement on access to, and use of, knowledge goods protected by intellectual property rights (IPRs), they typically have in mind the domestic patent and copyright laws. Under these and related intellectual property regimes, one cannot normally make use of a protected invention or creative work of authorship for specified purposes and for limited periods of time without prior authorization of the rights holder, typically in the form of a license.

When economists speak of liability rules, in contrast, they envision an underlying legal structure that permits third …

A Comparative Study Of United States And Japanese Laws On Collaborative Inventions, And The Impact Of Those Laws On Technology Transfers, Mary Lafrance

Scholarly Works

This research examines United States and Japanese laws regarding patent rights in collaborative inventions, and inquires whether these laws may impede technology transfers by creating uncertainty regarding the ownership, validity, or enforceability of the resulting patents, or by imposing undue obstacles to the licensing or assignment of such patents. Where the laws of the two countries differ, this paper compares the merits of each approach and also assesses whether the differing approaches could be troublesome for cross-border transactions.

One of the most significant differences between United States and Japanese law regarding joint inventions is in the requirement of consent for …

Planting A Standard: Proposing A Broad Reading Of In Re Elsner, Alicia L. Frostick

Michigan Law Review

This Note will show that one can read Elsner broadly to encompass both plant-type and widget-type inventions, and that applying Elsner to both plants and widgets is within the current statutory framework and case law. Such a reading would change the § 102 bar for inventions patentable under § 10i29 (hereinafter referred to as "widgets") as well as for plants. Part I of this Note argues that congressional sources require a flexible test-one that does not prejudice any objects under the Patent Act. Part II discusses the judicial interpretation of the Patent Act prior to Elsner in order to argue …