Law Commons^™

Without Clear Rules, Ptab Practices May Run Afoul Of The Apa, Arpita Bhattacharyya, Rachel L. Emsley

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Assimilation Of Patent Law, Peter Lee

Michigan Law Review

Although tensions between universality and exceptionalism apply throughout law, they are particularly pronounced in patent law, a field that deals with highly technical subject matter. This Article explores these tensions by investigating an underappreciated descriptive theory of Supreme Court patent jurisprudence. Significantly extending previous scholarship, it argues that the Court’s recent decisions reflect a project of eliminating “patent exceptionalism” and assimilating patent doctrine to general legal principles (or, more precisely, to what the Court frames as general legal principles). Among other motivations, this trend responds to rather exceptional patent doctrine emanating from the Federal Circuit in areas as varied as …

Section 337 And The Gatt: A Necessary Protection Or An Unfair Trade Practice?, Nathan G. Knight Jr.

Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law

No abstract provided.

Substance, Procedure, And The Divided Patent Power, Joseph S. Miller

Scholarly Works

The Patent Office has the power to issue rules that “shall govern the conduct of proceedings in the Office,” 35 U.S.C. § 2(b)(2), but not the power to issue substantive rules. It has been this way since 1870, when Congress first granted the Office this regulatory power, in nearly these same words. Just how broad is this grant? How should a reviewing court determine whether a challenged Patent Office rule is procedural (and thus valid) or substantive (and thus invalid)? It is remarkable that in 2010, 140 years after Congress gave the Patent Office this power, the proper sorting standard …

Judicial Review Of Copyright Examination, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Copyright in qualifying United States works has always arisen upon creation. For many years, however, rights could be lost by failing to, e.g., provide notice, register and deposit copies when works were first published. In 1909 formal requirements were reduced, and the Supreme Court, in 1939, concluded that registration with the U.S Copyright Office was unnecessary to retain rights. Despite that, owners could not sue infringers without having registered.

Regarding registration as helpful if not obligatory, this paper compares the burden on moving parties in circumstances in which registration decisions may be challenged in courts.

Zurko, Gartside, And Lee: How Might They Affect Patent Prosecution?, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Interactions between the PTO and the courts are more complex than for most agencies. PTO decisions may be challenged not only directly but also collaterally. In the latter context, the Supreme Court has sometimes been critical of the lax standards applied when issuing patents.

While being upheld in collateral review is the ultimate issue of concern to patentees, patents must first be obtained. Thus, this paper focuses on direct challenges to PTO actions--and more specifically, on the review arising under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141-44 as addressed in Zurko, Gartside, and Lee.

Since the Supreme Court reversed the …

Administrative Procedure Act Standards Governing Judicial Review Of Findings Of Fact Made By The Patent And Trademark Office, Peter J. Corcoran Iii

Richmond Journal of Law & Technology

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO") is one of the oldest agencies in the American administrative system. Throughout the history of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit") and its predecessor courts, the factual decisions of the PTO administrative boards have been reviewed by the same standard that is applied to decisions of district courts. The standard that has been used is the "clearly erroneous" standard, and its use to review PTO decisions dates back over one hundred years.

Zurko Raises Issue Of Patentability Standards, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

In re Zurko isolated one of the oldest U.S. agencies from mainstream administrative law because the Federal Circuit has chosen to review the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office more as it would a federal district court. The case is important, if only because the Supreme Court rarely treats the PTO as an agency. Also, regardless of whether the issue or the Federal Circuit itself is the primary target, the decision could have a major effect on the type of case most commonly encountered by that court.

Brief Amici Curiae Of Intellectual Property Professors In Support Of Petitoner, Thomas G. Field Jr., John F. Duffy, Craig Allen Nard

Law Faculty Scholarship

Congress enacted the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in 1946 as a comprehensive statute to regulate the field of federal administrative law. In holding that the PTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences is not subject to the standards of judicial review set forth in the APA, the [Zurko] decision isolates patent law from the rest of administrative law and undermines the APA’s goal of achieving consistency and uniformity in federal administrative law.

Amicus Brief Of Thomas G. Field, Jr., Pro Se Supporting In Principle, On Rehearing The Commissioner Of Patents And Trademarks, Thomas G. Field Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

To those unfamiliar with the long, often bitter, struggle over equally compelling needs to provide, on the one hand, innovators with an adequate opportunity to recoup risk capital and to avoid, on the other, erecting unwarranted barriers to competition, a dispute over the proper scope of review for Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) patent appeals will seem both trivial and arcane. This case involves more than semantics -- its resolution turns on the allocation of power among three, and arguably four, branches of government. This Court, itself, has a stake.

Promulgating Requirements For Admission To Prosecute Patent Applications, Michelle J. Burke, Thomas G. Field Jr

Law Faculty Scholarship

Among federal agencies, the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office is unique in its ability to require attorneys to submit to special requirements, such as passing a six hour examination, before being permitted to practice before it in patent cases. Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that an individual so admitted to practice before the PTO need not comply with state requirements otherwise applicable to those practicing law.

The first part of this article discusses how this requirement came to be. It then discusses how the PTO determines whether an individual is fit to sit for the patent examination, focusing …