Law Commons^™

Bright Stars Or Unreliable Compasses: Navigating Patent Definiteness During The Fourth Industrial Revolution, N. Thane Bauz

Texas A&M Journal of Property Law

This Article traces the evolution of the definiteness requirement over the course of two centuries. From the time of inventions relating to flour mills, the definiteness requirement evolved into the consequence for drafting uninterpretable claims. Without considering the reasons for this evolution, the Supreme Court in its Nautilus decision returned the standard for assessing definiteness to its root form. Given the consequences are the loss of patent rights, this Article grapples with the Supreme Court’s decision during an era where complex and convergent technologies are more commonplace. The Article also analyzes empirical evidence six years before and six years after …

Unravelling Inventorship, Toshiko Takenaka

Articles

Inventorship, who made an invention, is one of the most important concepts under the U.S. patent system. Incorrect inventorship determinations result in patent invalidity not only because U.S. Constitution requires granting patents to true inventors, but also first-inventorto- file novelty inherited many aspects of first-to-invent novelty which depended on inventorship whether to include prior inventions as prior art. Correcting inventorship may result in sharing patent exclusivity with competitors, which forfeits profits necessary to recover expensive development costs. However, the standard to determine inventorship has been called muddy by judges and commentators because neither the Patent Act nor case law provide …

Patenting New Uses For Old Inventions, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

A bedrock principle of patent law is that old inventions cannot be patented. And a new use for an old invention does not render the old invention patentable. This is because patent law requires novelty--an invention must be new. But while a new use for an old invention does not make the old invention patentable, the new use itself might be patentable. In fact, new-use patents comprise a significant part of the patent landscape-particularly in pharmaceuticals, when drug companies obtain new-use patents to repurpose old drugs. This trend has fueled debates over follow-on innovation and patent quality. But there is …

The Cost Of Novelty, Will Nicholson Price Ii

Articles

Patent law tries to spur the development of new and better innova­tive technology. But it focuses much more on “new” than “better”—and it turns out that “new” carries real social costs. I argue that patent law promotes innovation that diverges from existing technology, either a little (what I call “differentiating innovation”) or a lot (“exploring innova­tion”), at the expense of innovation that tells us more about existing technology (“deepening innovation”). Patent law’s focus on newness is unsurprising, and fits within a well-told narrative of innovative diversity accompanied by market selection of the best technologies. Unfortunately, innovative diversity brings not only …

Patenting New Uses For Old Inventions, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law Review

A bedrock principle of patent law is that old inventions cannot be patented. And a new use for an old invention does not render the old invention patentable. This is because patent law requires novelty—an invention must be new. But while a new use for an old invention does not make the old invention patentable, the new use itself might be patentable. In fact, new-use patents comprise a significant part of the patent landscape—particularly in pharmaceuticals, when drug companies obtain new-use patents to repurpose old drugs. This trend has fueled debates over follow-on innovation and patent quality. But there is …

The Cost Of Novelty, W. Nicholson Price Ii

Law & Economics Working Papers

Patent law tries to spur the development of new, better, innovative technology. But it focuses much more on “new” than “better” — and it turns out that “new” carries real social costs. I argue that patent law promotes innovation that diverges from existing technology, either a little (what I call “differentiating innovation”) or a lot (“exploring innovation”), at the expense of innovation that tells us more about existing technology (“deepening innovation”). Patent law’s focus on newness is unsurprising, and fits within a well-told narrative of innovative diversity accompanied by market selection of the best technologies. Unfortunately, innovative diversity brings not …

Reinvention, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

It is axiomatic that once an invention has been patented, it cannot be patented again. This aligns with the quid pro quo theory of patents — the public would receive nothing new in exchange for the second patent. Enforcing this rule is done through the novelty requirement, which bars a patent if the invention is already known. But the rule is hard to justify if the original patentee reneged on the quid pro quo by inadequately disclosing how to make and use the invention. The inadequate disclosure suggests that the original inventor did not invent anything and the public received …

Legal Fictions And The Role Of Information In Patent Law, Craig Allen Nard

Faculty Publications

The common law plays a prominent role in the development of American patent law. Judicial stewardship of the patent space can be seen as an institutional advantage, one that compares favorably to punctuated, and potentially more distortive or inartful, congressional action. The common law allows for a certain flexibility, and despite its deep allegiance to tradition, crust forms more readily on statutory law than the common law. One of the tools that reflects this institutional litheness is the use of legal fictions, which have been employed by judges in various areas of the law seemingly since the beginning of the …

Novartis Ag V. Union Of India: "Evergreening," Trips, And "Enhanced Efficacy" Under Section 3(D), Dorothy Du

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Intellectual Property Rights In An Attorney’S Work Product, Ralph D. Clifford

University of Massachusetts Law Review

This paper addresses the main intellectual property consequences of practicing law and whether attorneys can prevent others from using their work-product. The article does not assume that the reader is an expert in intellectual property law; instead, it is designed to answer the types of questions practitioners have about their rights. There is one primary legal code that impacts attorneys’ rights to their work-product: the copyright law. As a broad statement, copyright law protects how an author expresses ideas. It is the system that is used to prevent others from copying a book, a movie, a musical composition, or even …

The Short-Sighted Attack On Patent Eligibility Of Healthcare Related Patents, Gregory Dolin

All Faculty Scholarship

On March 20, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously decided the case of Mayo Collaborative Svc. v. Prometheus Labs. At issue was a patent, held by Prometheus that taught doctors how to adjust the amount of thiopurine (a drug used for treatment of a variety of autoimmune diseases) administered to a patient. In an opinion by Justice Breyer, the Court held Prometheus’s invention to not be patent eligible and invalidated the patent. Though I believe that the reasoning the Court employed was erroneous and highly problematic (of which more later), the decision could have been viewed as …

Rethinking Novelty In Patent Law, Sean B. Seymore

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The novelty requirement seeks to ensure that a patent will not issue if the public already possesses the invention. Although gauging possession is usually straightforward for simple inventions, it can be difficult for those in complex fields like biotechnology, chemistry, and pharmaceuticals. For example, if a drug company seeks to patent a promising molecule that was disclosed but never physically made in the prior art, the key possession question is whether a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) could have made it at the time of the prior disclosure. Put differently, could the PHOSITA rely on then-existing knowledge …

"Willful Patent Filing": A Criminal Procedure Protecting Traditional Knowledge, Vincent M. Smoczynski

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article explores the interaction between current intellectual property regimes and traditional knowledge and concludes that national laws currently in place inadequately protect traditional knowledge holders. When property rights are granted on traditional knowledge, the effects can extend not only to the indigenous communities, but to the surrounding ecosystems and the global market. Commercialization and increased demand leads to shortages in natural resources and increased prices. Therefore, in order to ensure that patent applicants are deterred from acquiring property rights in traditional knowledge, as well that traditional knowledge holders receive proper benefits for their labor and knowledge, this article advocates …

Tiered Originality And The Dualism Of Copyright Incentives, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

All Faculty Scholarship

Professor Balganesh responds to Gideon Parchomovsky & Alex Stein, Originality, 95 Va. L. Rev. 1505 (2009), arguing that their proposal can perhaps be accommodated under current copyright doctrine.

Originality, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein

All Faculty Scholarship

In this Essay we introduce a model of copyright law that calibrates authors’ rights and liabilities to the level of originality in their works. We advocate this model as a substitute for the extant regime that unjustly and inefficiently grants equal protection to all works satisfying the “modicum of creativity” standard. Under our model, highly original works will receive enhanced protection and their authors will also be sheltered from suits by owners of preexisting works. Conversely, authors of less original works will receive diminished protection and incur greater exposure to copyright liability. We operationalize this proposal by designing separate rules …

Is Novelty Obsolete - Chronicling The Irrelevance Of The Invention Date In U.S. Patent Law, Dennis D. Crouch

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

This paper presents a normative study of patent prosecution by examining the role that invention-date-based novelty rights play in U.S. patent law. Three sources inform the primary results: the prosecution history files of 21,000+ patent applications filed in the past decade; a survey of 1,000+ patent practitioners regarding their use of the novelty provisions of the Patent Act; and a collection of 11,000,000+ prior art references cited in recently-issued patents. Additional compilations of prosecution file histories for patents identified as either (1) valuable or (2) worthless supplement these data sets and allow for an evaluation of the differential importance of …

Knowledge, Competition And The Innovation: Is Stronger Ipr Protection Really Needed For More And Better Innovations, Giovanni Dosi, Luigi Marengo, Corrado Pasquali

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The main questions addressed in this Article are thus: given that growth is a highly desirable phenomenon and that it is primarily spurred by technological innovation, how should society solve the problem of favoring a sufficient level of investments in R&D? In particular, is it necessarily true and always desirable that, independent of any other consideration, society should protect innovators from competition and shelter them in a legally protected and enforced monopoly? Is it true that the real source of economic value of new recipes is only found in the blueprints of ideas that those recipes implement? Is it necessarily …

Protection For Indigenous Peoples And Their Traditional Knowledge: Would A Registry System Reduce The Misappropriation Of Traditional Knowledge?, Thomas J, Krumenacher

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

This Comment examines the controversy over whether a registry system is the best way to prevent Western inventors from obtaining intellectual property protection for traditional knowledge that has been misappropriated from underdeveloped parts of the world. This dilemma exists because traditional knowledge often constitutes patentable subject matter, most indigenous peoples do not subscribe to a Western "property rights" view of the world, and exploitation of traditional knowledge has become easier through improved communication capabilities. This Comment argues in favor of a registry system to catalog traditional knowledge; patent examiners would deny patent protection to any invention that replicates traditional knowledge. …

Something Borrowed, Something New: The Changing Role Of Novelty In Idea Protection Law, Mary Lafrance

Scholarly Works

Ideas that do not qualify for legal protection, it is well settled, are free to the world once they have been disclosed. Yet states vary considerably in the scope of, and prerequisites for, legal protection granted to ideas. Variations in state approaches to idea protection are well documented. The states most often highlighted for their contrasting approaches are New York and California. Idea protection doctrine in these two jurisdictions differs primarily in the role played by the concept of “novelty.” There is no one authoritative definition of novelty in this context; indeed, courts typically use the term without defining it. …

Patently Unconstitutional: The Geographical Limitation On Prior Art In A Small World, Margo A. Bagley

Faculty Articles

Part I of this Article provides an overview of § 102 of the Patent Act, the role of prior art in the patentability analysis, and the origin of the limitation on relevant non-patent, nonpublished art to that existing "in this country." Part II then analyzes the constitutional deficiency of the limitation in light of the express and implied purposes of the Intellectual Property Clause as informed by judicial decisions, technological changes, global contraction, and expanded notions of inventive research sources. Policy concerns are the focus of Part III, which discusses how § 102's geographical limitation facilitates forms of "biopiracy," conflicts …

Internet Business Model Patents: Obvious By Analogy, Margo A. Bagley

Faculty Articles

Part I of this Article provides a look at Internet business model patents in light of key patentability requirements mandated by the Patent Act. Part II traces the evolution of the analogous art component of the non-obviousness determination and illustrates how the malleability of the doctrine, as exemplified in several Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decisions, has particular relevance to prior art definitions for Internet business model patents. Part III of this Article then examines the doctrine of equivalents and explores how the likelihood of improper application of this doctrine in the Internet business model context is increased. …

Analyze This: A Law And Economics Agenda For The Patent System, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

Legal scholars and economists might enhance the value and impact of their work by making more effective use of each other's knowledge and capabilities. Legal scholars can offer a more nuanced understanding of the legal rules that underlie the patent system and the doctrinal levers that might be manipulated in furtherance of public policy goals. Economists bring to bear a set of analytical and methodological tools that could shed considerable light on what these doctrinal levers are doing and which of them we ought to be manipulating. Together, we have a better chance of asking the right questions and thinking …

The Substantial Identity Rule Under The Japanese Novelty Standard, Toshiko Takenaka

Articles

This article compares the novelty standard under Japanese patent law with the novelty standard under American patent law. This article first explains the structure of the novelty and inventive step provisions under Japanese patent law and examines the interpretation and basic legal theories of these provisions. The inventive step standard developed out of the novelty standard. Thus, to understand the inventive step standard, it is necessary to understand the novelty standard.

Next, this article discusses the unique features of the Japanese novelty standard. The strict novelty requirements of the patent laws of the United States and European countries are contrasted …

Patenting The Human Genome, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

The increasing promise of federal funding for mapping and sequencing the human genome has brought with it renewed attention in the research science community to issues of intellectual property protection for products of biotechnology research. Echoing concerns raised a decade ago in the debate over commercialization of academic biomedical research, scientists have called for the free availability of all information generated through the Human Genome Project and have argued against allowing private intellectual property rights in such knowledge. Meanwhile, private parties have quietly been obtaining patents on bits and pieces of the human genome from the Patent and Trademark Office …

Statutory Protection Of Intellectual Property Rights, Richard G. Smith

Cleveland State Law Review

As intellectual property is an intangible, its identification and protection under legal process provides peculiar problems. Presently, intellectual property is protected primarily by statutory provisions, as the methods provided by common law have inherent frailty. For exemplary purposes, this exposition will be concerned solely with the problems arising from the domain of invention and discovery and the application of the provisions of the patent laws.