Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Patent Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Christa J. Laser
Brief Of Patent Law Professors As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Christa J. Laser
Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents
This Court should reverse the Federal Circuit and hold that IPR estoppel extends only to grounds that were raised or could have been raised during the IPR proceeding. Estoppel would therefore extend to instituted grounds, whether raised during the proceeding or not. Estoppel would not extend to uninstituted grounds, such as grounds which might have been challenged in the petition for review but were not.
Brief Amici Curiae Of The Progressive Intellectual Property Law Association And The Union For The Public Domain In Partial Support Of Petitioners, Eldred V. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003), Michael H. Davis
Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents
This case affords this Court a unique opportunity to do more by doing less. Judicial restraint generally impels this Court to decide only essential constitutional issues. Here the issues are uniquely situated so that the decision of only one issue—that of retrospective extensions—will do far more than merely defer the remaining issue of prospective extensions, but will render that issue permanently beyond any need of judicial review. If this Court decides that retrospective extensions are unconstitutional, it will not only be able to avoid deciding the other issue today of whether a prospective extension violates the “limited times” Constitutional provision3 …
Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Taxpayers Asset Project Of The Center For Study Of Responsive Law In Support Of Petitioners, Genetics Institute, Inc., Et. Al. V. Amgen Inc., 502 U.S. 856 (1991), Michael H. Davis
Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents
Although a patent appears to be a private right, that private right is only "secondary," as this Court has stated, to the public bargain of which it is but a part. The focus must always be whether the public has received full information about the nature of the invention so that future inventors may reuse and improve it. The decision below reflects a failure to recognize the patent's monopoly nature and as a result abandons the "best mode" rule forbidding the inventor form concealing the best way of replicating the invention. By turning the subjective test of "best mode" into …