Law Commons^™

Opening The Door To Efficient Infringement: Ebay, Inc. V. Mercexchange, L.L.C., Sheri J. Engelken

Akron Intellectual Property Journal

Before the Supreme Court's decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., the Federal Circuit's "general rule" held sway: after a finding of patent infringement, trial courts were expected to issue permanent injunctions to halt any continuing infringement "absent exceptional circumstances." That general rule was intended to protect a patentee's right to exclude others from making, using, selling, or offering to sell the invention during the monopoly period enjoyed by the patentee. The Supreme Court in eBay rejected the Federal Circuit's general rule, placing the determination of whether and on what terms, if any, to grant a permanent injunction in …

Ebay's Practical Effect: Two Differing Visions, Jay Dratler Jr.

Akron Intellectual Property Journal

This short paper examines the likely effect of the Court's three opinions on the actual practice of intellectual property cases in their remedial phase. The first part briefly discusses the unanimous opinion and its likely economic effect in increasing the already daunting complexity-and therefore the already considerable cost-of intellectual property litigation. The second part examines the first concurring opinion and the effect of its implicit suggestion that nothing much has really changed. The third part examines the possible practical effect of the second concurring opinion. The conclusion then offers a few general observations on where remedial practice in patent cases …

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 …

Are The Secrecy Order Compensation Provisions Of The Patent Act Constitutional Under The Fifth Amendment?, Adam J. Citrin

Akron Intellectual Property Journal

The secrecy order provisions of the Patent Act' raise a number of issues under the U.S. Constitution. The primary focus of this note is on the Fifth Amendment issues raised by the Invention Secrecy Act.

Patent Litigation In Japan, David W. Hill, Shinichi Murata

Akron Intellectual Property Journal

This article will explore how patent litigation in Japan has changed and will also compare and contrast aspects of patent litigation in the U.S. and Japan.

In Part II, we show recent statistical data on Japanese patent infringement litigation. Parts III and IV briefly review the Japanese judicial system and legal professionals in the area of intellectual property. Part V addresses patent-infringement actions in Japan and the recent amendments of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Patent Law. Next, Parts VI and VII discuss infringement analysis and possible defenses in patent-infringement litigation. Part VIII reviews how to calculate the …

The Protection Of Property Rights In Computer Software, Edward W. Rilee

Akron Law Review

During the last decade a number of attempts have been made by the courts in the realm of patent and copyright law to settle the issue of the protection of property rights in computer software. These traditional methods of protection, however, have not been able to assimilate this relatively new technological invention. Likewise, at the start of a new decade, little or no progress towards a comprehensive form of software protection can be detected. This paper will examine the problems associated with using federal patent or copyright law to provide computer software protection and discuss why state trade secret protection …

The Human Genome: A Patenting Dilemma, Pamela Docherty

Akron Law Review

This Comment will address the conflict between the U.S. patent laws and biotechnology by focusing on the NIH patent application.

The first part of this Comment discusses the objectives and statutory requirements of the patent system, which the NIH application purportedly did not meet. Next, this Comment focuses on the debate between NIH and its detractors. It explains NIH's reasons for its actions and discusses the criticisms leveled at the agency. Finally, this Comment presents solutions to the problems that have been uncovered by this debate regarding the patentability of genes.

Hilmer Doctrine And Patent System Harmonization: What Does A Foreign Inventor Have At Stake?, Kevin L. Leffel

Akron Law Review

The following discussion begins with a historical analysis that outlines the boundaries and illustrates the basis of Hilmer doctrine. Examples of the effects of Hilmer doctrine are presented as part of that discussion. Next, effects of the application of Hilmer doctrine after an interference are discussed followed by an analysis of the Patent Harmonization Act of 1992.

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 …

Alice In Wonderland Meets The U.S. Patent System, Jay Dratler Jr.

Akron Law Review

The attached article outlines in some detail why I think it matters in two particular fields—software and business methods—in which the PTO has issued, and the Federal Circuit has upheld, what I think are too many patents on non-inventions. The following remarks take a broader and longer-range view of patents generally.

The first reason why having a properly balanced patent system matters relates to the historical period in which we find ourselves. The world is now in the process of transferring the self-evident benefits of robust innovation, free markets, and free trade from Anglo-American and other advanced societies to the …

Phillips V. Awh: Changing The Name Of The Game, David Potashnik

Akron Law Review

The Federal Circuit granted an en banc hearing of Phillips v. AWH Corp. to address the dichotomy existing in the Circuit’s jurisprudence. Because of the impact of claim construction on every litigated patent, Phillips has been deemed one of the most important cases in patent law since the landmark case of Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc. in the mid-1990s. In order to help the reader understand the implications of the case, the remainder of this Note is divided into four sections. Section II details the history and development of claim construction. Section I II discusses the Phillips case, including the …

The "Printed Publication" Bar After Klopfenstein: Has The Federal Circuit Changed The Way Professors Should Talk About Science?, Sean B. Seymore

Akron Law Review

The key question for universities is how Klopfenstein will affect the way that science professors talk about science. To answer this question, Part II explores the conflict between a professor’s need to disseminate research and the university’s potential interest in seeking patent protection. The research talk, one of the most important forums for communication in the science community, is an objective measure of research success and scholarship. When a professor produces a patentable invention, university TTOs must balance the professor’s need to discuss the research against the strict statutory requirement to file within one year of public disclosure. If a …