Law Commons^™

Meeting The Challenges To America's Economic Future: Charting The Course In U.S. Intellectual Property & Innovation Policy, With An Introduction By Megan M. La Belle, International Ip Commercialization Council

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Prescription For Biopharmaceutical Patents: A Cure For Inter Partes Review Ailments, Alex A. Jurisch

Seattle University Law Review

The patent system in the United States was forever changed with the introduction of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) in September of 2011. The AIA brought sweeping changes to American patent law in order to align the U.S. with much of the rest of the world by changing the invention priority from a “first to invent” to a “first to file” system. The first section of this note will provide a brief overview of the substance of inter partes reviews and some of the most critical negatives that have become apparent since 2013. The second section of this Note …

Update On Antitrust And Pay-For-Delay: Evaluating “No Authorized Generic” And “Exclusive License” Provisions In Hatch-Waxman Settlements, Saami Zain

San Diego Law Review

In Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, the United States Supreme Court held that a patent litigation settlement where a branded drug company pays a generic drug company to end the litigation and delay launching its generic may violate the antitrust laws. Although the decision ended years of controversy over whether such settlements were subject to antitrust scrutiny, many issues remain unresolved concerning the lawfulness of these settlements. In particular, courts have struggled in assessing the legality of patent settlements between branded and generic drug manufacturers involving non-cash compensation or benefits. This article discusses one type of non-cash compensation that is …

The Porous Court-Agency Border In Patent Law, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Akron Law Review

The progression toward reevaluating patent validity in the administrative, rather than judicial, setting became overtly substitutionary in the America Invents Act. No longer content to encourage court litigants to rely on Patent Office expertise for faster, cheaper, and more accurate validity decisions, Congress in the AIA took steps to force a choice. The result is an emergent border between court and agency power in the U.S. patent system. By design, the border is not absolute. Concurrent activity in both settings over the same dispute remains possible. What is troubling is the systematic weakening of this border by Patent Office encroachments …

Definite Indefiniteness Of "Molecular Weight" As A Claim Term For Polymer-Related Patents, Ping-Hsun Chen

The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law

The molecular weight of a polymer is not just a number for a single molecule. In fact, molecular weight measurement is based on a large volume of molecules of the same polymer. Due to the non-uniformity of molecular weights, there are several methods to measure an “average molecular weight” of a polymer. Unfortunately, the Federal Circuit in Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 789 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015), held that the term “molecular weight” in several polymer claims was indefinite, because the term could mean either peak average molecular weight, number average molecular weight, or weight average molecular …

The Proper Appellate Standard Of Review For Ptab Factual Findings Made Incidental To Claim Construction, A. David Brzozowski Ii

Catholic University Law Review

The America Invents Act (AIA) represents the most significant change to U.S. patent law since the 1952 Patent Act. Since its passage, the AIA has drawn wide support from the intellectual property community, primarily due to the new post-grant opposition proceedings the Act created.

However, certain aspects of the new system created by the AIA are controversial. Specifically, judges and practitioners alike debate which standard of review courts should apply to the factual findings made by the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) during these opposition proceedings. While the Federal Circuit has reviewed all factual findings made at the Patent …

State Immunity Doctrine: Demoting The Patent System, Charles C. Wong

Maine Law Review

Congress enacted the Patent Remedy Clarification Act (PRCA) in 1992, which authorized patent holders to sue a state for patent infringement in federal court. The PRCA clearly expressed Congress's intent to abrogate Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity as required by Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon. In 1996, Seminole Tribe v. Florida changed the landscape of congressional power to abrogate state immunity by declaring Congress may do so only if acting pursuant to its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. In his dissent, Justice Stevens forecasted that the Seminole Tribe decision would effectively leave patent holders injured by an …

The Perfection And Priority Rules For Security Interests In Copyrights, Patents, And Trademarks: The Current Structural Dissonance And Proposed Legislative Cures, Thomas M. Ward

Maine Law Review

The structural legal dissonance that undermines the effective financing of federal intellectual property rights (patents, trademarks registrations, copyrights, and maskworks) is rooted in the prominence of title in both the early conceptual history of personal property financing and in the language of the federal tract recording acts. While genuine ownership transfers have always represented the prototype under the federal intellectual property recording statutes, transfers intended for security were also originally included because of the early judicial thinking about the importance of title to the validity (against third parties) of a “mortgage” right in intangible personal property. As products of their …

Oracle V. Google And The Scope Of A Computer Program Copyright, Dennis S. Karjala

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

The Mystery Of Section 253(B), Matthew Gagnier

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

In 2014, Elon Musk, the renowned and socially-minded CEO of Tesla Motors, Inc., posted a blog on Tesla’s website that stated the company would be freeing up many of its patents involved in the creation of the company’s electric cars to any interested party. Yet again, Musk astounded the public by choosing the betterment of society over corporate profits—stirring up a more positive image than any other corporate personality. But there are numerous questions that Musk’s positive PR have drowned out: Where can you access the patents?; How did freeing up the patents get past the other executive officers and …

A Bridge Between Copyright And Patent Law: Towards A Modern-Day Reapplication Of The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act, Timothy T. Hsieh

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

This Paper analyzes the history of the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act (SCPA), 17 U.S.C. §§ 901–914, and asks why the statute is so seldom used in intellectual property litigation. Afterwards, this Paper makes the argument that the SCPA should be used more in intellectual property litigation, perhaps in tandem with patent litigation, and can be a viable form of protection for semiconductor micro-fabrication companies or integrated circuit design companies engaged in pioneering innovations within the cutting-edge field of semiconductor technology.