Law Commons^™

Return To A One-Year Robust Grace Period In United States Patent Law, Mark Kallevig

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

When Inventors Go Bankrupt, Joseph Dietz

Cybaris®

No abstract provided.

Patent Inconsistency, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Indiana Law Journal

Despite the promise of efficiency through the use of expert agency adjudication in U.S. patent law, administrative substitution continues to fall short. In a variety of ways, the decade-old system of Patent Office adjudication is simply an additional place to litigate rather than the robust technocratic alternative it was meant to be. These problems have arisen from important defects in the statutory design, but also from the enormous expansion and ascendancy of the Patent Office itself. Moreover, while duplicative litigation over patent validity is recognized and criticized, its scale and scope has eluded detailed empirical analysis until now. This Article …

Consequences For Patent Owners If A Patent Is Unconstitutionally Invalidated By The Patent Trial And Appeal Board, Mark Magas

Chicago-Kent Law Review

There have been many constitutional challenges against the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) since it was created by the America Invents Act in 2011. While the merits of these challenges have been widely debated, there has been little analysis of what would happen if one of these challenges succeeded and patents are found to have been unconstitutionally invalidated. This note examines how issues with waiver, retroactivity, and finality may prevent patent owners from getting their patent rights back, considering the type of constitutional challenge and the different stages of the PTAB process. While the odds are stacked against patent …

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.

Balancing The Competing Functions Of Patent Post-Grant Proceedings, Michael Xun Liu

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

Since the 1980s, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has amended or revoked patents through post-grant proceedings. These are quasi-judicial proceedings that are often used to resolve patent disputes. But aside from adjudicating private disputes, post-grant proceedings also aim to protect the public against invalid patents, create more certainty in patent rights, and bolster confidence in the patent system. These functions are often described as “examinational” because they rely on the PTO’s ability to reexamine the validity of issued patents.

This Article explores the extent to which post-grant proceedings under the America Invents Act (AIA) perform examinational functions. Although …

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 …

Uncertainty About Real Parties In Interest And Privity In Aia Trials, Evan Day, Kevin Patariu, Bing Ai

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Ptab Precedential Decision: Putting The Hammer Down On Filing Serial Petitions?, Ashley N. Klein, Warren J. Thomas

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

Petitioners for inter partes review proceedings under the America Invents Act routinely file serial petitions to challenge a single patent. Patent owners have criticized such “follow-on” petitions as abusive. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s recent precedential opinion in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017), lays out seven non-exhaustive factors to guide the Board’s consideration of such “follow-on” petitions. This Article summarizes the Board’s analysis of follow-on petitions prior to General Plastic, examines how General Plastic has affected petitioners’ success in having such petitions instituted, and suggests strategies for practitioners …

To Stay Or Not To Stay Pending Ipr? That Should Be A Simpler Question, Joel Sayres, Julie Wahlstrand

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Master Of The Petition: Exploring The Tension Between The Ptab And Petitioners In Controlling The Scope Of Aia Trials, Raja N. Saliba, Grant Shackelford

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Yes, The Ptab Is Unconstitutional, Gregory Dolin, Md

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

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 …

The Post-Grant Life: Coordinating & Strategizing Challenges Of Issued Patents In Multiple Continents, Karen E. Sandrik

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

With the enactment of the Leahy-Smith American Invents Act (AIA), U.S. patent law gained a new post-grant opposition system and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). While the U.S. post-grant opposition system has some similarities to the post-grant systems, such as that in the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Canada, and Australia, there are also notable differences. Navigating one’s own post-grant system can be challenging, but doing so in multiple patent offices around the world is daunting. Differences in these proceedings not only present the potential for parties to make costly errors, but also to engage in strategic behavior. …

I Fought The Shaw: A Game Theory Framework And Approach To The District Courts' Struggle With Ipr Estoppel, Andrew V. Moshirnia

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

May You Live In Interesting Times: Patent Law In The Supreme Court, Seth P. Waxman

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Trust: A Model For Disclosure In Patent Law, Ari Ezra Waldman

Indiana Law Journal

How to draw the line between public and private is a foundational, first-principles question of privacy law, but the answer has implications for intellectual property, as well. This project is one in a series of papers about first-person disclosures of information in the privacy and intellectual property law contexts, and it defines the boundary between public and nonpublic information through the lens of social science —namely, principles of trust.

Patent law’s public use bar confronts the question of whether legal protection should extend to information previously disclosed to a small group of people. I present evidence that shows that current …

The Big Patent Short: Hedge Fund Challenges To Pharmaceutical Patents And The Need For Financial Regulation, Ariel D. Multak

Fordham Journal of Corporate & Financial Law

The enactment of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011 ushered in a new system for post-grant patent review. In the interest of enhancing the efficiency of the patent regime by invalidating “bad” patents, certain requirements were relaxed. For example, the AIA created an examination process called inter partes review, which allows a party without legal standing to challenge the validity of a patent in front of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. In the pharmaceutical patent context, it was expected that inter partes review would be utilized mostly by generic drug makers seeking to invalidate patents without incurring the …

Are Universities Special?, Shubha Ghosh

Akron Law Review

Universities offer a space for development of ideas, exploration of basic research, and productive outlets for creation and invention. As such, they are key to the innovation environment within which intellectual property laws operate. Although scholarship has focused on universities as institutions counter to other institutions like markets and government, less attention has been paid to universities as organizations, a site for governance through detailed rules and commonly understood norms. When understood as an organization, universities display three overlapping, but distinct models: one of pure research, one of pure commercialization, and one of public purpose. These three models together define …

Smoke And Mirrors: America Invents Act 2011: A Chill In The Air, Robert I. Reis

Akron Intellectual Property Journal

The primary focus of this article is on but a few of the distinct representations reflected in the provisions of the Act and their implications as America Invents is phased in over the next eighteen months. These first three changes address (1) the backlog in the Patent Office by hiring additional examiners, (2) the elimination of the best mode requirement as a defense in an infringement action, (3) the expanding adjudicatory role of the Patent Office in supplemental reviews, derivation proceedings, intra partes review or a post-grant review relative to constitutional due process and separation of powers questions, and (4) …

Minority Report: Real Patent Reform, Maybe Later - The America Invents Act And The Quasi-Recodification Solution, Thomas C. Folsom

Akron Intellectual Property Journal

This Article has three parts. In Part One, I describe what Congress claims to have done, then what the Act actually has done, and therefore what is the most that can be hoped to come from it. In considering what Congress has done, I briefly outline the theoretical basis of the new hybrid system, neither first-to-invent nor first-to-file, but rather a "first to declare" system with a one-year grace period that is both a shield and a sword to the declarant. More importantly, Congress has indicated it believes the new system is compatible with the Constitutional grant, and I suggest …

America Invents The Supplemental Examination, But Retains The Duty Of Candor: Questions And Implications, Lisa A. Dolak

Akron Intellectual Property Journal

This paper considers these duty-of-candor-related issues-issues that the USPTO, the courts, patent owners, and patent challengers may face in the wake of the enactment of the AIA's provisions relating to supplemental examination, But first, by way of background, Part II presents an overview of the legislation relating to supplemental examination and explores how supplemental examination might operate, in light of its apparent goals. Part III considers questions relating to the overlay of supplemental examination on the existing U.S. patent application and enforcement regime, with particular focus on its interplay with the applicant's duty of candor. As that section illustrates, the …

The American Invents Act And The Best Mode Requirement: Where Do We Go From Here?, Andrew Thomas Robinson

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Public Interest Over Private Prejudice? The Public Interest Exception To The Defense Of Laches And The Fourth Circuit's Clean Slate, Christopher A. Mull

Brooklyn Law Review

The trademark cancellation petitions and subsequent appeals surrounding the Washington Redskins’ allegedly disparaging trademarks lay useful groundwork in determining the applicability of the equitable defense of laches in the face of a purported greater public interest. The Lanham Act gives individuals the power to petition to cancel federally registered marks that may be disparaging to a group of individuals, while also permitting trademark holders to assert the equitable defense of laches in the event of unreasonable delay and consequential prejudice. In Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, the District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit held that …

The 'Four Cs' Of Joint Inventorship: A Practical Framework For Determining Joint Inventorship, Bradley M. Krul

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Unraveling The Uspto's Tangled Web: An Empirical Analysis Of The Complex World Of Post-Issuance Patent Proceedings, Mark Consilvio, Jonathan R.K. Stroud

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

More Than Bric-A-Brac: Testing Chinese Exceptionalism In Patenting Behavior Using Comparative Empirical Analysis, Jay P. Kesan, Alan Marco, Richard Miller

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

Although many developing economies are increasingly influencing the global economy, China’s influence has been the greatest of these by far. Once hindered from competition by political and economic restrictions, China is now a major economic player. As China’s economic might has grown, so too has the demand for intellectual property protection for technologies originating from China. In this article, we present a detailed empirical study of Chinese patenting trends in the United States and the implications of these trends for the global economy. We compare these trends to patenting trends from earlier decades. Specifically, we compare Chinese patenting trends to …

Mastering Patent Claim Construction: A Patent Special Master's Perspective, Robert J. Rando

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Real Separation Of Powers Or Separation Of Law: Can An Article I Administrative Agency Nullify An Article Iii Federal Court Judgment?, Shashank Upadhye, Adam Sussman

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

This Article concerns whether and how Article I administrative agencies can overturn the final judgment of an Article III federal court. The Article identifies if there really is a constitutional crisis afoot because of a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. It also addresses the concern that the federal court is the final arbiter of a legal dispute and that neither Congress nor an agency can step in to undo that which the federal court has done. The Article focuses on the newly enacted America Invents Act and the current use of administrative agency proceeding to reexamine issued patents …

Dissenting State Patent Regimes, Camilla A. Hrdy

IP Theory

No abstract provided.