Law Commons^™

International Arbitration Of Sep Frand Royalties, Steven Pepe, Samuel Brenner, Michael Morales

Touro Law Review

Standard-essential patent royalty disputes have typically been litigated in U.S. federal district courts, but patent owners have recently started to file suit in courts across the globe, leading to issues of comity, anti-suit injunctions, and increased litigation costs. International arbitration provides a unique forum for parties to litigate these royalty disputes and avoid, or at least lessen the burden, of these issues. This Article explores the advantages and disadvantages of using international arbitration to resolve standard-essential patent royalty disputes.

A Closer Look At The "Eye" Test: The British Influence On Early American Design Patent Infringement Law, Mark D. Janis

IP Theory

The Supreme Court has asserted that “[t]he Patent Clause in our Constitution ‘was written against the backdrop’ of the English system.” That notion has a long lineage. In 1818, the author of an anonymous “Note on the Patent Laws,” widely assumed to be Justice Story, claimed that “[t]he patent acts of the United States are, in a great degree, founded on the principles and usages which have grown out of the English statute on the same subject.”

But these generalizations significantly overstate—and oversimplify—the influence of British law on the nascent American jurisprudence of patents. Early American jurists felt no reluctance …

Patent Prophylaxis: Expanding Access To Prep Through 28 U.S.C. § 1498, Jonathan A. Bell

William & Mary Law Review

Part I of this Note details the discovery of Truvada for PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] and the ongoing patent infringement litigation brought by HHS [United States Department of Health and Human Services], discusses the patents currently held by CDC and Gilead, and examines the shortcomings of infringement litigation as a means to expand access to the drug. Part II analyzes the mechanism of march-in rights under the Bayh-Dole Act and discusses two previously attempted applications for the HIV-management drug ritonavir to demonstrate why march-in rights will always fail to expand access to life-saving medications or reduce costs to consumers. Part III …

The (Unnoticed) Revitalization Of The Doctrine Of Equivalents, Daryl Lim

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Over the past century, few patent issues have been considered so often by the Supreme Court of the United States as the doctrine of equivalents (“DOE”). This judge-made rule deals with a question that lies at the heart of patent policy—what is the best way to define property rights in an invention? The doctrine gives patentees an opportunity to ensnare an accused device that does not literally infringe a patent claim if the accused device is substantially similar to each claim limitation. Patentees enjoy this advantage, but it comes at a cost to the public, who must face the …

Reconstruction Of The Reasonable Person Standard Under Chinese Patent Law, Weihong Yao, Robert H. Hu

Marquette Intellectual Property & Innovation Law Review

None

Treating Diagnostics: Protecting In Vitro Diagnostic Testing In An Uncertain § 101 Landscape, Emily Iroz Rich

Akron Law Review

Beyond question, medical diagnostic tests, they save lives. The diagnostic tests also contribute to the overall health of the U.S. economy. However, the current state of subject-matter eligibility for patent protection does not incentivize the research and development of these life-saving tools. Previous legislative and judicial efforts to fix subject-matter eligibility have failed. This article proposes a diagnostic patent act to allow the protection of in vitro diagnostic tests. The proposed diagnostic patent act would include safeguards to allow adequate access to fundamental research while incentivizing the return of investment to the patent holder. Safeguards would include exceptions to patent …

Negligent Innovation, Oskar Liivak

Florida State University Law Review

Innovation is the buzzword of our time. Everyone wants to be an innovator. Corporations strive to be innovative. All this hype is good. Technological innovation is accepted as the single most important driver of economic growth. We should be obsessed with innovation. As such, it is not at all surprising that innovation and technological commercialization lie at the heart of justifications for the patent system. But there is something quite odd about these theories and indeed with our patent system: they never actually require innovation. A patentee is not obligated to take on the risky work of development and commercialization. …

Negligent Innovation, Oskar Liivak

Florida State University Law Review

Innovation is the buzzword of our time. Everyone wants to be an innovator. Corporations strive to be innovative. All this hype is good. Technological innovation is accepted as the single most important driver of economic growth. We should be obsessed with innovation. As such, it is not at all surprising that innovation and technological commercialization lie at the heart of justifications for the patent system. But there is something quite odd about these theories and indeed with our patent system: they never actually require innovation. A patentee is not obligated to take on the risky work of development and commercialization. …

‘Substantial Portion’ Of A Patent: Quantitative Or Qualitative?, Matthew Rollin

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

This Article examines the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Life Technologies Corp., where the Court issued another requirement for patent infringement. Part II of this Article examines the text of the Patent Act and the history behind it. Part III further discusses the facts of Life Technologies Corp., to give more relevant background facts and history. Part IV focuses on the prior opinions of the case, including the district court’s ruling, appellate court’s decision, and the Supreme Court’s decision. Part V examines and concludes with the legal significance of Life Technologies Corp., the impact that it will have on future …

Saliency, Anchors & Frames: A Multicomponent Damages Experiment, Bernard Chao

Michigan Technology Law Review

Modern technology products contain thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands, of different features. Nonetheless, when electronics manufacturers are sued for patent infringement, these suits typically accuse only one feature, or in more complex suits, a handful of features, of actual patent infringement. But damages verdicts often do not reflect the relatively small contribution an individual patent makes to an infringing product. One study observed that verdicts in these types of cases average 9.98% of the price of the entire product. While both courts and commentators have blamed the law of patent damages, the role cognitive biases play in these outsized damages …

Patents For Sharing, Toshiko Takenaka

Michigan Technology Law Review

Spurred by the Internet, emerging technologies have changed the way commercial firms innovate and have made it possible for individuals to play an important role in that innovation. Producers in the Information Communication Technologies (ICT), and other sectors dealing with complex technologies with many separately patentable components, find it increasingly difficult to make products without infringing on patents held by others. Numerous overlapping patents often cover such products. Producers have developed a new way to use patents: as inclusive rights for sharing their technologies with others through cross-licensing and other private ordering arrangements in order to ensure the freedom to …

Will Delaware Be Different? An Empirical Study Of Tc Heartland And The Shift To Defendant Choice Of Venue, Ofer Eldar, Neel U. Sukhatme

Cornell Law Review

Why do some venues evolve into litigation havens while others do not? Venues might compete for litigation for various reasons, like enhancing their judges’ prestige and increasing revenues for the local bar. This competition is framed by the party that chooses the venue. Whether plaintiffs or defendants primarily choose venue is crucial because, we argue, the two scenarios are not symmetrical.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods LLC illustrates this dynamic. There, the Court effectively shifted venue choice in many patent infringement cases from plaintiffs to corporate defendants. We use TC Heartland to empirically …

The Road To Marshall: Of Venue, Trolls, And The Eastern District Of Texas, Jesus Efren Cano

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Solving The Riddle! Bridging The Gap In The Federal Circuit’S Definition Of “Regular And Established Place Of Business” To Prevent Patent Trolls From Forum Shopping, Michael A. Morales

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Determining Enhanced Damages After Halo Electronics: Still A Struggle?, Veronica Corcoran

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

35 U.S.C. § 284 of the Patent Act allows district courts to use their discretion to award enhanced damages up to three times the amount found or assessed in the case of patent infringement. This Comment will consider how the Supreme court of the United States’ holding in Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse electronics, Inc. changed the landscape of enhanced damages awards in light of willful infringement.

First, this Comment will examine the Federal Circuit’s approach that now embraces both an objective and subjective inquiry in determining enhanced damages, which may resolve the concern over the rigidity in the Seagate …

At&T V. Microsoft: Is This A Case Of Deepsouth Déjà Vu?, Christopher R. Rogers

Maine Law Review

It has been stated many times by various courts that the patent laws of the United States do not reach beyond the borders of the United States. In an age of expanding world commerce, the territorial reach of our patent laws has sometimes made it difficult for U.S. inventors to meaningfully protect their intellectual property. For example, the Supreme Court holding in Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp. opened up a loophole that allowed unlicensed U.S. manufacturers to essentially export patented inventions, thereby trampling on the patent rights of U.S. patent holders selling to foreign markets. The Deepsouth loophole has …

Adoption Of The Bayh-Dolye Act In Developed Countries: Added Presure For A Broad Research Exemption In The United States?, Michael S. Mireles

Maine Law Review

Numerous developed countries, most if not all members of the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), including Japan, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Spain, and Finland, have or are considering adopting legislation similar to the Bayh-Dole Act. These countries apparently believe that passage of legislation similar to the Bayh-Dole Act will lead to the transfer of government funded research results from the university laboratory to the marketplace and other economic activity. In the United States, the birthplace of the Bayh-Dole Act (the Act), it is not entirely clear whether its passage is the direct result …

The Cessation Of Innovation: An Inquiry Into Whether Congress Can And Should Strip The Supreme Court Of Its Appellate Jurisdiction To Entertain Patent Cases, Catherine Taylor

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Are Patents Really Limited To 20 Years?, Melody Wriz

Oklahoma Journal of Law and Technology

No abstract provided.

Samsung V. Apple: Taking A Bite Out Of The Design Patent “Article Of Manufacture” Controversy, Elizabeth M. Gil

University of Miami Business Law Review

Smartphones have become a universal item. A smartphone is comprised of hundreds of thousands of patented inventions, many of which are design patents.1It is these design patents that are at the center of the highly-contested case of Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., which involves three of the design patents within Apple’s iPhone. Beginning in 2011, Apple and Samsung have been in a seemingly never-ending litigious battle over these design patents with the case commencing in the district court, climbing up to the Supreme Court of the United States, and returning to the district court. It is this …

Imputed Liability: How To Determine When Parent Companies Should Be Held Liable For The Patent Infringements Of Their Subsidiary Companies, Emma Tracy

Missouri Law Review

This Note examines the theory and principles behind three traditional methods used to hold parent companies liable for the infringing actions of their subsidiaries. These methods include traditional agency principles of tort law, piercing of the corporate veil, and inducement principles outlined in § 271(b) of the Patent Act. This Note then discusses how these three methods differ in both the underlying theories they employ, and the subsequent outcomes they achieve, when it comes to fundamental issues of inducement liability. This analysis will include what type of conduct is required and what level of knowledge is necessary to impute liability …

Causal Responsibility And Patent Infringement, Dmitry Karshtedt

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is not uncommon for multiple parties in the stream of commercemanufacturers, distributors, end users-to be involved in the infringement of a single patent. Yet courts continue to struggle with such scenarios. Attempts to deal with them-particularly when plaintiffs asserted so-called method patents, which cover specific "steps," or actions-have produced results that defy commonsense notions of legal responsibility. In method patent cases, the patentee must clear much higher legal hurdles to prevail against a manufacturer who designed and supplied an infringing device than against an end user who simply bought that device and operated it as intended. The manufacturer can …

The "Strict Liability" Of Direct Patent Infringement, Lynda J. Oswald

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

In 1995, the Federal Circuit summarily attached the label of "strict liability" to direct patent infringement, even though that term does not appear in any US Patent Act enacted in the past two centuries. The catechism of "strict" direct patent infringement liability is now so well engrained in patent doctrine that it is easy to lose sight of how recent the advent of this terminology is in the case law, and how troublesome application of this standard has proven, even to the Federal Circuit, which created it. The first Patent Act (1790) preceded the emergence of tort law as a …

Enhancing Ongoing Royalties: The Inequitable Equitable Remedy, Layne S. Keele

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Plausible Pleading In Patent Suits: Predicting The Effects Of The Abrogation Of Form 18, Kyle R. Williams

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

On December 1, 2015, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. The changes included, among other things, the abrogation of the Appendix of Forms, which contained templates for summons, complaints, answers, and other litigation documents. Prior to its abrogation, Form 18—a template for a “Complaint for Patent Infringement”—was widely utilized by patent plaintiffs in crafting infringement complaints. Form 18 was created during the Conley pleading regime, when conclusory allegations were generally sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the sample allegations in Form 18 were conclusory and bare-bones in nature. Under Conley, plaintiffs who followed this …

When An Idea Is More Than Just An Idea: Insurance Coverage Of Business Method Patent Infringements Suits Under Advertising Injury Provisions Of Commercial General Liability Policies, Grace N. Witte

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Key Words And Tricky Phrases: An Analysis Of Patent Drafters' Attempts To Circumvent The Language Of 35 U.S.C. § 112, Stephen J. Stark

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

Patent Compensation Under 35 U.S.C. § 284, Vincent P. Tassinari

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court's Quiet Revolution In Induced Patent Infringement, Timothy R. Holbrook

Notre Dame Law Review

The Supreme Court over the last decade or so has reengaged with patent law. While much attention has been paid to the Court’s reworking of what constitutes patent-eligible subject matter and enhancing tools to combat “patent trolls,” what many have missed is the Court’s reworking of the contours of active inducement of patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). The Court has taken the same number of § 271(b) cases as subject matter eligibility cases—four. Yet this reworking has not garnered much attention in the literature. This Article offers the first comprehensive assessment of the Court’s efforts to define active …

Medical Process Patents: Can We Live Without Them? Should We?, Lara L. Douglass

Journal of Intellectual Property Law

No abstract provided.