Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Private Costs Of Patent Litigation, James Bessen, Michael J. Meurer Oct 2012

The Private Costs Of Patent Litigation, James Bessen, Michael J. Meurer

Faculty Scholarship

This paper estimates the total cost of patent litigation to alleged infringers. We use a large sample of stock market event studies around the date of lawsuit filings for US public firms from 1984-99. We find that the total costs of litigation are much greater than legal fees and costs are large even for lawsuits that settle. Lawsuits cost alleged infringers about $28.7 million ($92) in the mean and $2.9 million in the median. Moreover, infringement risk rose sharply during the late 1990s to over 14% of R&D spending. Small firms have lower risk relative to R&D.


Not So Obvious After All: Patent Law's Nonobviousness Requirement, Ksr, And The Fear Of Hindsight Bias, Glynn S. Lunney Jr, Christian T. Johnson Oct 2012

Not So Obvious After All: Patent Law's Nonobviousness Requirement, Ksr, And The Fear Of Hindsight Bias, Glynn S. Lunney Jr, Christian T. Johnson

Faculty Scholarship

Before the creation of the Federal Circuit in 1982, nonobviousness served as the primary gatekeeper for patents. When patent holders sued for infringement and lost, more than sixty percent of the time, they lost on the grounds that their patent was obvious. With the advent of the Federal Circuit, nonobviousness became a much less difficult hurdle to surmount. From 1982 until 2005, when patent holders sued for infringement and lost, obviousness was the reason in less than fifteen percent of the cases. While obviousness remained formally a requirement of patent protection, there can be little doubt that the Federal Circuit …


Usefulness Varies By Country: The Utility Requirement Of Patent Law In The United States, Europe And Canada, Jay Erstling, Amy M. Salmela, Justin N. Woo Jan 2012

Usefulness Varies By Country: The Utility Requirement Of Patent Law In The United States, Europe And Canada, Jay Erstling, Amy M. Salmela, Justin N. Woo

Faculty Scholarship

The requirement that an invention have utility is one of the most fundamental of the patent laws. In the United States, for example, the concept of utility is rooted in the Constitution: Article 1, Section 8, gives Congress the power to grant exclusive rights to inventors in order “[t]o promote the progress of Science and useful Arts.” Other jurisdictions recognize utility in the form of inventions that have “industrial applicability” or are “capable of exploitation in industry,” with all of these terms and phrases generally viewed as being synonymous.

Historically, nearly every jurisdiction has excluded some type of invention from …


A New Look At Patent Quality: Relating Patent Prosecution To Validity, Ronald J. Mann, Marian Underweiser Jan 2012

A New Look At Patent Quality: Relating Patent Prosecution To Validity, Ronald J. Mann, Marian Underweiser

Faculty Scholarship

The article uses two hand‐collected data sets to implement a novel research design for analyzing the precursors to patent quality. Operationalizing patent “quality” as legal validity, the article analyzes the relation between Federal Circuit decisions on patent validity and three sets of data about the patents: quantitative features of the patents themselves, textual analysis of the patent documents, and data collected from the prosecution histories of the patents. The article finds large and statistically significant relations between ex post validity and both textual features of the patents and ex ante aspects of the prosecution history (especially prior art submissions and …


The New Federal Circuit Mandamus, Paul Gugliuzza Jan 2012

The New Federal Circuit Mandamus, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

This Article explores an ongoing revolution in the mandamus jurisprudence of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the court of appeals with nearly exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases. Before December 2008, the Federal Circuit had never used the interlocutory writ of mandamus to order a district court to transfer a case to a more convenient forum, denying each one of the twenty-two petitions it had decided on that issue. Since that time, however, the court has overturned eleven different venue decisions on mandamus. Remarkably, ten of those eleven cases have come from the same district court, the …