Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Government Choices In Innovation Funding (With Reference To Climate Change), Joshua Sarnoff
Government Choices In Innovation Funding (With Reference To Climate Change), Joshua Sarnoff
College of Law Faculty
Huge amounts of money will soon be spent by governments and private entities to develop technology to reduce the costs of climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to deploy new energy and transportation infrastructures. Incredibly, we still lack any good idea of the best means of providing massive amounts of government or private money so as to promote the most innovation and technology diffusion at the lowest cost. This Article seeks to support better analyses of, and decision making regarding, the choices of government innovation-funding mechanisms by discussing the limits of current analyses and providing a taxonomy of such measures. …
The Patent System And Climate Change, Joshua Sarnoff
The Patent System And Climate Change, Joshua Sarnoff
College of Law Faculty
The amount of greenhouse gas emissions and consequent climate changes and social responses will depend substantially upon the rapid development and widespread dissemination of a wide variety of new mitigation and adaptation technologies. The international approach adopted by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Cancun will focus the worldwide innovation system more closely on private funding and markets, and thus on the acquisition of patents at the front end of the coming innovation pipeline. The choice to rely on private markets and patents is highly debatable. But it is certain to create substantial tensions for the patent system …
Patent Eligible Medical And Biotechnology Inventions After Bilski, Prometheus, And Myriad, Joshua Sarnoff
Patent Eligible Medical And Biotechnology Inventions After Bilski, Prometheus, And Myriad, Joshua Sarnoff
College of Law Faculty
In Bilski v. Kappos, the U.S. Supreme Court continued to require that patentable subject matter eligibility determinations under Section 101 be made by reference to three historic, categorical exclusions, for scientific principles, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. This excluded subject matter must be treated as if already known even when newly discovered by the applicant. Unlike in other jurisdictions, the excluded subject matter thus cannot contribute creativity to the claimed inventions, either for eligibility or for patentability evaluations. The Federal Circuit has reluctantly applied eligibility doctrine after Bilski, holding in Prometheus v. Mayo that claims to treatment methods applying the …
Patent Eligible Inventions After Bilski: History And Theory, Joshua Sarnoff
Patent Eligible Inventions After Bilski: History And Theory, Joshua Sarnoff
College of Law Faculty
The U.S. Supreme Court has continued to require that patentable subject matter eligibility determinations under Section 101 be made by reference to three historic, categorical exclusions, for scientific principles, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas, which must be treated as if already known even when newly discovered by the applicant. Various thoughtful scholars have alternatively urged that these exclusions from the patent system should be viewed restrictively or that eligibility decisions should be avoided. But these scholars underappreciate the benefits of categorical exclusions and particularly of treating them as if they were already known prior art, and in any event the …
Hoisting Originality: A Response, Roberta Kwall
Hoisting Originality: A Response, Roberta Kwall
College of Law Faculty
This commentary originally appeared as part of the inaugural Virtual Workshop sponsored by the Intellectual Property Institute at the University of Richmond School of Law. The workshop featured a paper entitled Hoisting Originality (now published at Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 31, p. 451, 2009) by Professor Joseph Miller, along with two commentaries on the paper. My commentary examines and responds to Miller's argument that the standard for copyright law's originality requirement should be "hoisted" and thus analogized to that present in patent law.