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

Law Commons

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

2008

Intellectual Property Law

Marquette University Law School

Patentability

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Speaking Words Of Wisdom: Let It Be: The Reexamination Of The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Patents, Julia Vom Wege Dovi Jan 2008

Speaking Words Of Wisdom: Let It Be: The Reexamination Of The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Patents, Julia Vom Wege Dovi

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Embryonic stem cell research represents an area of scientific inquiry that bears great promise, and patent law ensures that stem cell technology is both protected and utilized to its fullest potential. This article analyzes why the USPTO should not invalidate or narrow three challenged stem cell patents owned by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) through the Public Patent Foundation. The author outlines the science behind stem cells, explains the applicable law, and articulates the policy considerations relevant to patent law and stem cells. Ultimately, the author argues that that the challenged patents should remain valid because they have not …


Meddimmune, Microsoft, And Ksr: The United States Supreme Court In 2007 Tips The Balance In Favor Of Innovation In Patent Cases, And Thrice Reverses The Federal Circuit, Sue Ann Mota Jan 2008

Meddimmune, Microsoft, And Ksr: The United States Supreme Court In 2007 Tips The Balance In Favor Of Innovation In Patent Cases, And Thrice Reverses The Federal Circuit, Sue Ann Mota

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

In 2007 the Supreme Court reversed three patent cases from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The three cases were MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. (holding a patent licensee does not have to breach a license agreement before seeking declaratory judgment that the underlying patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed), Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp. (holding Microsoft did not supply a component of an invention from the United States that had the possibility of infringing under the Patent Act), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (holding the requirement of non-obviousness under the Patent Act is analyzed …