Law Commons^™

What Is The "Invention"?, Christopher A. Cotropia

William & Mary Law Review

Patent law is in flux, with recent disputes and changes in doctrine fueled by increased attention from the Supreme Court and en banc activity by the Federal Circuit. The natural reaction is to analyze each doctrinal area involved on its own. Upon a closer look, however, many patent cases concern a single, fundamental dispute. Conflicts in opinions on such issues as claim interpretation methodology and the written description requirement are really disagreements over which “invention” the courts should be considering.

There are two concepts of invention currently in play in patent decisions. The first is an “external invention” definition, in …

The Myth Of The Sole Inventor, Mark A. Lemley

Michigan Law Review

The theory of patent law is based on the idea that a lone genius can solve problems that stump the experts, and that the lone genius will do so only if properly incented. But the canonical story of the lone genius inventor is largely a myth. Surveys of hundreds of significant new technologies show that almost all of them are invented simultaneously or nearly simultaneously by two or more teams working independently of each other. Invention appears in significant part to be a social, not an individual, phenomenon. The result is a real problem for classic theories of patent law. …

Student Intellectual Property Issues On The Entrepreneurial Campus, Bryce C. Pilz

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

This article examines issues that are more frequently arising for universities concerning intellectual property in student inventions. It seeks to identify the issue, explain the underlying law, identify actual and proposed solutions to these issues, and explain the legal ramifications of these potential solutions.

Professional And Academic Employee Inventions: Looking Beyond The Uk Paradigm, Justine Pila

Justine Pila

The vast majority of inventions are devised by employees, raising the question who is entitled to patent them? Under the UK Patents Act 1977, the right to patent an invention lies primarily with its inventor(s). However, an exception exists for employee inventions to which section 39(1) applies. The recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in UWA v Gray raises the question of the applicability of this provision in the university context, in respect of regular academic employees. In that case, the Court relied on UK authorities to support its conclusion that the University of …

Intellectual Property Rights And Detached Human Body Parts, Justine Pila

Justine Pila

This paper responds to an invitation by the editors to consider whether the intellectual property (IP) regime suggests an appropriate model for protecting interests in detached human body parts. It begins by outlining the extent of existing IP protection for body parts in Europe, and the relevant strengths and weaknesses of the patent system in that regard. It then considers two further species of IP right of less obvious relevance. The first are the statutory rights of ownership conferred by domestic UK law in respect of employee inventions, and the second are the economic and moral rights recognized by European …

What Do America's First Patents Have To Do With Today's?, Kristen Jakobsen Osenga

Law Faculty Publications

In an invited response to an article by Prof. Michael Risch, Prof. Osenga reexamines some of the conclusions drawn by his study of early American Patents and what they suggested about inventors' perceptions of patentability.

Use Patents, Carve-Outs, And Incentives — A New Battle In The Drug-Patent Wars, Arti K. Rai

Faculty Scholarship

The Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984 aims to strike a balance between the innovation incentives provided by patents and the greater consumer access provided by low-cost generic drugs. The legislation, which relies in part on an explicit link between the FDA drug approval process and the U.S. patent system, has been controversial, particularly because of the ways in which firms producing brand-name drugs have exploited that link to delay market entry of generics as long as possible. Voluminous scholarship has focused on so-called "pay-for-delay" settlements of patent litigation between brand name and generic firms.

In contrast, this Perspective uses the lens …

Valuing Health Care: Improving Productivity And Quality, Barak D. Richman, Arti K. Rai

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Better Mistakes In Patent Law, Andres Sawicki

Articles

This Article analyzes patent mistakes-that is, mistakes made by the patent system when it decides whether a particular invention has met the patentability requirements. These mistakes are inevitable. Given resource constraints, some might even be desirable. This Article evaluates the relative costs of patent mistakes, so that we can make better ones.

Three characteristics drive the costs of mistakes: their type (false positive or false negative), timing (early or late), and doctrinal basis (utility, novelty, nonobviousness, and so on). These characteristics make some mistakes more troubling than others.

This Article compares the costs of making mistakes of different types, at …

Wisdom Of The Ages Or Dead-Hand Control? Patentable Subject Matter For Diagnostic Methods After In Re Bilski, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

In 1980, the Supreme Court gave a reassuring signal to the then-nascent biotechnology industry about the availability of patent protection for the fruits of its research when it upheld the patentability of a genetically modified living organism in Diamond v. Chakrabarty. Twenty-five years later, the Court seemed poised to reexamine the limits of patentable subject matter for advances in the life sciences when it granted certiorari in Laboratory Corporation v. Metabolite. But the Federal Circuit had not addressed the patentable subject matter issue in Laboratory Corporation, and the Court ultimately dismissed the certiorari p etition as improvidently granted. Five years …