Law Commons^™

Parallel Play: The Simultaneous Professional Responsibility Campaigns Against Unethical Ip Practitioners By The United States And China, Mark A. Cohen

Akron Law Review

“Parallel Play: The Simultaneous Professional Responsibility Campaigns Against IP Practitioners by the United States and China” describes efforts by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the China National IP Administration to discipline trademark and patent practitioners through contemporaneous campaign-style approach directed to bad faith filings. At the USPTO, many of these bad faith filings have originated from China. In both countries, these bad faith activities have imposed significant burdens on IP agencies, the courts, and legitimate rights holders. The campaign is likely the largest professional responsibility campaign undertaken by an IP agency, and the largest cross-border IP disciplinary …

Information Theory And Patent Documents, W. Michael Schuster

Akron Law Review

Recent scholarship has expanded the scope of analytical tools available to patent law researchers. The foundation of information theory published by Claude Shannon has been applied to textual analysis to determine the similarities of patents and to assess a patent’s value. This article presents a theoretical application of information theory to quantify lexical ambiguity and originality in innovation within patent law.

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 …

Obviousness-Type Double Patenting: Why It Exists And When It Applies, Daniel Kazhdan

Akron Law Review

At least since 1819, courts have prohibited double patenting—where an inventor has two patents on the same or obvious variations of the same invention. There have always been two basic justifications for prohibiting double patenting. The first focused on the patentee: bad actors might try to improperly extend their patent monopoly by filing serial applications. The second focused on the public’s rights: the bargain of the patent is that in exchange for the inventor getting a term-limited patent, the public is entitled to use the claimed invention (and its obvious variations) once the patent expires. This public-rights rationale is broader, …

The Porous Court-Agency Border In Patent Law, Saurabh Vishnubhakat

Akron Law Review

The progression toward reevaluating patent validity in the administrative, rather than judicial, setting became overtly substitutionary in the America Invents Act. No longer content to encourage court litigants to rely on Patent Office expertise for faster, cheaper, and more accurate validity decisions, Congress in the AIA took steps to force a choice. The result is an emergent border between court and agency power in the U.S. patent system. By design, the border is not absolute. Concurrent activity in both settings over the same dispute remains possible. What is troubling is the systematic weakening of this border by Patent Office encroachments …

Trademark Boundaries And 3d Printing, Lucas S. Osborn

Akron Law Review

3D printing technology promises to disrupt trademark law at the same time that trademark law and policy sustain repeated criticism. The controversial growth of trademark law over the last century has yielded amorphous sponsorship and affiliation confusion issues and empirically fragile post-sale and initial-interest confusion theories, among others. Into this melee marches 3D printing technology, which dissociates the process of design from that of manufacturing and democratizes manufacturing. Rather than being embodied only in physical objects, design is embodied in digital CAD files that users can post and sell on the internet. The digitization of physical objects raises fundamental questions …

Reconsidering Experimental Use, Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss

Akron Law Review

In the years since the Supreme Court began to narrow the scope of patentable subject matter, uncertainties in the law have had a deleterious impact on several important innovation sectors, including, in particular, the life sciences industry. There are now initiatives to expand patentable subject matter legislatively. In this article, I suggest that the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence is an outgrowth of the concern that patents on fundamental discoveries impede scientific research. To deal with that issue, any measure to expand the subject matter of patenting should be coupled with a parallel expansion of defenses to infringement liability, including the restoration …

Patent Submission Policies, Ryan T. Holte

Akron Law Review

This Article focuses on the early stage of commercialization communication when a third-party inventor owns an invention protected by a patent that a manufacturer-commercializer may profit from producing—long before any allegation of infringement or litigation. These submission-review communications by unaffiliated third parties are covered by corporate policies known as “patent submission policies.” They are the figurative “front doors” to a company for any third-party inventor, crucial to the commercialization of inventions generally. Unfortunately, patent submission policies have thus far remained unstudied in legal academic scholarship.

This Article collects and analyzes the current variations of patent submission policies adopted by the …

The Protection Of Property Rights In Computer Software, Edward W. Rilee

Akron Law Review

During the last decade a number of attempts have been made by the courts in the realm of patent and copyright law to settle the issue of the protection of property rights in computer software. These traditional methods of protection, however, have not been able to assimilate this relatively new technological invention. Likewise, at the start of a new decade, little or no progress towards a comprehensive form of software protection can be detected. This paper will examine the problems associated with using federal patent or copyright law to provide computer software protection and discuss why state trade secret protection …

The Human Genome: A Patenting Dilemma, Pamela Docherty

Akron Law Review

This Comment will address the conflict between the U.S. patent laws and biotechnology by focusing on the NIH patent application.

The first part of this Comment discusses the objectives and statutory requirements of the patent system, which the NIH application purportedly did not meet. Next, this Comment focuses on the debate between NIH and its detractors. It explains NIH's reasons for its actions and discusses the criticisms leveled at the agency. Finally, this Comment presents solutions to the problems that have been uncovered by this debate regarding the patentability of genes.

Hilmer Doctrine And Patent System Harmonization: What Does A Foreign Inventor Have At Stake?, Kevin L. Leffel

Akron Law Review

The following discussion begins with a historical analysis that outlines the boundaries and illustrates the basis of Hilmer doctrine. Examples of the effects of Hilmer doctrine are presented as part of that discussion. Next, effects of the application of Hilmer doctrine after an interference are discussed followed by an analysis of the Patent Harmonization Act of 1992.

The "On-Sale" Bar To Patentability: Actual Reduction To Practice Not Required In Pfaff V. Wells Electronics, Inc., Daniel J. Whitman

Akron Law Review

A patent grants to an inventor the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, or selling his invention throughout the United States. However, an inventor is statutorily barred from receiving a patent for an invention that was “on sale” prior to one year before his U.S. filing date. An offer to sell cannot bar patentability until an invention exists. The general issue in applying the “on sale” bar is “[a]t what point is the invention sufficiently developed such that, coupled with an offer to sell, the inventor’s commercial activities invoke the on sale bar?” The United States Supreme Court’s …

Alice In Wonderland Meets The U.S. Patent System, Jay Dratler Jr.

Akron Law Review

The attached article outlines in some detail why I think it matters in two particular fields—software and business methods—in which the PTO has issued, and the Federal Circuit has upheld, what I think are too many patents on non-inventions. The following remarks take a broader and longer-range view of patents generally.

The first reason why having a properly balanced patent system matters relates to the historical period in which we find ourselves. The world is now in the process of transferring the self-evident benefits of robust innovation, free markets, and free trade from Anglo-American and other advanced societies to the …

Phillips V. Awh: Changing The Name Of The Game, David Potashnik

Akron Law Review

The Federal Circuit granted an en banc hearing of Phillips v. AWH Corp. to address the dichotomy existing in the Circuit’s jurisprudence. Because of the impact of claim construction on every litigated patent, Phillips has been deemed one of the most important cases in patent law since the landmark case of Markman v. Westview Instruments Inc. in the mid-1990s. In order to help the reader understand the implications of the case, the remainder of this Note is divided into four sections. Section II details the history and development of claim construction. Section I II discusses the Phillips case, including the …

The "Printed Publication" Bar After Klopfenstein: Has The Federal Circuit Changed The Way Professors Should Talk About Science?, Sean B. Seymore

Akron Law Review

The key question for universities is how Klopfenstein will affect the way that science professors talk about science. To answer this question, Part II explores the conflict between a professor’s need to disseminate research and the university’s potential interest in seeking patent protection. The research talk, one of the most important forums for communication in the science community, is an objective measure of research success and scholarship. When a professor produces a patentable invention, university TTOs must balance the professor’s need to discuss the research against the strict statutory requirement to file within one year of public disclosure. If a …