Law Commons^™

Patent Eligibility's Doctrinal Exclusions... Lately, A Scary Movie Too Difficult To Watch: Concrete Solutions And Suggestions, Kristy J. Downing

Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review

Patent eligible subject matter is defined by the legislature’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.” Since the nineteenth century, however, United States (U.S.) courts have considered certain otherwise eligible subject matter excludable from patent protection. The judiciary’s doctrinal exclusions’ purpose was to protect fundamental building blocks to science and useful arts ensuring that such information could not be monopolized by one entity. Presently, however, the judicial exclusions have been used to exclude fewer fundamental building blocks and more ordinary brick-and-mortar innovations after two U.S. supreme court decisions (Mayo …

Patent Claim Construction: A Modern Synthesis And Structured Framework, Peter S. Menell, Matthew D. Powers, Steven C. Carlson

Peter Menell

No abstract provided.

Patent Dialogue, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

This Article examines the unique dialogic relationship that exists between the Supreme Court and Congress concerning patent law. In most areas of the law, Congress and the Supreme Court engage directly with each other to craft legal rules. When it comes to patent law, however, Congress and the Court often interact via an intermediary institution: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In patent law, dialogue often begins when Congress or the Supreme Court acts as a dialogic catalyst, signaling reform priorities to which the Federal Circuit often responds.

Appreciating the unique nature of patent dialogue has important …

Congress As A Catalyst Of Patent Reform At The Federal Circuit, Jonas Anderson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is the dominant institution in patent law. The court’s control over patent law and policy has led to a host of academic proposals to shift power away from the court and towards other institutions, including the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and federal district courts. Surprisingly, however, academics have largely dismissed Congress as a potential institutional check on the Federal Circuit. Congress, it is felt, is too slow, too divided, and too beholden to special interests to effectively monitor changes in innovation and respond with appropriate reforms. …

Rescuing Access To Patented Essential Medicines: Pharmaceutical Companies As Tortfeasors Under The Prevented Rescue Tort Theory, Richard Cameron Gower

Richard Cameron Gower

Despite some difficulties, state tort law can be argued to create a unique exception to patent law. Specifically, the prevented rescue doctrine suggests that charities and others can circumvent patents on certain critical medications when such actions are necessary to save individuals from death or serious harm. Although this Article finds that the prevented rescue tort doctrines is preempted by federal patent law, all hope is not lost. A federal substantive due process claim may be brought that uses the common law to demonstrate a fundamental right that has long been protected by our Nation’s legal traditions. Moreover, this Article …

Rescuing Access To Patented Essential Medicines: Pharmaceutical Companies As Tortfeasors Under The Prevented Rescue Tort Theory, Richard Cameron Gower

Richard Cameron Gower

Despite some difficulties, state tort law can be argued to create a unique exception to patent law. Specifically, the prevented rescue doctrine suggests that charities and others can circumvent patents on certain critical medications when such actions are necessary to save individuals from death or serious harm. Although this Article finds that the prevented rescue tort doctrines is preempted by federal patent law, all hope is not lost. A federal substantive due process claim may be brought that uses the common law to demonstrate a fundamental right that has long been protected by our Nation’s legal traditions. Moreover, this Article …

Reply - Commercialization Without Exchange, Michael J. Burstein

Articles

In this brief reply to Prof. Ted Sichelman’s comments on my article Exchanging Information Without Intellectual Property, I argue that justifications for intellectual property that rely on the incentives exclusive rights offer for commercialization are not economically distinguishable from traditional theories based on incentives to invent or create in the first instance. Because innovation is not an event but a process, innovative activities may be subject to misappropriation – and therefore under-production – at multiple points along the supply chain that runs from conception to commercialization. The grant of exclusive rights is an intervention that can be made at any …

Patents 101: Patentable Subject Matter And Separation Of Powers, Max S. Oppenheimer

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

The definition of statutory subject matter lies at the heart of the patent system. It is the reflection of Congress's policy decision as to what types of inventions one may patent. While the congressional definition of statutory subject matter (in what is now 35 U.S.C. § 101) has remained fundamentally constant since 1790, the Supreme Court has reinterpreted and redefined statutory subject matter several times, leaving lower courts with the frustrating task of trying to develop a coherent jurisprudence against a changing landscape. This inconstancy has introduced uncertainty for inventors who are trying to make the fundamental decision of whether …

Life After Bilski, Mark A. Lemley, Michael Risch, Ted Sichelman, R. Polk Wagner

All Faculty Scholarship

In Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court declined calls to categorically exclude business methods—or any technology—from the patent law. It also rejected as the sole test of subject matter eligibility the Federal Circuit’s deeply-flawed machine-or-transformation test, under which no process is patentable unless it is tied to a particular machine or transforms an article to another state or thing. Subsequent developments threaten to undo that holding, however. Relying on the Court’s description of the Federal Circuit test as a “useful and important clue,” the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, patent litigants, and district courts have all continued to rely on …

Will International Trade Law Promote Or Inhibit Global Artificial Photosynthesis, Thomas A. Faunce

Thomas A Faunce

Artificial photosynthesis (AP) is an area of well-advanced research involving large international groups at the cutting edge of synthetic biology and nanotechnology. In simple terms it offers to produce a cheap source of hydrogen for fuel through using sunlight to split water, as well as making basic starches by a process involving absorption of carbon dioxide via the enzyme RuBisCO. As the proliferating numbers of university-based research teams working in this area begin to combine, there will be a natural escalation of the expected time for a global roll-out of AP domestic and international devices. Policy attention will then turns …

Legal Forms And The Common Law Of Patents, Craig Allen Nard

Faculty Publications

The question of institutional choice is important in all areas of the law, but particularly in the context of patent law with its divergent stakeholders, decentralized variance among industries regarding how the patent system is viewed and relied upon, and a persistent focus on reform in recent years. For over two hundred years, the courts have been the dominant force in the development of patent law. It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that a significant portion of American patent law, including some of the most important and controversial patent law doctrines, is either built upon judicial interpretation …

Indirect Infringement From A Tort Law Perspective, Charles Adams

Articles, Chapters in Books and Other Contributions to Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Of Patents And Path Dependency: A Comment On Burk And Lemley, R. Polk Wagner

All Faculty Scholarship

This Article delves into issues surrounding the relationship between technology and the patent law. Responding to Dan Burk and Mark Lemley's earlier article, Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?, the piece notes that the basic question posed by Burk and Lemley's article is a relatively easy question given the several doctrines that explicitly link the subject matter context of an invention to the validity and scope of related patents. This sort of technological exceptionalism (which this Article refers to as micro-exceptionalism) is both observable and easily justifiable for a legal regime directed to technology policy. In contrast, Burk and Lemley's identification of, …

The Varying Meaning And Legal Effect Of The Word "Void", Abraham J. Levin

Michigan Law Review

To interpret properly what has been said or written necessitates our going beyond the dictionary into the sphere of action and reality. In its narrowest sense the, meaning of a word is the single effect which is given to it in the specific case. Insofar as nature repeats itself are we able to build up concepts and symbols which function in substantially the same way in different cases. But the mind must always be ready to discard an accepted definition of a word symbol for the particular legal effect which the circumstances demand. The same word or symbol with the …