Law Commons^™

The Technology Enterprise: Systemic Bias Against Women, Lori Andrews

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Without Clear Rules, Ptab Practices May Run Afoul Of The Apa, Arpita Bhattacharyya, Rachel L. Emsley

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Ptab Precedential Decision: Putting The Hammer Down On Filing Serial Petitions?, Ashley N. Klein, Warren J. Thomas

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

Petitioners for inter partes review proceedings under the America Invents Act routinely file serial petitions to challenge a single patent. Patent owners have criticized such “follow-on” petitions as abusive. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s recent precedential opinion in General Plastic Industrial Co. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, IPR2016-01357, Paper 19 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2017), lays out seven non-exhaustive factors to guide the Board’s consideration of such “follow-on” petitions. This Article summarizes the Board’s analysis of follow-on petitions prior to General Plastic, examines how General Plastic has affected petitioners’ success in having such petitions instituted, and suggests strategies for practitioners …

To Stay Or Not To Stay Pending Ipr? That Should Be A Simpler Question, Joel Sayres, Julie Wahlstrand

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Savvy Shaw-Ping: A Strategic Approach To Aia Estoppel, Steven J. Schwarz, Tamatane J. Aga, Kristin M. Adams, Katherine C. Dearing

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Yes, The Ptab Is Unconstitutional, Gregory Dolin, Md

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

#Squadgoals: A Response To Seth Waxman, Amelia Smith Rinehart

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Problem With Ptab's Power Over Section 101, Kristen Osenga

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

I Fought The Shaw: A Game Theory Framework And Approach To The District Courts' Struggle With Ipr Estoppel, Andrew V. Moshirnia

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Remedies And Procedure: Patent Law's Continuing Frontiers, John M. Golden

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Drd Response To Seth P. Waxman's Article, Donald R. Dunner

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Charting Supreme Court Patent Law, Near And Far, Joseph Scott Miller

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

A Court Divided, Shubha Ghosh

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Are Internet-Implemented Applications Of Block-Chain Technology Patent-Eligible In The United States?, Gurneet Singh

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Patent Exhaustion Connects Common Law To Equity: Impression Products, Inc. V. Lexmark International, Inc., Kumiko Kitaoka

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

The Road To Marshall: Of Venue, Trolls, And The Eastern District Of Texas, Jesus Efren Cano

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Innovators Beat The Climate Change Heat With Humanitarian Licensing And Patent Pools, Andrea Nocito

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Complex Innovation And The Patent Office, Ryan Whalen

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

As the universe of available information becomes larger and innovation becomes more complex, the task of examining patent applications becomes increasingly difficult. This Article argues that the United States Patent Office has insufficiently responded to changes in the information universe and to innovation norms. This leaves the Patent Office less able to adequately assess patent applications, and more likely to grant bad patents. After first demonstrating how innovation has been responsive to contemporary innovation norms for hundreds of years, this Article uses information and data science methods to empirically demonstrate how innovation has drastically changed in recent decades. After empirically …

The Patentability Of The Crispr-Cas9 Genome Editing Tool, Deborah Ku

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

The biotechnology sector is rapidly changing with the increase in technological advancements. 1 The laws governing patent protection, specifically the laws governing patent eligibility, have also changed to adapt to these innovations.2 This paper focuses on the CRISPR-Cas9 technology, a genome editing tool that is changing the field of genetic engineering.3 As of November 2016, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued 42 patents on the CRISPR-Cas9 technology.4 This paper addresses the issue of whether patents claiming the core CRISPR-Cas9 technology can survive a 35 U.S.C. §101 (“§101”) subject matter eligibility challenge. The paper concludes that the CRISPR-Cas9 technology …

Blockchain Receipts: Patentability And Admissibility In Court, Angela Guo

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

How Much Has The Supreme Court Changed Patent Law, Paul Gugliuzza

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided a remarkable number of patent cases in the past decade, particularly as compared to the first twenty years of the Federal Circuit’s existence. No longer is the Federal Circuit “the de facto Supreme Court of patents,” as Mark Janis wrote in 2001. Rather, it seems the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of patents. In the article at the center of this symposium, Judge Timothy Dyk of the Federal Circuit writes that the Supreme Court’s decisions “have had a major impact on patent law,” citing, among other evidence, the Court’s seventy percent reversal rate …

Is The Supreme Court Concerned With Patent Law, The Federal Circuit, Or Both: A Response To Judge Timothy B. Dyk, Timothy R. Holbrook

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

This essay is a response to Hon. Timothy B. Dyk, Thoughts on the Relationship Between the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit, 16 CHI.-KENT J. OF INTELL. PROP. 67 (2016). In it, I address the reasons for the Supreme Court's engagement with patent law. In other words, is the Court interested in patent law itself, or is there something about the Federal Circuit as an institution that has garnered the Court's gaze. I conclude it is a combination of the two. The Court is concerned with certain aspects of patent doctrine, but it is also concerned with the Federal Circuit, …

How Can The Supreme Court Not “Understand” Patent Law?, Gregory Reilly

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

The Supreme Court does understand patent law. This invited Essay responds to Federal Circuit Judge Dyk’s remarks at the Chicago-Kent Supreme Court IP Review, in particular, his observation that the patent “bar and the academy have expressed skepticism that the Supreme Court understands patent law well enough to make the governing rules” (a view Judge Dyk did not endorse). The idea that the Supreme Court does not understand the law of patents is implausible. Even more generous interpretations of this criticism – that the Supreme Court insufficiently understands innovation policy, insufficiently understands the patent system that Congress desired in creating …

Response To Judge Timothy B. Dyk, Donald R. Dunner

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Thoughts On The Relationship Between The Supreme Court And The Federal Circuit, Timothy B. Dyk

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Abuse Of Supreme Court Precedent: The "Historic Kinship", David W. Barnes

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

In Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, the Supreme Court applied a doctrine formulated for patent law to an issue arising in copyright law. The Court supplied a rationale for doing so by identifying a “historic kinship” between patent and copyright law based on fundamental goals of intellectual property law. The Court considered how the rationale applied in the particular factual context involved. The Court cautioned that the propriety of extending a doctrine developed in one intellectual property regime to another depends on the particular legal issue involved. Despite the importance of ensuring that new rules are …

Why The Supreme Court Should Use Ariosa V. Sequenom To Provide Further Guidance On U.S.C. § 101 Patent Eligibility, Naira Rezende Simmons

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

35 U.S.C. § 101 provides patent protection to “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” The Supreme Court previously concluded that Congress intended patentable subject matter to “include anything under the sun that is made by man.” Nevertheless, over the past five years the U.S. Supreme Court has made a series of decisions that narrowed the scope of subject matter eligible for patent protection.

In Mayo the court held that correlations between the concentrations of a metabolite in the blood and the concentration of a drug are not patent …

The Time Is Nigh: A Proposal For An International Patent System, Ben Mceniery

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

The world is slowly but inexorably moving towards adopting an integrated global patent system. It is inevitable that the present inefficient and splintered system in which patents must be separately obtained and enforced in each nation state must evolve to make obtaining global patent protection an achievable proposition for those other than just the wealthiest multinational corporations. The global patent system proposed in this article allows a patent applicant to file a single patent application in an international patent office, have that patent application examined in accordance with a uniform patentability standard, and results in the grant of a unitary …

Neglected Diseases: How Intellectual Property Can Incentivize New Treatment, Vinita Banthia

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

No abstract provided.

Putting The Pieces Together: A Proposal For A Contributory Infringement Provision In Patent Law, Xianzhi Quan

Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property

Among the top five countries who have filed the most patent applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”) in 2015, China is the only country that has no provision regarding contributory patent infringement. As a result, in patent cases related to contributory infringement, different courts have adopted different criteria to determine whether contributory patent infringement is present. This has resulted in many problems in China, causing confusion and conflicts in understanding among patent holders and the public.

With the increase of patent infringement cases in China, legislation on the standard of contributory patent infringement is imminent. This Article puts forward …