Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Science and Technology Law (548)
- Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law (67)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (44)
- Internet Law (34)
- Marketing Law (34)
-
- Computer Law (30)
- International Trade Law (27)
- Cultural Heritage Law (22)
- Antitrust and Trade Regulation (18)
- International Law (18)
- Courts (17)
- Food and Drug Law (14)
- Supreme Court of the United States (13)
- Judges (12)
- Transnational Law (12)
- Privacy Law (11)
- Consumer Protection Law (9)
- First Amendment (8)
- Indigenous, Indian, and Aboriginal Law (8)
- Labor and Employment Law (8)
- Law and Society (8)
- Contracts (6)
- Criminal Law (6)
- Health Law and Policy (6)
- Medical Jurisprudence (5)
- Military, War, and Peace (5)
- Property Law and Real Estate (5)
- Education Law (4)
Articles 451 - 480 of 550
Full-Text Articles in Intellectual Property Law
Recent Developments In Patent Law, 5 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 630 (2006), Bradley C. Wright
Recent Developments In Patent Law, 5 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 630 (2006), Bradley C. Wright
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Over the past year, the United States patent law has developed significantly. Numerous cases were decided, shaping the future of patent law. This article tracks the development of patent law over the past year by analyzing important court decisions. These decisions affect various aspects of patent law, including the patentability of subject matter, the validity of patents, and the patent procurement process. While the specific impact of each decision varies, the combination of the decisions resulted in noteworthy changes to patent law in the United States.
The Impact Of The New World Order On Economic Development: The Role Of The Intellectual Property Rights System, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2006), Joseph Straus
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
This article provides a close look at the development of intellectual property protection contrasted with the development of globalization. Specifically, the agreements forming the legal framework of the World Trade Organization are discussed and their impact on the economic development of developing countries examined. A closer look is given to China and India, where only recently intellectual property protection standards complying with mandatory rules of the TRIPS Agreement have been introduced, and where the most remarkable economic, scientific, and technological development can be observed. This article emphasizes the necessity of all members of the World Trade Organization to comply with …
The Wipo "Internet Treaties" The United States As The Driver: The United States As The Main Source Of Obstruction — As Seen By An Anti-Revolutionary Central European, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 17 (2006), Mihály Ficsor
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The copyright policy of the United States developed from initial isolationism, through the 1891 Chase Act, various bilateral and inter-American agreements and the establishment of the Universal Copyright Convention, to active participation in the international copyright cooperation. This development was completed by the United States’ accession to the Berne Convention in 1988. Since then, the United States has played a leading role in this field, which was manifested both during the negotiations of the 1994 TRIPS Agreement and the preparatory work of the two 1996 WIPO “Internet Treaties”, the WCT and the WPPT. These WIPO Treaties, the preparation and adoption …
Recent Developments In Copyright Law: Selected U.S. Supreme Court, Court Of Appeals, And District Court Opinions Between February 1, 2005 And May 1, 2006, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 40 (2006), Tyler T. Ochoa
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
This article highlights nine selected U.S. copyright law decisions handed down between February 1, 2005 and May 1, 2006. Two of the decisions concern peer-to-peer file sharing, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in MGM v. Grokster. One of the decisions questions the applicability of the idea/expression dichotomy to works of visual art. Two of the decisions discuss ownership of the renewal rights in a work under the 1909 Act when the author is deceased. One of the decisions interprets the requirement that an author register his or her work before filing an infringement action. Two of the decisions …
The Cache Cow: Can Caching And Copyright Co-Exist?, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 101 (2006), Nicole Bashor
The Cache Cow: Can Caching And Copyright Co-Exist?, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 101 (2006), Nicole Bashor
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Copyright protection in a digital environment is difficult. Protection is made more difficult because of the scope of the Internet, uncertainty of a governing Internet agency, and copyright enforcement problems. Copyright protection is further complicated because search engines utilize a process involving copying web sites and displaying cached links to web sites without the web site owner's express permission. By analyzing the intersection of copyright law and the search engine caching process, it is clear that search engines are on dangerous ground and possibly violate the copyrights of web site owners. Accordingly, a solution is proposed that compensates web site …
Why Bother Calling Patents Property? The Government's Path To License Any Patent And Maybe Pay For It, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 151 (2006), Bradley M. Taub
Why Bother Calling Patents Property? The Government's Path To License Any Patent And Maybe Pay For It, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 151 (2006), Bradley M. Taub
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
In 2006 the Federal Circuit in Zoltek Corp. v. United States denied a patent owner the basic protections of the Constitution. In 2005 the United States Supreme Court in Kelo v. City of New London effectively wrote the Public Use Clause out of the Fifth Amendment. This comment focuses on the constitutional and statutory rights of patent owners in light of Zoltek, Kelo, and 28 U.S.C. § 1498. After Zoltek and Kelo several questions remain, which this comment asks and analyzes. First, can the Federal Government unilaterally take a patent owner’s patent reasoning the taking benefits the economy, public safety, …
Recent Developments In Trade Secrets Law, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 59 (2006), R. Mark Halligan
Recent Developments In Trade Secrets Law, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 59 (2006), R. Mark Halligan
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
As companies are increasingly trying to protect information by designating it as a trade secret, courts are increasingly trying to resolve litigation disputes relating to trade secrets misappropriation issues. Trends have emerged from these court cases, further defining the limits of trade secrets protection and attempting to carve out uniform rules concerning such protection. This article highlights some of the most interesting and recent developments in Trade Secrets Law.
The Patent Reform Act’S Proposed First-To-File Standard: Needed Reform Or Constitutional Blunder?, 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 129 (2006), Karen E. Simon
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The proposed Patent Reform Act of 2005 would bring U.S. patent law into harmony with most other countries by adopting a first-to-file standard for determining patent rights. This comment questions whether overturning the first-to-invent standardand two hundred years of settled law is permissible under the Patent Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The comment concludes that the Patent Reform Act of 2005, as proposed, violates the Constitution, and supports its argument by placing intocontext of the founding fathers fear of extending government monopolies. The comment proposes that Congress focus on procedural reform, and not change thefundamental standard for awarding patent rights.
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Copyright Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 212 (2005), Sarah B. Deutsch, Roderick G. Dorman, Michael A. Geist, Hugh C. Hansen, Howard P. Knopf, Ralph Oman, Matthew J. Oppenheim, John G. Palfrey
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Copyright Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 212 (2005), Sarah B. Deutsch, Roderick G. Dorman, Michael A. Geist, Hugh C. Hansen, Howard P. Knopf, Ralph Oman, Matthew J. Oppenheim, John G. Palfrey
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
This panel examines the recent litigation by the recording industry against peer-to-peer (“P2P”) users in the U.S. and Canada. How are users’ identities being obtained? Is the process working well enough or too well? What are the technical, evidentiary, procedural, privacy and substantive copyright issues in play?
Reforming Patent Law Reform, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 336 (2005), Donald S. Chisum
Reforming Patent Law Reform, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 336 (2005), Donald S. Chisum
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The current proposals to change the patent laws are described by proponents as patent law “reform.” In the 215 year history of the United States patent system, Congress has rarely purported to “reform” the system. Indeed, I am not sure that it has ever done so since the 1836 Act—or even since the 1793 Act. If we are to have “reform,” Congress should reform the system for the better of all concerned according to neutral principles.
Gonna Wash That Right Of Publicity Right Out Of My Hair –Life After Toney V. L’Oreal, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 349 (2005), Edwin F. Mcpherson
Gonna Wash That Right Of Publicity Right Out Of My Hair –Life After Toney V. L’Oreal, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 349 (2005), Edwin F. Mcpherson
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
There were very few problems with preemption of the state right of publicity by the Copyright Act; that is, until the Seventh Circuit changed everything in Toney v.L’Oreal U.S.A., Inc. This article focuses on the Toney case, the Baltimore Orioles,Inc. v. Major League Basball Players Association case that spawned Toney, and the devastating effect the law from these cases will have on the right of publicity, the entertainment industry as a whole, and many other areas of civil and criminal law, if Toney is allowed to stand.
China's Struggle To Maintain Economic Viability While Enforcing International And Domestic Intellectual Property Rights, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 608 (2005), Randal S. Alexander
China's Struggle To Maintain Economic Viability While Enforcing International And Domestic Intellectual Property Rights, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 608 (2005), Randal S. Alexander
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The development of global intellectual property rights (“IPRs”) can lead to complex issues regarding conformity with international standards of IP protection and enforcement. Although each country willing to become a WTO signatory is tasked with the development of such a regime, each country’s domestic affairs and economic survival competes with the burden of adhering to those international standards. This struggle provides the potential for many countries to confuse the boundaries of protection and create a fog of marginal infringement. In China, this fog is heavier because of local protectionism and judicial disincentives to enforce IPRs.
How We Lost Our Moral Rights And The Door Closed On Non-Economic Values In Copyright, 5 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2005), Susan P. Liemer
How We Lost Our Moral Rights And The Door Closed On Non-Economic Values In Copyright, 5 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2005), Susan P. Liemer
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The Visual Artists Rights Act (“VARA”) is a piece of modern legislation preceded by a rich history, with a significant gap. As early as the 1400’s, patents were offered as economic incentive to develop new processes in the trades and applied arts. By the 1700’s, the Statute of Anne became the first statute to protect the literary work of individual creators. The Engravers’ Act of 1735 soon followed, expanding this protection to include the first works of visual art and providing the precursor to the modern right of integrity. Millar v. Taylor was the landmark case that alluded to moral …
Fifth Avenue And The Patent Lawyer: Strategies For Using Design Patents To Increase The Value Of Fashion And Luxury Goods Companies, 5 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 40 (2005), Scott D. Locke
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Design patents occupy a peculiar niche in intellectual property law. For instance, they are different from copyrights in that an accused infringer has no defense of independent creation, different from utility patents in that there is no prerequisite of a useful function, and different from trade dress in that there is no issue of secondary meaning. Design patents also contain only one claim, which makes the applicant’s drafting task particularly challenging—she must strike a delicate balance between claiming broad protection and establishing novelty. Furthermore, in litigation, the design patent plaintiff must satisfy two tests of infringement: the ordinary observer and …
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Legislative Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 266 (2005), Marybeth Peters
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Legislative Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 266 (2005), Marybeth Peters
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The Honorable Marybeth Peters, who has served since 1994 as the Register of Copyrights for the United States Copyright Office of the Library of Congress, presented a post-election report on the legislative agenda in Washington, D.C. regarding rejected, pending and future amendments to the copyright law of the United States. Register Peters also discussed the current policy role of the United States Copyright Office and several court actions that contest the constitutionality of various provisions of the copyright law.
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Technology Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 242 (2005), Michael A. Geist, Doris E. Long, Leslie Ann Reis, David E. Sorkin, Fred Von Lohmann
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Technology Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 242 (2005), Michael A. Geist, Doris E. Long, Leslie Ann Reis, David E. Sorkin, Fred Von Lohmann
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
How is new technology impacting on the more general question of privacy in cyberspace? Is the original notion of an expectation of anonymity on the internet still viable? Can technology pierce through the expectation of privacy even without judicial interference? Do individuals need protection from such technology? Is there technology available to protect the individual? Should these technological tools be regulated? Should the law differentiate between various types of alleged “illegal” behavior; e.g., IP infringement, defamation, possession of pornography and terrorism? Are there international standards that can assist in regulating the intersection between technology and privacy in cyberspace?
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Political Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 306 (2005), William W. Fisher Iii, Hugh C. Hansen, Christopher Jay Hoofnagle, Howard P. Knopf, Declan Mccullagh, Ralph Oman, Matthew J. Oppenheim
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Political Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 306 (2005), William W. Fisher Iii, Hugh C. Hansen, Christopher Jay Hoofnagle, Howard P. Knopf, Declan Mccullagh, Ralph Oman, Matthew J. Oppenheim
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Veteran beltway players discuss the politics of P2P technology and Privacy. How far can or should Congress go? Can the United States export its values or its laws in this area? Are content owners in a losing Luddite struggle? What is the role of litigators, lobbyists and legislators in this war?
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Privacy Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 273 (2005), Julie E. Cohen, David E. Sorkin, Peter P. Swire
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Privacy Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 273 (2005), Julie E. Cohen, David E. Sorkin, Peter P. Swire
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
What legal tools do privacy advocates have available to defend an individual’s right to privacy? How far does this right go? How should these rights be defended—or if necessary—curtailed? What is the role of Government, of the practicing bar and of academics?
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Wide-Angle Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 285 (2005), William W. Fisher Iii, Howard P. Knopf, Fred Von Lohmann, William B.T. Mock, Marybeth Peters, R. Anthony Reese
Copyright & Privacy - Through The Wide-Angle Lens, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 285 (2005), William W. Fisher Iii, Howard P. Knopf, Fred Von Lohmann, William B.T. Mock, Marybeth Peters, R. Anthony Reese
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Some have proposed “alternative compensation schemes” as a means of compensating copyright owners and creators for P2P activity while avoiding litigation. Some have proposed a streamlined dispute resolution system that would allow for enforcement in a manner analogous to the UDRP model. Others question whether private copying should necessarily be viewed as illegal and whether any alternative compensation scheme is viable. With all of these proposals, the question remains as to whether “alternative compensation” is really alternative.
Transaction Costs And Antitrust Concerns In The Licensing Of Intellectual Property, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 325 (2005), Richard A. Posner
Transaction Costs And Antitrust Concerns In The Licensing Of Intellectual Property, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 325 (2005), Richard A. Posner
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
High transaction costs incurred in the licensing of intellectual property create a pressure on legal principles ranging from the fair use doctrine of copyright law to the tying doctrine in antitrust law. It appears, with some exceptions, that antitrust law is imposing excessive restrictions on the licensing of intellectual property. The effect of these restrictions, combined with the high transaction costs inherent in the licensing of intellectual property, is to prevent the maximally efficient allocation of IP resources.
Recent Developments In Trademark Law: Confusion, Free Speech And The Question Of Use, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 387 (2005), Chad J. Doellinger
Recent Developments In Trademark Law: Confusion, Free Speech And The Question Of Use, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 387 (2005), Chad J. Doellinger
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The Supreme Court’s continued trend of refining trademark rights combined with a new concern for free speech and expression brings current and unresolved trademark issues to light. The large amount of activity in the development of trademark law in 2004 has brought additional uncertainty to trademark law. This article discusses recent Supreme Court trademark jurisprudence refining trademark rights, the development of recent trademark dilution cases, the role of use in commerce as applied to internet search engines and keyword issues, and the emphasis on free speech and expression.
Intellectual Property Implications In A Virtual Reality Environment, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 483 (2005), Timir Chheda
Intellectual Property Implications In A Virtual Reality Environment, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 483 (2005), Timir Chheda
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
What will become of intellectual property interests in a world where virtual reality is a fact of life? To ponder this question we must step back from the sophisticated judicially created tests built around a framework of policy suited for modern reality and first consider whether such policy is viable given a virtual reality environment. Only then may we consider if the tests appropriately further such policy, and if not, modify the tests accordingly. This comment considers the policy and tests implicated when copyright, trademark, and patent law pass through the looking-glass and enter the realm of virtual reality.
Placing The Burden Back Where It Belongs: A Proposal To Eliminate The Affirmative Duty From Willful Infringement Analyses, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 509 (2005), Kevin J. Kelly
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
In order to further the objective of the patent system and maximize the public’s incentive to innovate, it is imperative that the patent laws maintain a balance between the interests of patent owners in excluding others from their patents and the interests of society in the continual progress of technology. The current law in willful infringement analysis upsets this balance with the affirmative duty of due care, which shifts the burden of proof in patent infringement suits from the plaintiff to the alleged infringer. The affirmative duty places a heavy burden on the public and is inconsistent with various common …
University Of Rochester V. G.D. Searle & Co.: Writing On The Wall, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 406 (2005), N. Scott Pierce
University Of Rochester V. G.D. Searle & Co.: Writing On The Wall, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 406 (2005), N. Scott Pierce
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
In patent law, the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 is currently interpreted to include a written description requirement that is distinct from the requirement of enabling a person skilled in the art to make and use an invention. However, analyses of patent specifications under the “written description requirement” have relied on determinations of whether one skilled in the art would comprehend the scope of the claimed invention in view of the description provided, in effect continuing use of enablement as the statutory threshold for description purposes. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in University of Rochester …
Congress Wants To Give The Riaa Control Of Your Ipod: How The Induce Act Chills Innovation And Abrogates Sony, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 534 (2005), Michael Raucci
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The addition of “active inducement” to the Copyright Act would compliment the doctrine of contributory liability by punishing those who actively encourage copyright infringement. Actively inducing infringement can include advertising an infringing use or other affirmative acts. Therefore, active inducement provides a technology-neutral standard that would not look to punish bad technology but rather bad actions by the technology distributor. In contrast, the reasonable person standard of the Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act of 2004 (“Induce Act”) permits an inappropriate extension of the exclusive rights given to copyright holders by lowering the threshold for litigation. Consequently, the Induce Act improperly …
"As The Federal Circuit Turns": The Supreme Court's Consideration Of Merck V. Integra And The Safe Harbor Provision, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 368 (2005), Blair M. Jacobs, Christina A. Ondrick
"As The Federal Circuit Turns": The Supreme Court's Consideration Of Merck V. Integra And The Safe Harbor Provision, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 368 (2005), Blair M. Jacobs, Christina A. Ondrick
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The Hatch-Waxman Act was enacted to balance the competing interests in the pharmaceutical marketplace between brand name and generic drug manufacturers. In the twenty years since its inception, the safe harbor provision contained in § 271(e)(1), has been interpreted to provide broad protection to those involved in research activities. However, in 2003, the Federal Circuit narrowly interpreted the safe harbor provision in a move that could potentially frustrate future research and improvements on patented technologies. Merck v. Integra is currently before the United States Supreme Court, who has the challenge of unraveling the competing interests involved. In order to encourage …
Abuse Of Public Use? Exploring The Smithkline V. Apotex Decision And The Future Of Public Use, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 559 (2005), Artem N. Sokolov
Abuse Of Public Use? Exploring The Smithkline V. Apotex Decision And The Future Of Public Use, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 559 (2005), Artem N. Sokolov
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
In SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotx Corp., the court incorrectly applied the statutory public use bar and held the clinical trials did not constitute an experimental use. This ruling set the bar too high. Applying a narrow construction of the law, the CAFC invalidated a claim in a clear case of experimental use. The decision not only misapplied the precedent defining an “inherent” feature of the invention, but also essentially eliminated the need for applying the policies that underlie and define the public use bar under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Is The Federal Circuit Ready To Accept Plenary Authority For Patent Appeals?, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 583 (2005), Meredith Martin Addy
Is The Federal Circuit Ready To Accept Plenary Authority For Patent Appeals?, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 583 (2005), Meredith Martin Addy
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Congress formed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 in part to improve uniformity in the interpretation of patent law and to eliminate forum shopping. However, in 2002, the Federal Circuit’s ability to achieve that goal was reduced when the U.S. Supreme Court, in Holmes Group v. Vornado, held that the Federal Circuit would not have jurisdiction in cases where a federal patent law issue arises only in a responsive pleading. Many commentators have argued that the Holmes decision runs afoul of the congressional mandate in forming the Federal Circuit. With the hope of addressing this …
The Third Door Is Off The Hinges: A Prospective Study On The Effects Of The Create Act Against Federal Patent Policies, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 597 (2005), Shane M. Popp
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
The CREATE Act has amended § 103 of the Patent Act to expand the definition of common ownership such that a claimed invention is deemed to be commonly owned with other subject matter when the two arise from the same “joint research agreement.” With the CREATE Act, Congress intended to promote research among inventive entities, but instead, Congress has relaxed the conditions for patentability to the point where a contract can circumvent an obviousness inquiry.
Pondering A “Baffling” Situation: The “Reconstruction” Of Claim Construction, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 623 (2005), Karen C. Mitch
Pondering A “Baffling” Situation: The “Reconstruction” Of Claim Construction, 4 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 623 (2005), Karen C. Mitch
UIC Review of Intellectual Property Law
Through an iterative use of the ordinary dictionary, claim construction would be more simple, cost effective and efficient in serving the public notice function of the claim. Since the decision in Markman, two divergent methods of claim construction have emerged; one referring to dictionary definitions first, the other referring to parts of the patent such as the specification first. Due to the confusion and differing outcomes the two methods bring about, there came a call by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit for clarification. The recent en banc decision in Phillips reverted claim interpretation back to …