Patent Invalidity


Book Description




Infringement of the United States Patent Right


Book Description

Dr. Holzmann introduces the manager and technologist as well as the student and the foreign patent practitioner to the United States Law of Patent Infringement. Dr. Holzmann directly addresses what to do when a patent is being infringed. The author explains and interprets the intricacies of the patent law and provides a strong basis of understanding future changes in patent law. This valuable volume should appeal to academics and students of law, attorneys specializing in corporate law, patent attorneys, CEOs in technical firms, and CEOs of foreign corporations.




Patent Invalidity


Book Description




Patent Wars


Book Description

In Patent Wars, one of America's leading patent scholars provides an accessible overview of U.S. patent law; the arguments for and against patents; and the ongoing debates over topics including the patentability of genes, software, and business methods, the impact of patents on drug prices, "patent trolls," and the smartphone wars.




Patent Invalidity


Book Description




Aspen Treatise for Patent Law


Book Description

Succinct and timely, the 7th Edition of the best-selling PATENT LAW continues to demystify its subject as it explores and explains important cases, statutes, and policy. Approachably written for law students, attorneys, inventors, and laypersons alike, this acclaimed text stands on its own or may be used alongside any patent or IP casebook to support more in-depth study of patent law. New to the 7th Edition: Supreme Court review of bedrock patentability requirements: o Amgen (the Court’s first examination of enablement in nearly 100 years) Supreme Court clarification of long-standing equitable doctrines in patent litigation: o Minerva (assignor estoppel is valid but limited to instances when assignor’s claim of invalidity contradicts representations made in assigning patent) Ongoing, intensive Supreme Court scrutiny of the America Invents Act (AIA), the most significant change to U.S. patent law in 70 years, including: Thryv (Federal Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review PTAB’s § 315(b) time-bar decisions) Arthrex (PTO Director review of PTAB final decisions remedies Constitutional violation in appointment of PTAB judges. The problematic landscape of patent-eligibility jurisprudence under § 101, including Federal Circuit decisions in: American Axle (methods of manufacturing) CareDx (diagnostic methods) Trinity Info Media, Adasa, Killian, Free Stream Media, Uniloc, Rudy (abstract ideas) The challenging application of the cornerstone non obviousness requirement to the burgeoning field of design patents, including the Federal Circuit’s first en banc consideration of a patent case in 5 years: LKQ ​Confronting new questions of novelty, priority, and prior art under the AIA, including Federal Circuit and PTAB decisions in: SNIPR Techs. (enumerating patentability and priority requirements for “pure pre-AIA,” “pure AIA,” and “mixed” patents and applications) Penumbra (when is a patent relied on as § 102(a)(2) prior art entitled to the earlier filing date of its related parent or provisional application) Fine-tuning the scope of AIA IPR estoppel to prevent petitioners from relitigating the same validity issues in federal court, including Federal Circuit decisions in: Cal. Inst. (interpreting “during the IPR”) Ironburg (“skilled searcher” standard) The limited role of extrinsic evidence in patent claim interpretation: Genuine Enabling (rejecting accused infringer’s expert testimony seeking to narrow claim scope via prosecution disclaimer) Allowing assertions of the equitable defense of prosecution history laches against unreasonable and inexcusable prosecution delays, despite compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements: Hyatt, Personalized Media How the European Union’s new Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court (2023) are revolutionizing international patenting Professors and students will benefit from: Thorough coverage and clear writing that clarifies principal legal doctrines, key judicial authorities, governing statutes, and policy considerations for obtaining, enforcing, and challenging a U.S. patent In-depth treatment and comparison of pre- and post-America Invents Act regimes for novelty and prior art with numerous hypotheticals Timely statistics on patent trends Succinct analysis of multi-national patent protection regimes Helpful visual aids, such as figures, tables, and timelines A sample patent and breakdown of a prosecution history Boldfaced key terms and a convenient Glossary




Patent Protection for Second Medical Uses


Book Description

When a party develops a ‘second medical use’ for a known substance or compound, special issues of patentability arise. Jurisdictions around the world vary significantly in their treatment of such claims. This detailed country-by-country analysis provides clarity, insight, and guidance on the legal issues and practical implications of second medical use claims in nineteen jurisdictions worldwide as well as the European Union. The authors of the country chapters have been carefully selected based on a broad basis of experience and in-depth knowledge about medical patents in their respective jurisdictions. Each chapter considers such issues and topics as the following: • availability of protection; • validity of claims; • scope of protection; • enforcement; and • infringement. A general chapter about the practice of the European Patent Office (EPO) addresses in particular the latest changes in the format of second medical use claims from the “Swiss-type claims” to the “EPC 2000 claims”. Specific issues and national peculiarities which deviate from the EPO practice are explained in the various national European chapters, while chapters on jurisdictions outside Europe cover both prosecution and enforcement of patents with second medical use claims. As a comparative law study and a collection of contributions from around the world on an important and controversial field, this book will prove of tremendous practical interest for the industry involved and for the public. Applicants for pharmaceutical patents, third parties, and interested legal practitioners will benefit greatly from its thorough comparative analysis and guidance. This book is the second volume in the AIPPI Law Series which has been established together with the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI).




Mueller on Patent Law


Book Description

Basic principles -- Patent claims -- Patent-eligible subject matter --The enablement requirement -- Best mode requirement --Written description of the invention requirement -- Novelty and no loss of right -- Inventorship-- The nonobviousness requirement --The utility requirement -- Patent prosecution procedures in the USPTO -- Double patenting.







Clear But Unconvincing


Book Description

The Federal Circuit's standard for proving invalidity of patent claims is clear. The Federal Circuit always requires clear and convincing evidence to prove that a patent claim is invalid. The rationale behind this standard, however, is unconvincing. There are significant reasons to believe that the Patent Office rarely considers the most relevant prior art and that, instead, alleged infringers often find prior art that is more relevant than the prior art considered by the Patent Office. It defies logic to apply the clear and convincing burden where the Patent Office considered only prior art that is less relevant than the prior art asserted in litigation. And while the Federal Circuit relies upon 35 U.S.C. § 282 as dictating the clear and convincing burden of proof, the statute includes no such burden. Indeed, every other circuit court of appeals has indicated that the statutory presumption of validity only requires a presumption that the Patent Office correctly ruled upon the evidence in front of it - not that the Patent Office considered the most relevant prior art or that it - illogically - correctly ruled upon evidence that it did not even consider. To encourage the disclosure of relevant prior art to the Patent Office, to increase patent quality, to ensure that patents serve their Constitutional purpose of rewarding inventors for disclosing discoveries, and to reduce transaction costs associated with ultimately invalid patents, the clear and convincing burden of proving invalidity should be replaced with a preponderance burden when litigation involves unconsidered, material prior art.