Related Research Articles
Robert Pitofsky was an American lawyer and politician who was the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission of the United States from April 11, 1995, to May 31, 2001. He had previously been Dean of the Georgetown University Law Center from 1983 to 1989, and was Dean Emeritus at the time of his death.
KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the issue of obviousness as applied to patent claims.
Gerald D. Hosier is an American intellectual property (IP) attorney and a patent litigator. In 2000, Forbes magazine declared him the highest-paid lawyer in America, with an annual income of $40 million.
Richard Linn is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
In United States federal courts, a circuit split occurs when two or more different circuit courts of appeals provide conflicting rulings on the same legal issue. The existence of a circuit split is one of the factors that the Supreme Court of the United States considers when deciding whether to grant review of a case. Some scholars suggest that the Supreme Court is more likely to grant review of a case to resolve a circuit split than for any other reason.
Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Medipart, Inc., 976 F.2d 700, is a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in which the court appeared to overrule or drastically limit many years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent affirming the patent exhaustion doctrine, for example in Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell.
Richard Allen Posner is an American legal scholar who served as a federal appellate judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit from 1981 to 2017. A senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, Posner is a leading figure in the field of law and economics, and was identified by The Journal of Legal Studies as the most-cited legal scholar of the 20th century. He is widely considered to be one of the most influential legal scholars in the United States.
Sakraida v. Ag Pro Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976), was a unanimous 1976 Supreme Court decision holding a claimed invention obvious because it "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform, although perhaps producing a more striking result than in previous combinations."
The Tulane Law Review, a publication of the Tulane University Law School, was founded in 1916, and is currently published five times annually. The Law Review has an international circulation, and is one of few American law reviews carried by law libraries in the United Kingdom.
The Tulane Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property (JTIP) is a student-edited journal of the Tulane University Law School. JTIP examines legal issues relating to technology, including topics such as antitrust, computer law, contracts, constitutional law, copyrights, information privacy, patents, torts, trade secrets, trademarks, and all other policy implications of law and technology in society.
Cultural property law is the body of law that protects and regulates the disposition of culturally significant material, including historic real property, ancient and historic artifacts, artwork, and intangible cultural property. Cultural property can be any property, tangible or intangible, having special significance to a defined group of people, whether or not the group is vested with a traditional property interest. Cultural property laws may be international or domestic.
Inwood Laboratories Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844 (1982), is a United States Supreme Court case, in which the Court confirmed the application of and set out a test for contributory trademark liability under § 32 of the Lanham Act.
The Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property is a law review published by an independent student organization at Northwestern University School of Law.
Journal of Intellectual Property Law is a biannual student-edited law review covering intellectual property law published by the University of Georgia School of Law. The journal covers trademarks, patents, copyright law, trade secrets, internet law, and sports and entertainment law.
Evans v. Eaton, 20 U.S. 356 (1822), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, chiefly, that a patent on an improved machine must clearly describe how the machine differs from the prior art.
Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U.S. 446 (2015), is a significant decision of the United States Supreme Court for several reasons. One is that the Court turned back a considerable amount of academic criticism of both the patent misuse doctrine as developed by the Supreme Court and the particular legal principle at issue in the case. Another is that the Court firmly rejected efforts to assimilate the patent misuse doctrine to antitrust law and explained in some detail the different policies at work in the two bodies of law. Finally, the majority and dissenting opinions informatively articulate two opposing views of the proper role of the doctrine of stare decisis in US law.
J. E. M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., 534 U.S. 124 (2001), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding for the first time that utility patents may be issued for crops and other flowering plants under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that the exclusive ways to protect these plants are under the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA), 7 U.S.C. § 2321, and the Plant Patent Act of 1930 (PPA), 35 U.S.C. §§ 161-164.
Brulotte v. Thys Co., 379 U.S. 29 (1964), was a Supreme Court of the United States decision holding that a contract calling for payment of patent royalties after the expiration of the licensed patent was misuse of the patent right and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause, state contract law notwithstanding. The decision was widely subjected to academic criticism but the Supreme Court has rejected that criticism and reaffirmed the Brulotte decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC.
Henry v. A.B. Dick Co., 224 U.S. 1 (1912), was a 1912 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld patent licensing restrictions such as tie-ins on the basis of the so-called inherency doctrine—the theory that it was the inherent right of a patent owner, because he could lawfully refuse to license his patent at all, to exercise the "lesser" right to license it on any terms and conditions he chose. In 1917, the Supreme Court overruled the A.B. Dick case in Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co.,
Amazon. com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble. com, Inc., 337 F.3d 1024, was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The ruling was an important early cyberlaw precedent on the matter of the technologies that enable e-commerce and whether such technologies are eligible for patent protection.
References
- ↑ John Marshall Law School web site, Volume 1, Issue 1, Fall 2001 Archived 2007-10-08 at the Wayback Machine . Consulted on February 20, 2007.
- ↑ See, e.g., Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 42 Fed. Appx. 439, 452 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing Harold C. Wegner, An Enzo White Paper: A New Judicial Standard for a Biotechnology “Written Description” Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 254, 263 [ permanent dead link ] (2002)).