Suchergebnisse

Reprinted from American law and procedure, ed. by J. P. Hall, v.4. ; Mode of access: Internet.

In the last year, the landscape of patent law was altered by court opinions from the Supreme Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, as well as in opinions rendered by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (hereafter BP AI) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, patent reform legislation was introduced that could have shaken up patent practice even further. Although none of the reform proposals were passed, revised versions of these legislative initiatives have already been introduced in 2009. This brief write-up summarizes many (but by no means all) of the important developments in patent law in 2008 and early 2009.

In patent law, "unenforceability" can have immense consequences. At least five equitable doctrines make up the defense of "unenforceability" as it was codified into the Patent Act in 1952: laches; estoppel; unclean hands; patent misuse; and according to some, inequitable conduct. Yet in the seventy years since incorporation of equitable defenses into the patent statute, the Supreme Court has not clarified their reach. Indeed, twice in the last four years, the Supreme Court avoided giving complete guidance on the crucial questions of whether, and when, such equitable defenses are available to bar damages in cases brought at law. Several interpretive methods have been proposed for determining the reach of generally worded statutes like the Patent Act. Under a dynamic statutory interpretation, courts would be permitted to develop such statutes in accordance with what the law ought to be. Under a traditional faithful agent approach, in contrast, courts would try to determine the scope as set forth by the legislature, piecing together context and history to frame limited words. The scope of equitable defenses in patent law is an ideal proving ground between these methods, having both historical background for use in traditional approaches and high-stakes social questions that factor into a dynamic approach—what conduct do we allow patentees to engage in before we cut off remedies for infringement on innovations that support our health and modern lifestyle? Setting the stage of the statutory interpretive battle, this Article examines the historical and statutory bases of equitable limits on patent law, with a particular focus on the substantive equitable defenses of unclean hands and patent misuse. It contrasts the history of equitable defenses such as estoppel, which crossed fully into courts of law well before the merger of law and equity and the Patent Act, with equitable defenses such as laches, unclean hands, and misuse. This Article walks through these defenses' pre-codification roots and potential statutory interpretations and presents normative and constitutional considerations under the competing interpretive approaches. It also presents a surprising approach to inequitable conduct, arguing that it is not an equitable defense and should no longer result in infectious invalidity. This Article is the first to provide a comprehensive framework for the analysis of equitable defenses in patent law.

Spine title: Patent law. ; Includes bibliographical references. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This Intellectual Property Supplement from eLangdell Press contains the text of federal laws and regulations in the area of copyright, trademarks and patents. The editors have endeavored to gather all relevant laws, rules and regulations. This collection is intended to be used primarily as a statutory supplement for law students and legal scholars in academic settings, although practitioners in this area of law will also find it useful.This volume, Volume 2: Patent Statutory Law contains the text of Title 35 of the United States Code as it appears on the most current edition available on the U.S. Government website FDSYS. Updates to the U.S. Code not yet found in the FDSYS published editions can be found in the United States House of Representatives Office of Law Revision Counsel's Classification Tables. They can be found at http://uscode.house.gov/classification/tables.shtml. Some formatting modification has been performed to better accommodate electronic readers.