The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) this month gathered a wide range of key stakeholders to have a frank discussion about how to solve rising global resistance to existing antibiotics. While not a negotiation, stakeholders in the expert group opened up and shared perspectives, leading to some informal conclusions. Among them: more public and private investment, and a shift in the R&D system to new-style incentives, are needed.Continue Reading ...
Of the 1,582 patents with a final written decision, 1,343 were found to have defects by the PTAB. That is an 85% defect rate. Only 239 patents were affirmed to be fully compliant with the statutes by the PTAB. Yet the Office of Patent Quality Assurance…Continue Reading ...
Continue Reading ...
The Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation has elected António Campinos to succeed Benoît Battistelli as President of the European Patent Office (EPO). His five-year term will start on 1 July 2018.
The post António Campinos elected next EPO President appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.
Continue Reading ...
By John Cravero — About the PTAB Life Sciences Report: Each month we will report on developments at the PTAB involving life sciences patents. Complete Genomics, Inc. v. Illumina Cambridge Ltd. PTAB Petition: IPR2017-02172; filed October 5, 2017. Paten…Continue Reading ...
October 30, 2017 – “Post Grant Review Strategy – Choose Wisely” (Cardinal IP) – 3:00 to 4:00 pm (CT), Chicago, IL. October 31, 2017 – “Divided Patent Infringement and Inducement: Protecting IP Rights and Allocating Liability” (Strafford) – 1:00 to 2:30 pm (EDT) November 2-3, 2017 – Summit on IP Due Diligence*** (American Conference Institute) – Philadelphia, PA December 4, 2017 – “Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal, Answers or More Questions?” – Part II (Federal Circuit Bar Association) – 1:00 to 2:00 pm ***Patent Docs is a media partner of this conference or CLEContinue Reading ...
Query: Is a state actor (let’s say Alabama) able to enforce its trademark rights to the same extent as a non-governmental actor? Or does the First Amendment place additional restrictions on its behavior?Continue Reading ...
$$ For this purpose, the valve stem carries a piston 40 reciprocably mounted in a chamber 42 and dividing it into two portions. / そのために、バルブ・ステム（弁心棒）は、チャンバ４２内に往復自在に載置されてチャンバ４２を二つの部分に分割するピストン４０を備えている。(USP8662030)
$$ Bone marrow contains two types of stem cells: hematopoietic stem cells and mesenchymal stem cells. / 骨髄は、造血幹細胞、および間葉系幹細胞の二種類の幹細胞を含む。(USP8273253)
$$ As used herein, "tobacco" includes any part, e.g., leaves, flowers, stems, of any member of the genus Nicotiana and reconstituted materials thereof. / 「タバコ」なる用語は、タバコ属のあらゆる要素およびその再生材料のあらゆる部分、例えば葉、花、茎などを含む。(USP8162136)
$$ The stem of a rivet is inserted through the nose tip 8. / リベットの幹は、ノーズ・チップ８を貫通して挿入される。(USP8161622)
$$ The stems of the shoulders that end up cast into the concrete sleeper stick up into the mould pocket before the concrete is poured. / コンクリート製枕木の中に最後に鋳られる肩部の軸は、コンクリートが注入される前にモールドポケットの中に突き出る。(USP8146835)
$$ The term "plant material" encompasses whole plants and also parts thereof which contain the principal medically active constituents, for example the aerial parts of the plant or isolated leaves, stems, flowering heads, fruits or roots. / 用語“植物材料”は、植物全体および医学的に重要な活性成分を含む植物の一部、例えば、植物の気生部分すなわち単独の葉、茎、頭状花、果実、または、根を網羅している。(USP7622140)
$$ Preferably, the odontogenic cells are produced from an immortalised cell line or a stem cell (e.g. ES cell). / 好ましくは、誘導性歯原性細胞が、不死化した細胞株又は幹細胞（例えば、ES細胞）から生成される。(USP7588936)
$$ This is known as stemming and examples are "manufacturing" which is reduced to "manufacture", "predetermination" to "determine", and "preselect" to "select". / このことはステミング（語幹処理）として知られているところであり、その例は“manufacturing（製造）”であって、これが“manufacture”に、“predetermination（予定）”が“determine”に、また“preselect（予選）”が“select”になる。(USP6353827)
$$ In this reference, the disposable locking member has a head part, a stem part and a plug part. (USP7021826)
$$ In a specific embodiment, stem or progenitor cells are used. (USP7304129)
目次はこちらContinue Reading ...
The protection of criminal justice technologies with trade secrets is a hot topic. Last Term, the Supreme Court called for the views of the solicitor general in Loomis v. Wisconsin on whether using proprietary software for sentencing is a due process violation, though they ultimately denied the cert petition. Last month, I described Natalie Ram’s forthcoming article, which focuses on the innovation angle: Ram argues that trade secrecy protection is not necessary for efficient levels of innovation for these kinds of technologies. I just enjoyed another terrific article in this space by Yale Information Society Project Fellow Rebecca Wexler: Life, Liberty, and Trade Secrets: Intellectual Property in the Criminal Justice System, forthcoming in the Stanford Law Review.
Wexler describes the growing privatization of the criminal justice system, particularly through black-box algorithms. She explains that the importance of trade secrecy in this area is likely to grow: data-driven systems for forensics or risk assessment are more difficult to protect with patents post-Alice, whereas trends like the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 seem to have strengthened the value of trade secrets. Wexler agrees that the innovation policy rationale for secrecy of criminal justice technologies is unconvincing and that this secrecy may raise due process concerns, but the focus of her article is on the problems with this trend as a matter of the law of evidence. She argues that the trade secrets privilege that two-thirds of states have codified in their evidence rules should not exist in criminal proceedings—rather, as for other sensitive information like medical records, courts should simply use protective orders to limit the distribution of trade secrets beyond the needs of the proceeding.
Since I am not an evidence law expert, I will not discuss these aspects of Wexler’s argument in detail; in short, she explains that the trade secrets privilege is harmful and unnecessary in criminal cases, and that it does not serve the purpose of evidentiary privilege law. From an IP perspective, she also argues that none of the theoretical justifications for trade secrecy law support the privilege. She suggests that the privilege is most analogous to the controversial “inevitable disclosure” doctrine, under which some states will enjoin conduct based on a speculative concern rather than any direct evidence of threatened misappropriation. But even here, the trade secrets privilege doctrine overprotects because it is upheld without any reference to the circumstances of a particular case. Wexler also notes that “claims that secrecy will incentivize innovation are tenuous at best when the privilege shields information from criminal defendants who are unlikely to be business competitors.” And despite the status quo of robust protection, a 2009 National Academy of Sciences report notes the “dearth of peer-reviewed, published studies establishing the scientific bases and validity of many forensic methods”; as Wexler explains, greater transparency is likely to improve rather than worsen this problem.
I think there is plenty in Wexler’s article to interest scholars of IP, criminal procedure, evidence, and more. But more importantly, I hope it is read by judges in criminal cases who are faced with assertions of trade secrets privilege. And judges will have opportunities since the issue is percolating through the courts in other cases, such as California v. Johnson; see the defense attorney’s brief (which cites Wexler’s article), as well as amicus briefs from the ACLU, EFF, Legal Aid, and Innocence Project. It seems like it is time for the uncritical acceptance of the privilege to end, and for judges and practitioners to grapple with the concerns Wexler raises.Continue Reading ...