• Disclosure, Sanctions – Still To Be Overcome In WIPO Genetic Resources Negotiations

    Efforts to draft new language to bridge gaps in this week’s negotiations on a potential treaty protecting genetic resources at the World Intellectual Property Organization were praised by a number of participants. However, what is now presented as a “package” proposition, focusing the instrument on patents, left some developing countries with the feeling that the concessions they made on the patent-only focus are not being met with a similar efforts by others, in particular on a proposed disclosure requirement for patent applicants.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Indigenous Knowledge Databases: Is It Something To Be Concerned About?

    Almost all information today ends up in a database. It is organised and made readily accessible. While it sounds positive, for indigenous communities, it can be crucial. Databases of their knowledge, culture, and genetic resources, if misused, can undermine generations of community effort and maybe even their sustainability. A panel of indigenous peoples’ representatives presented their concerns about databases this week to governments attending a World Intellectual Property Organization meeting on genetic resources.

    Continue Reading ...
  • House Subcommittees Hold Hearing on Artificial Intelligence Challenges and Opportunities

    On the morning of Tuesday, June 26th, both the House Subcommittee on Research and Technology and the House Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing titled Artificial Intelligence – With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility. The day’s discussion centered on issues surrounding the nascent technological field of artificial intelligence (AI), including both the potential negative and positive impacts that improved AI technologies could pose to the U.S. workforce and society in general… The specter…

    Continue Reading ...
  • House Subcommittees Hold Hearing on Artificial Intelligence Challenges and Opportunities

    On the morning of Tuesday, June 26th, both the House Subcommittee on Research and Technology and the House Subcommittee on Energy held a hearing titled Artificial Intelligence – With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility. The day’s discussion centered on issues surrounding the nascent technological field of artificial intelligence (AI), including both the potential negative and positive impacts that improved AI technologies could pose to the U.S. workforce and society in general… The specter…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Justice Kennedy Patent Opinions:

    • Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for determining patent eligibility)
    • KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (common sense allows PHOSITA to combine references in considering an invention’s obviousness)
    • Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., Ltd., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) (narrowing amendment presumptively creates prosecution history estoppel)
    • Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1920 (2015) (an infringer’s belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement)
    • TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Mktg. Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001) (utility patent creates strong inference of a design’s functionality)

     

    Continue reading Justice Kennedy Patent Opinions: at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • Vanda on Rehearing: Will the Federal Circuit Defy SCOTUS?

    by Dennis Crouch

    Vanda Pharms. Inc. v. West-Ward Pharms. Int’l Ltd., 887 F.3d 1117 (Fed. Cir. 2018) offers an example of a claim on the cusp of eligibility.  In a 2-1 decision, Vanda’s schizophrenia treatment claim was found eligible with Judge Lourie penning the majority and Chief Judge Prost in dissent. Judge Hughes was the swing vote here.

    I have several thoughts on the patents at issue here, but they boil down to the following (1) Vanda’s claims should be patent eligible; (2) but the claims are not patent eligible under Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012) and Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).

    Now, West-Ward has filed its petition for rehearing en banc on the following question*:

    1. Whether adjusting a dose of an old drug based on a patient’s genetic risk of poorly metabolizing it is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

    A brief in support has been filed by Inventia and Mylan.

    I previously wrote that “the majority’s approach appears to latch onto simple patent drafting tricks as the basis for distinguishing Mayo — an approach directly rejected by the Supreme Court in Mayo.”

    The claim in Vanda is directed toward a method of treating a patient suffering from schizophrenia with the drug iloperidone.

    Continue reading Vanda on Rehearing: Will the Federal Circuit Defy SCOTUS? at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • 結合する

                            目次はこちら

    結合する

    (COMBINE)
    $$ The cathode electrocatalyst combines the protons with oxygen to produce water. / このカソード電気触媒は、プロト…

    Continue Reading ...
  • From 1 to 10,000,000 – A History of Patents

    ??Tuesday June 19th, 2018 goes down in history for the patent world as the day U.S. Patent No. 10,000,000 was granted. The journey from patent No.1 to patent 10,000,000 tells the story of an evolving economy and the technological change that has taken place over more than two centuries.

    The post From 1 to 10,000,000 – A History of Patents appeared first on IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law.

    Continue Reading ...
  • U.K. Update: Marshall on Accounts of Profits, Radcliffe on Awards of Costs

    1.  Joshua Marshall has published an article titled Account of Profit for Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights, 40 EIPR 260 (2018).  Here is the abstract:
    This article discusses the remedy of an account of profit awarded at the election of a claimant who successfully pleads infringement of their intellectual property rights. This article will sketch out the essential remedies available where intellectual property rights have been infringed and the fundamental differences between them. This article will then turn to consider the causes of action for which an account of profit is available and the relevant obligations and rights at play. This article then attempts to rationalise the remedy where intellectual property rights have been infringed. It is submitted that, in this context, the remedy is a personal, rather than proprietary, right to disgorge the profit made by the tortfeasor in committing the wrong. 

    Mr. Marshall also has published a comment titled OOO Abbott v Design & Display Ltd:  Account of Profits for Patent Infringement, 40 EIPR 329-33.  Here is the abstract: 
    In proceedings for patent infringement, once liability has been established a successful claimant will often be permitted to elect between compensatory damages or an account of the profits made by the defendant. The defendant need only account for net profits, not gross turnover, meaning that overheads should be deducted. This raises the question of what overheads can be  deducted and in what proportion. The court has grappled with these issues throughout these proceedings. After four years of litigation over the correct quantum of the remedy, the value of the defendant’s profit has been determined to be nil.

    For previous discussion on this blog of earlier proceedings in this matter, see herehere, and here.
     

    2.  Jonathan Radcliffe has published an article titled Unregistered Patent Transaction?  Even in Win, That’ll Cost You in Bloomberg BNA’s World Intellectual Property Report.  As in the U.S., a party to an assignment of patent rights may, but not is required, to record the assignment with the Patent Office.  There are some obvious third-party benefits, however, from knowing whether a patent initially granted to one person has been transferred to another; and so English law attempts to encourage the recordal of such a transfer by providing, in section 68 of the Patent Act, that:

    Where by virtue of a transaction, instrument or event to which section 33 above applies a person becomes the proprietor or one of the proprietors or an exclusive licensee of a patent and the patent is subsequently infringed, before the transaction, instrument or event is registered, in proceedings for such an infringement, the court or comptroller shall not award him costs or expenses unless -

    (a) the transaction, instrument or event is registered within the period of six months beginning with its date; or

    (b) the court or the comptroller is satisfied that it was not practicable to register the transaction, instrument or event before the end of that period and that it was registered as soon as practicable thereafter.

    Mr. Radcliffe discusses a recent case, L’Oreal v. RN Ventures, [2018] EWHC 391, in which the Patents Court awarded L’Oreal S.A. (the exclusive licensor) and L’Oreal U.K. (the exclusive licensee) only partial costs (covering the post-registration period) for not having recorded the license until after the two had filed suit for infringement. As Mr. Radcliffe notes, “This section now has judicial teeth.”
    Continue Reading ...