• Patent Encumbrances Can Reduce Market Value up to 100 Percent

    Patent broker Brad Close notes that encumbrances can have the effect of reducing a patent’s value by up to 100 percent, practically rendering a patent valueless on the market. “If the only companies which are potential targets for a license are already licensed, then the intellectual property is essentially worthless,” Close said. “If a startup is considering entering into an agreement that would place an encumbrance upon a patent, I would advise them to be very sure that what they’re receiving…

    Continue Reading ...
  • INPRECOMP

    I’ve mentioned a couple of times previously my involvement, along with several other scholars from around the world, in the International Patent Remedies for Complex Products (INPRECOMP) project.  (INPRECOMP began as a joint venture between the Ce…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Can I hold on long enough until the madness stops?

    If someone told me when starting my career in 1976 that I would discover a process that has been beyond the reach of professionals and experts for over 62 years, I would have laughed.  If the same person also told me that it would be virtually impossible to protect that discovery with a patent in the United States of America, I would have been equally dismayed.  The preceding scenario is exactly what is being experienced by many inventors and me.  I am a common person who caught lightning in a…

    Continue Reading ...
  • MBHB & Patent Docs Program on Recent Developments in Biopharma Patent Law

    McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP and Patent Docs will be hosting a CLE program on Recent Developments in Biopharma Patent Law from 9:30 am to 1:00 pm on October 24, 2018 at the Boston Marriott Cambridge in Boston, MA. MBHB attorneys and Patent Docs authors Kevin Noonan and Donald Zuhn, and MBHB attorneys Lisa Hillman, Sarah Fendrick, James DeGiulio, John Conour, and Nate Chongsiriwatana will provide presentations on the following topics: • Updates on Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis • Patenting Repurposed Drugs • Antibody Patenting after Amgen v. Sanofi • Patent Strategies for Drugs Undergoing Clinical Trials • The…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Action on Trademark Relief: Presumption of Harm

    IPO, AIPLA, and INTA have joined together to lobby Congress — pushing toward a statutory “fix” that would establish a (rebuttable) presumption of irreparable harm based upon a finding of a likelihood of confusion or a likelihood of dilution.  The result then would essentially be that an injunction would generally follow from a finding of a TM violation in the marketplace. To overcome that presumption, an infringer would need to present evidence that the adjudged violation does not cause irreparable harm to the mark holder.

    From the letter:

    We, the undersigned associations representing trademark owners and the trademark bar, urge the House Judiciary Committee to take up legislation to amend the Lanham Act to reestablish a consistent principle that would make injunctive remedies available in appropriate cases involving trademark counterfeiting, infringement, dilution, false advertising and cybersquatting. This would clarify and make consistent how the Lanham Act is enforced across the country in order to best protect the interests of American consumers and businesses.

    Trademarks are source identifiers that inform and protect consumers. The Lanham Act serves dual purposes. The statute protects consumers from the confusion and deception caused by acts of trademark counterfeiting, infringement, dilution, false advertising and cybersquatting.

    Continue reading Action on Trademark Relief: Presumption of Harm at Patently-O.

    Continue Reading ...
  • 左端

                            目次はこちら

    左端

    (LEFT END)
    $$ The right (as shown) end of the impeller 145 may be supported by a magnetic bearing, with permanent magnets of this bearing being lo…

    Continue Reading ...
  • 左端

                            目次はこちら

    左端

    (LEFT END)
    $$ The right (as shown) end of the impeller 145 may be supported by a magnetic bearing, with permanent magnets of this bearing being lo…

    Continue Reading ...
  • Erie and Intellectual Property Law

    When it comes to choice of law, U.S. federal courts hearing intellectual property law claims generally do one of two things. They either construct and apply the federal IP statutes (Title 18, Title 35, Title 17, and Title 15, respectively), remaining as faithful to Congress’ meaning as possible; or they construct and apply state law claims brought under supplemental (or diversity) jurisdiction, remaining as faithful as possible to the meaning of the relevant state statutes and state judicial decisions. In the former case, they apply federal law; in the latter case, they apply the law of the state in which they sit.

    Simple, right? Or maybe not.

    This Friday, University of Akron School of Law is hosting a conference called Erie At Eighty: Choice of Law Across the Disciplines, exploring the implications of the Erie doctrine across a variety of fields, from civil procedure to constitutional law to evidence to remedies. I will be moderating a special panel: Erie in Intellectual Property Law.  Joe Miller (Georgia) will present his paper, “Our IP Federalism: Thoughts on Erie at Eighty”; Sharon Sandeen (Mitchell-Hamline) will present her paper, “The Erie/Sears-Compco Squeeze: Erie’s Effects on Unfair Competition and Trade Secret Law”; and Shubha Ghosh (Syracuse) will present his paper “Jurisdiction Stripping and the Federal Circuit: A Path for Unlocking State Law Claims from Patent.”

    Other IP scholars in attendance include Bryan Frye (Kentucky), whose paper The Ballad of Harry James Tompkins provides a riveting, surprising, and (I think) convincing re-telling of the Erie story, and Megan LaBelle (Catholic University of America), whose paper discusses the crucial issue of whether the Erie line of cases directs federal courts sitting in diversity to apply state privilege law. All papers will be published in the Akron Law Review.

    If you have written a paper that touches on the Erie doctrine’s implications for intellectual property, I would really appreciate it if you would send it to me: chrdy@uakron.edu or cahrdy@gmail.com I will link to them in a subsequent post in order provide a resource for future research. Thank you!
    Continue Reading ...