The Experts below are selected from a list of 26223 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Seth Quidachay-swan - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Guides: Patent Law: Patent Law News
2011Co-Authors: Seth Quidachay-swanAbstract:United States Patent Law research involves federal statutes, administrative materials, cases and secondary source materials. This research guide focuses primarily on federal Patent Law research with a particular focus on litigation. Patent Law News
-
Guides: Patent Law: Patent Law Blogs
2011Co-Authors: Seth Quidachay-swanAbstract:United States Patent Law research involves federal statutes, administrative materials, cases and secondary source materials. This research guide focuses primarily on federal Patent Law research with a particular focus on litigation. Patent Law Blogs
-
Guides: Patent Law: Home
2011Co-Authors: Seth Quidachay-swanAbstract:United States Patent Law research involves federal statutes, administrative materials, cases and secondary source materials. This research guide focuses primarily on federal Patent Law research with a particular focus on litigation.
-
Guides: Patent Law: Treatises
2011Co-Authors: Seth Quidachay-swanAbstract:United States Patent Law research involves federal statutes, administrative materials, cases and secondary source materials. This research guide focuses primarily on federal Patent Law research with a particular focus on litigation.
-
Guides: Patent Law: Patent Statistics
2011Co-Authors: Seth Quidachay-swanAbstract:United States Patent Law research involves federal statutes, administrative materials, cases and secondary source materials. This research guide focuses primarily on federal Patent Law research with a particular focus on litigation.
Mark A. Lemley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
recent developments in Patent Law 2020
2020Co-Authors: Mark A. Lemley, Andrew Mccreary, Tyler RobbinsAbstract:A summary of the most significant developments in Patent Law for the year ending April 19, 2020.
-
recent developments in Patent Law 2018
2018Co-Authors: Mark A. Lemley, Jason ReineckeAbstract:A summary of the most important cases in Patent Law decided between June 2017 and May 2018.
-
recent developments in Patent Law spring 2017
Social Science Research Network, 2017Co-Authors: Mark A. Lemley, Madeleine Laupheimer, James YoonAbstract:This paper summarizes the significant developments in Patent Law in the twelve months ending in April 2017.
-
the fractioning of Patent Law
2016Co-Authors: Mark A. LemleyAbstract:Patentees overwhelmingly lose their cases, despite a seeming host of procedural advantages. The same is not true of other IP plaintiffs. Why? In this article, I suggest that the explanation lies in the "fractioning" of Patent Law into smaller and smaller issues. Claim construction after Markman is the clearest example, but there are others. We no longer decide in a holistic manner what a Patent claim covers. Instead, we decide what each word of a claim covers. Because there are more and more such issues, and the Patentee must win each of them, Patentees face a form of multiple jeopardy. It is ironic that Patent claims, developed to broaden and strengthen the Patent right, have instead become obstacles to the Patentee's success.
-
copying in Patent Law
2016Co-Authors: Mark A. LemleyAbstract:Patent Law is virtually alone in intellectual property (IP) in punishing independent development. To infringe a copyright or trade secret, defendants must copy the protected IP from the plaintiff, directly or indirectly. But Patent infringement requires only that the defendant's product falls within the scope of the Patent claims. Not only doesn't the defendant need to intend to infringe, but the defendant may be entirely unaware of the Patent or the Patentee and still face liability.Nonetheless, copying does play a role in some subsidiary Patent doctrines. For example, the question of whether Patent damages should be set in order to deter infringement depends critically on whether infringers are in fact aware they are infringing, or at least that they are using the plaintiff's technology. Copying - or at least intent to infringe - is also an element of claims for indirect infringement. The definition of "willful infringement" also turns on the question of culpability, at least in the popular understanding of that term. More significantly, the rhetoric of Patent Law (and of IP Law more generally) often seems to presuppose that defendants in Patent cases are in fact engaged in copying. Similarly, the outcome of public policy debates over Patent reform may well turn on the perception of Patent infringers as either bad actors or as innocent businesspeople who accidentally ran afoul of a Patent. Unfortunately, no one seems to know whether Patent infringement defendants are in fact unscrupulous copyists or independent developers. In this paper, we seek to answer that question. Because copying is not an element of any Patent cause of action, courts do not normally make explicit findings as to whether defendants have copied. Instead, we turn to a variety of proxies to try to identify the subset of cases in which copying is alleged or proven. We look both at the allegations made in a random sample of complaints and at the treatment of copying in recent reported decisions. We find that a surprisingly small percentage of Patent cases involve even allegations of copying, much less proof of copying. Copying in Patent Law seems to be the exception, not the rule.
Jessica O'dowd - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
LibGuides: Patent Law: Home
2013Co-Authors: Jessica O'dowdAbstract:This Guide gives an overview of Patent Law, with a focus on when state or federal Law applies.
-
LibGuides: Patent Law: Conclusion
2013Co-Authors: Jessica O'dowdAbstract:This Guide gives an overview of Patent Law, with a focus on when state or federal Law applies.
-
LibGuides: Patent Law: Introduction
2013Co-Authors: Jessica O'dowdAbstract:This Guide gives an overview of Patent Law, with a focus on when state or federal Law applies.
Timothy Caulfield - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Genetic testing, ethical concerns, and the role of Patent Law.
Clinical genetics, 2000Co-Authors: Timothy CaulfieldAbstract:This article examines the changing debate over gene Patenting and the possible connection between Patent Law and the ethical and policy concerns associated with the use of genetic testing technologies (e.g. the premature implementation and inappropriate marketing of genetic tests). Arguably, Patent Law helps to form the market forces that lead to these concerns. It is suggested that existing safeguards fail to control these concerns because of, for example, a lack of provider knowledge and an absence of an adequate regulatory framework. While Patent Law can be associated with a number of ethical and policy concerns, the article also suggests that Patent Law may have a positive role in reducing them. Patent Law provides policy makers and the public with a focal point - the Patent holder - upon which to attach accountability for ethical and legal conduct. The article concludes by inviting policy makers to consider the ways in which Patent Law could be modified in order to optimize its constructive influence.
Paul J. Heald - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
A Transaction Costs Theory of Patent Law
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2003Co-Authors: Paul J. HealdAbstract:Patent Law is under-theorized in the sense that the predominating incentive-based justifications cannot by themselves adequately explain empirical evidence on Patenting gathered by research economists. This article provides an alternative justification for Patent Law based on private transaction costs savings offered by Patent Law in comparison to alternative options available to those who wish to exploit information assets. In particular, it identifies striking parallels to corporate Law as described in recent scholarship and shows how Patents act as affirmative asset partitions, ameliorate significant team production problems, and encourage technology transfer. Even if the Patent system provides no significant incentives to invent, it can be explained and justified in terms of transaction costs savings alone.
-
A Transaction Cost Theory of Patent Law
SSRN Electronic Journal, 2003Co-Authors: Paul J. HealdAbstract:Patent Law is under-theorized in the sense that the predominating incentive-based justifications cannot by themselves adequately explain empirical evidence on Patenting gathered by research economists. This article provides an alternative justification for Patent Law based on private transaction costs savings offered by Patent Law in comparison to alternative options available to those who wish to exploit information assets. In particular, it identifies striking parallels to corporate Law as described in recent scholarship and shows how Patents act as affirmative asset partitions, ameliorate significant team production problems, and encourage technology transfer. Even if the Patent system provides no significant incentives to invent, it can be explained and justified in terms of transaction costs savings alone.
