The Trend of the Trial Court’s Decision on Enhanced Damages in the U.S. Patent Law after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Halo Decision and Implications of Domestic Patent Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-495
Author(s):  
Joo Hwan Lee
Keyword(s):  
Patent Law ◽  
The U.S

Product Hopping

2017 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Carrier
Keyword(s):  
Drug Product ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Brand Name ◽  
Product Selection ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Antitrust Analysis ◽  
The U.S

One of the most pressing issues in antitrust law involves “product hopping.” A brand-name pharmaceutical company switches from one version of a drug (say, capsule) to another (say, tablet). The concern with this conduct is that some of these switches offer only a trivial medical benefit but significantly impair generic competition.The antitrust analysis of product hopping is nuanced. In the U.S., it implicates the intersection of antitrust law, patent law, the Hatch-Waxman Act, and state drug product selection laws. In fact, the behavior is even more complex because it involves uniquely complicated markets characterized by buyers (insurance companies, patients) who are different from the decision-makers (physicians).This article introduces the relevant U.S. laws and regulatory frameworks before exploring the five litigated cases.

Conference Report—U.S. & German Bench and Bar Gathering: “A New Bridge Across the Atlantic”: The Future of American Patent Litigation

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 269-278
Author(s):  
David A. Hurst
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Conference Report ◽  
The United States ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Washington Dc ◽  
Patent Litigation ◽  
Current State ◽  
Federal Circuit ◽  
Bar Association ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. & German Bench and Bar Gathering, “A New Bridge Across the Atlantic,” held in Washington, DC, in May 2012, was aptly timed to discuss the developments in German and American patent law. The Federal Circuit Bar Association and the Patentanwaltskammer (German Patent Lawyers Association) brought distinguished judges and attorneys from their respective countries to discuss the current state of the two patent systems. This involved consideration of where the two systems might be converging and why the two countries have had dissimilar litigation patterns. Particularly with respect to the latter of these inquiries, much of the debate throughout the conference focused on the differences in litigation discovery and procedural rules. The conference highlighted the fact that, at the most fundamental level, these differences are a product of differing perceptions of how justice should be administered. A brief overview comparing patent litigation in Germany and the United States will help frame this report.

scholarly journals The Problem of Process in Biotechnology

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Burk
Keyword(s):  
Information Transfer ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
The Past ◽  
Transfer Processes ◽  
Biotechnology Products ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Novel Products

Patent law routinely relies on distinctions between products and processes, but the courts appear to have a great deal of trouble distinguishing the two when it comes to biotechnology cases. Over the past two decades, this has led to a series of cases grappling with a process-related problems that are characteristic of biotechnology patents. These cases include those dealing with obviousness of macromolecules, those addressing the so-called "Durden" problem of patenting old processes that use novel substrates or create novel products, and several recent importation cases considering sections 271(f) and 271(g) of the U.S. patent statute. It is no accident that biotechnology patent cases repeatedly coalesce around such process-related issues; rather, in biotechnology patenting a discontinuity at the center of patent law has finally come to light. This anomaly is due to the character of molecules as channels for informational transfer processes, and the inability of current patent doctrine to encompass information transfer. Consequently, conflicts regarding process and product will be endemic not only to the patenting of biotechnology products, but also other informational products, particularly software.

Applying Patent Laws and Regulations to Educational Technology

2020 ◽  
pp. 205-228
Keyword(s):  
Educational Technology ◽  
Knowledge Economy ◽  
Public Funding ◽  
Patent Law ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Online Assessment ◽  
European Universities ◽  
Patent Laws ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The U.S

European universities have increased their emphasis on commercializing original research so as to compete globally, to keep-up with changing demands of the knowledge economy, to offset decreased public funding, and to cope with the massification of education. “Commercializing” in this sense implies applying for patents. This chapter highlights the application of patent laws in the UK and Europe to educational technology. One of the most promising conditions under which patent law can be applied in educational technology is the peer-to-patent, originally introduced in the U.S. Another is expert-peer online assessment for resolving online disputes. The post-and-vote formula should be considered if this initiative is restarted in the future.

Constructing an Objective History of the U.S. Patent System

2020 ◽  
pp. 65-88
Author(s):  
Jonathan M. Barnett
Keyword(s):  
Patent Law ◽  
Patent System ◽  
Antitrust Law ◽  
Historical Trends ◽  
Qualitative Evidence ◽  
System P ◽  
Injunctive Relief ◽  
History Of ◽  
Patent Applications ◽  
The U.S

This chapter presents a history of the U.S. patent system based on quantitative and qualitative evidence relating to patentees’ expectations that courts will uphold the validity of contested patents, find infringement, and award injunctive relief against infringing parties. Additionally, this chapter describes historical changes in antitrust law that have impacted patentees’ ability to enter into licensing and other patent-dependent transactions. Based on these features of patent law and antitrust-related patent law, supplemented by background institutional developments, the history of the U.S. patent system during 1890–2006 consists of three periods: (i) a strong-patent, weak-antitrust period from 1890 through the mid-1930s; (ii) a weak-patent, strong-antitrust period from the late 1930s through the 1970s; and (iii) a strong-patent, weak-antitrust period from the early 1980s through 2006. Historical trends in the volume of patent applications by U.S. inventors are consistent with this division of U.S. patent history.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document