Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Taxing the Patent Laws
This past October, Rep. Howard Berman (D. Calif.) introduced the Patent Quality Assistance Act of 2004 (H.R. 5299, the “PQA Act”). The PQA Act seeks to implement many of the recommendations of the much-publicized FTC (October 2003) and National Research Council (April 2004) reports. The bill has been referred to the Judiciary Committee, which is not expected to act on it before the end of the 108th Congress. Rep. Berman introduced the bill at the end of this Congress, however, “with the intent of framing the debate going into the 109th Congress.” 150 Cong. Rec. 1935.
This, of course, is not the first time Rep. Berman has proposed legislation affecting patents. On Oct. 3, 2000, for example, he introduced the “Business Method Patent Improvement Act of 2000″ (H.R. 5364, the “2000 BMPI Act”). On April 3, 2001, he introduced two bills, one having the same name and purposes as the 2000 BMPI Act (H.R. 1332) and the “Patent Improvement Act of 2001″ (H.R. 1333).
As some of the titles suggest, much of this legislation is directed at problems believed caused by business method patents. These bills would attempt to address these problems in various ways, but the solution advanced by the recent PQA Act is the most extreme. Section 8 of the PQA Act would add a new subsection (d) to 35 U.S.C '103 which would provide that a “business method invention shall be presumed obvious … if the only significant difference between the combined teachings of the prior art and the claimed invention is that the claimed invention is appropriate for use with a computer technology … ” (emphasis added). There would be an exception when the “ application of the computer technology is novel” or when “the computer technology is novel and not the subject of another patent or patent application.” The presumption would be rebuttable “upon a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the invention is not obvious [sic; would not have been obvious] to persons of relevant skill in all relevant arts.”
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?