Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Expanded Protection Under 35 U.S.C. '103(c) via the CREATE Act
On Dec. 10, 2004, 35 U.S.C. '103(c) was amended to expand the common ownership exception for prior art available under ”102(e), (f) and (g). See Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-453, 118 Stat. 3596 (2004) (CREATE Act). The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has published proposed rules to implement the CREATE Act and is currently accepting comments until Feb. 10, 2005. Changes to Implement the Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act of 2004, 70 Fed. Reg. 1818 (2005) (proposed Jan. 11, 2005).
The relevant background to the CREATE Act began with In re Bass, 474 F.2d 1276 (CCPA 1973) and In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029 (CCPA 1980) in which the CCPA (now the Federal Circuit) held that subject matter developed by individual(s) on a research team may be available as prior art that can be used to determine obviousness (inventive step) of later inventions of the team.
Recognizing that this result could discourage collaborative research among co-workers, Congress added the former subsection (c) to '103 with the Patent Law Amendments of 1984:
Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
This amendment was designed to disqualify certain nonpublic information known within an organization from the prior art available to judge obviousness and encourage communication among research team members, leading to the eventual patenting and dissemination of resulting inventions to the public.
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?