Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Organizations should evaluate their innovation processes in light of the evolving meaning of obviousness. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727 (April 30, 2007), the Supreme Court changed the obviousness standard. The new standard weakens patents and makes obtaining patent protection more challenging. Organizations can anticipate the need for rebuttal evidence and proactively capture evidence of unpredictability as innovations progress from concept to commercialization. To show non-obviousness, such evidence, or the lack thereof, can be used to decide whether to apply for a patent or maintain the potentially patentable technology as a trade secret, and, also, whether to continue development efforts or redirect investments to alternative ideas. Organizations that use an innovation process to capture evidence of unpredictability can preserve the strongest evidence of non-obviousness and, as a result, increase certainty in business decisions and, ultimately, profits.
Obviousness Analysis
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.