Package Patent Licensing After <i>Microsoft</i>
September 05, 2003
The law governing package licensing of patents is currently undergoing a significant change. Historically, package licenses were subject to a 'per se' liability under the controlling legal doctrines. Using this per se test, a package license could be rendered unenforceable absent any inquiry into the actual market effects of the license. The recent case of <i>United States v. Microsoft,</i> 253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001), marks, however, the emergence of an antitrust doctrine called the 'rule of reason' that is likely to become the dominant legal doctrine for testing package licensing of patents. This is a significant change because the rule of reason is a market-based approach that balances the anticompetitive and pro-competitive benefits of the licensing practice. Thus, a package license may be held to be enforceable even if it would have failed the traditional per se test of the patent misuse doctrine or antitrust laws.
Copyright Law and the Non-Exclusive Rights to 'Link' and 'Crawl'
September 05, 2003
One of the most important issues faced by commercial purveyors of content on the Internet is how to protect their content. Much coffee and ink have been spilled over the question of how copyright, contract and tort law may be marshaled to maximize protection (or may be circumvented to minimize it).
IP News
September 01, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Use of an Invention: 'Anticipating'?
September 01, 2003
Under U.S. patent law, an inventor is entitled to a patent if the invention is useful, novel, and nonobvious. The "novelty" prong of this tripartite test is controlled by 35 U.S.C. '102, which defines the "prior art" (<i>ie,</i> already existing technology) that can "anticipate," or render non-novel, the invention. In general, an invention sought to be patented is anticipated when it already exists in the prior art, having been placed there either by a third party or through the inventor's own actions. Under '102, prior use of the invention can anticipate a patent in certain circumstances. Specifically, the statute states that: "A person shall be entitled to a patent unless (a) the invention was ... used by others ... before the invention thereof by the applicant ...; or (b) the invention was ... in public use ... more than one year prior to the date of the application.
Analyzing Provisional Rights for Patent Applicants
September 01, 2003
With the passage of the Domestic Publication of Foreign Filed Patent Applications Act of 1999, the U.S. Congress instituted a pre-grant patent publication system. As a result, the USPTO must now publish domestic utility patent applications filed on or after November 29, 2000 within 18 months of their earliest priority date, unless conditions for preventing publication are met.
Work for Hire Agreements Do Not Provide Beneficial Copyright Ownership
September 01, 2003
In order to sue for copyright infringement, it is necessary for the plaintiff to be either the legal or beneficial owner of the copyright in the infringed work. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found that the creator of a work made for hire cannot be either a legal or beneficial owner of a copyright in such a work.
IP NEWS
August 26, 2003
Highlights of the latest intellectual property news and cases from around the country.
Fraud in Procurement of Registration Concerning Use of Mark Taints Entire Trademark Application for Stents
August 26, 2003
In <i>Medinol Ltd. v. Neuro Vasx, Inc.</i> (Cancellation No. 92040535), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) agreed to enter summary judgment in favor of Medinol canceling Neuro Vasx's trademark registration for NEUROVASX based on fraud on the PTO. In August 2000, Neuro Vasx, was granted a registration for the mark NEUROVASX for 'medical devices, namely neurological stents and catheters.' As a result of this registration, Medinol's application for registration of the mark NIROVASCULAR for 'medical devices, namely stents' was refused.
The Paxil Case: Composition of Matter Claims, Polymorphs and 'Follow-on' Patents
August 26, 2003
The growth of the pharmaceutical industry over the past 20 years has been driven by the R&D investment in discovering new compounds, which can be protected by composition of matter patent claims. There are notable exceptions to this rule, <i>eg,</i> an unexpected and lucrative use for an old compound, like topically-applied minoxidil for hair growth (Rogaine'). But composition of matter patent protection on the active product itself is always a primary plank in protecting a drug franchise, and increases the value of the technology significantly.
